By Takura Zhangazha*
Zimbabwe’s
media sector has not been in a good situation for a long while. And I am not just referring to the country’s consistently
precarious freedom of expression context. The challenges it faces are
fundamentally about professionalism and sustainability. Two elements that are symbiotic in keeping it
viably afloat. These can also be contradictory
because either can cancel out the other.
That is to say, the sustainability of the media in Zimbabwe can be considered
to be more reliant on its own unethical conduct in order to garner more
readers, viewers, listeners based on preferential journalism. The latter being journalism that is biased,
non-factual and in keeping with what its authors deem to be what a paying public
prefers.
It sort of
fits into what I consider the rather awkward adage of ‘news is what sells’. Particularly for mainstream print and
broadcast media globally and in Zimbabwe.
The particular
uniqueness of Zimbabwe’s media situation is as interesting as it is now worrying. In at least five respects. Namely, ideological
preferences, political bias, the profit motive, caution about crossing
government’s media policies and the interface between old and new tech
motivated media platforms.
I will address
each of these elements separately in this brief write up.
But it also
remains important to mention from the get-go that Zimbabwean journalists are also
caught up in this conundrum as it affects their own welfare and/or unionism. Even where and when they seek to be as
professional and ethical as possible, they are beholden to these aspects I have
mentioned above and will explain below.
To initially
understand Zimbabwean media’s current situation requires understanding its
ideological positioning. Before we even talk of assumptions and realities of
political bias. Our mainstream media is
cut from a very similar ideological cloth.
It is essentially, in the contemporary, a liberal media ideologically. This is largely by way of the legacy of
colonialism and our media training institutions. Particularly where and when it
covers issues relating to the national political economy and private capital.
Even where we try and consider its ideological approach in the first ten years
of national independence, it remained enamored to a relatively liberal
understanding of Zimbabwean realities.
I know that
this is a disputable point but our media and our journalism were generally
designed in the framework of colonial legacy journalism. Hence by the time the Nigerian
government bought, on our behalf, Argus Publications (now Zimpapers) the
tradition of what journalism can be had already been ‘liberally’ set. Despite
our attempts at socialism.
Structurally
however Zimbabwe’s media was designed to be pro-capital as a legacy of Rhodesian
settler colonial hegemony. Both in its
state owned or private forms. Hence even with the then Information and Media
Panel of Inquiry (IMPI) one of its primary recommendations was that of considering
the ‘media as a business’. We may never
have gotten out of that mindset, hence our current mainstream media reflects
more the views of political and private capital powers that obtain. It is not valued as much as a purveyor of
freedom of expression in the public interest than it would be considered for
its representation of elitist interests.
This brings
me to the second element of ‘political partisanship’ in our contemporary mainstream
media. As highlighted earlier this
partisanship or bias in our media is linked to elements of its
sustainability. Taking specific sides is
not as ideological or as value driven as it would be in say for example the
global north’s media. Here it is almost
as though bias and a lack of media ethics is what leads to a sustainable mainstream
media based on target audiences which include those in power or those in opposition
politics and their supporters.
And even
more significantly those that create advertising or other revenue for the
mainstream media. Such a situation enables journalism that is unprofessional as
it relates to what is required for the mainstream media outlet to either make
money or be accepted as credible in the eyes of its target audience. We can argue that this is typical of all
media but in our Zimbabwean context its exaggeration is that it is considered
the norm and not the exception.
The third element
is that of the assumption of the profit motive of the media. It tallies closely with the discussion on the
matter of political bias. Media owners
are largely responsible for putting pressure on senior level journalists
(editors in particular) to function like chief executive officers. At the expense of their journalistic roles. And all at the same time thinking that
journalism in and of itself can only be successful if it ratchets up sales via
increased eyes and ears. In this sense, the ‘media as a business’ model falls
short of expanding free expression and public interest access to information. This approach commodifies not only journalism
but also free expression. Though the
media owners have limited interest in this as they crunch dwindling profit
numbers.
The fourth element
is that of how the mainstream media remains wary of our national government’s
media laws. And how they curtail free
and independent journalism. While these
laws have been undergoing reforms that have been cautiously welcomed by
stakeholders, the government’s approach to media freedom has also led to skepticism,
anger and mistrust. It has also had the
end effect of creating a very public perception that the private media is
always correct when reporting on government transgressions. Especially because
of the continued arrest and harassment of journalists that are either just doing
their jobs or perceived as being pro-opposition.
Finally,
mainstream media has a dilemma with social media because of the disruption of its
long obtaining ‘news cycle’. To the
extent that no one can really say which leads the other at the moment. From social media influencers through to
bloggers/vloggers the mainstream media I Zimbabwe appears to be playing
catch-up most of the times. It is a development that has opened up the journalism
profession to that perennial question, “Who or what is a journalist?”
In essence
however this question is really about how does the Zimbabwean public value
journalism. Both in its more traditional
or newer formats. I do not think the profession is as valued anymore largely
due to the fact of technology enabling almost anyone with mobile telephony and
access to social media the capacity to tell their own version of a news
event. But more significantly because
freedom of expression is now highly individualized in tandem with its individualization.
I do not
know if Zimbabwean journalism is in need of a rescue. Only practicing journalists
and media owners, organisations can respond to this matter. What I do know is that it is in trouble and
that as elsewhere globally, it is losing ground on the public interest value of
free expression as a fundamental democratic right.
*Takura
Zhangazha writes here in his personal capacity (takura-zhangazha.blogspot.com)
No comments:
Post a Comment