By Takura Zhangazha*
There have been some interesting assertions about the state
or quality of contemporary Zimbabwean journalism in recent weeks. The chief executive officer of Alpha Media
Holdings (AMH), Vincent Kahiya was recently quoted as having said that the
golden era of journalism is now gone at a recent Media Alliance of Zimbabwe
(MAZ) conference . Not more than two
weeks later, Member of Parliament and respected journalist Kindness Paradza at a meeting organised by the Information for Development Trust (IDT), also made
mention of journalism’s ‘golden era’ no longer being there.
In both cases there was a bit of a flurry of debate on
social media, particularly Facebook, about what exactly constituted the ‘golden
era’ of journalism in Zimbabwe. In the debate that ensued currently practising
journalists came to their own defence while others sort of concurred with the
arguable point of journalism having had a 'golden era'
.
That debate, regrettably has since fizzled out. And I think its mainly because it had/ has a
slightly self-righteous tone from senior journalists. But also because as with all things on social
media, they never las that long. People move on to the next thing as quickly as
they arrived at the last one.
It’s however a debate that would still need to be pursued
not least because of journalism and the media’s importance to the state of our democracy.
If ever there was a 'golden era' of journalism in Zimbabwe it
would likely relate to how the profession was in fact a publicly respected
one. And also to how it essentially paid
very well together with attractive benefits (housing, medical aid, pensions)
and long term contracts. Where we consider the livelihoods of contemporary
journalists, the story is almost the exact opposite. The salaries are low and when they come, they
are erratic. Pensions, loans, and
medical aid are not guaranteed, if none existent at all and contracts have
become subject to the infamous three month notice (the latter has been used
rather liberally be media owners). And
here I am not talking about freelance journalists. Their plight is far worse.
So on the score of what journalists earn alone, the golden
era of journalism is effectively over.
Not least because of the disdain media owners have for the profession
and also the fact that social media has revolutionised the way people receive
and impart information. And of course the fact that there are many more qualified
journalists coming from other institutions other than the initial Division of
Mass Communications at the Harare polytechnic.
This has made employment much more competitive (euphemism for difficult)
and in the process also less secure.
But the reference to a golden era of journalism was also
made with some reference to the quality of the journalism that is present. And
as alluded to earlier in this blog, one gets a sense that inference is being
made to how yesteryear journalism may have been more professional than its contemporary
form. Both by way of how stories are not
only written/covered but also why they are written/covered.
There’s no doubt motivations for writing /covering stories
were and are always going to be different between say for example the
journalist of the late 80s/early 90s and those that are practising after the
turn of the century. Mainly because the operational environments are markedly different
and that in contemporary times, especially with thanks (or no thanks) to the
internet and social media, news is faster and more competitive. Its essentially less about ethics and values
and more about numbers and the profits they bring in.
This means contemporary Zimbabwean journalists are under
greater pressure to produce news faster and in a way that brings in more readers/sales,
viewers, greater internet reach (click-baiting) and social media impact.
The consumer of news has also changed significantly. In the 80s and 90s the consumer would invariably
be some sort of ideologue (ruling party or opposition supporter) who would want
to arrive at what they perceive as truth through their trusted newspaper or broadcasting
station (these would have invariably been either the Herald, ZBC for sympathisers
of the ruling party or Moto Magazine, Financial Gazette and the Zimbabwe
Independent for opposition sympathisers and all of the above for the ‘neutrals’).
Contemporary consumers of news don’t much care for facts a
much as they should largely because of their newfound ability to find ‘news’
sources outside of the mainstream media using the increasingly influential social
media. The contemporary media owner and
journalist has therefore had to contend with this sort of news consumer and in
most cases has contentiously decided to go with the flow and in some cases not much care for the ethical
or public interest element of news gathering in pursuit of profit. This is not to say previous media owners and journalists
did not pursue profit, its just that they were not so brazen about it and also
functioned with a greater interest in a standardised professional journalism.
To conclude therefore, the journalist of yesteryear will
refer to their era in the media trenches as having been of better service to
the Zimbabwean public. And for the
obvious reason that they would like to be recognised for the work they
did. The contemporary journalist will obviously
seek to protect their own reputation and repudiate any comparisons that make
them appear less professional. And that’s all fair enough.
What is however more important is that journalism needs to
examine its contemporary placement in Zimbabwean society beyond the ‘market’
and pursuit of profit or a debilitating political correctness or
partisanship. And it must organically
play that role of speaking truth to power or continue to lose public sympathy
and support at a time when it needs it the most.
*Takura Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity
(takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment