All is fair in love and war

Nicole Hondo : Correspondent

A student of journalism passes through modules in media ethics that, among other things, frown upon slander, libel and cheque book journalism. However, this writer’s experience in the newsroom demonstrated that ethics come last when considerations are being made pertaining to the writing and publication of an article.Rather, let journalists challenge me on this one — sales and discourse to be generated by a particular article determines whether it sees the light of day and its placement in the newspaper. That is common practise, and understandable, given that like any other organisations, media houses need to survive in challenging economic times.

That being said, this writer found it interesting that some sections of the media took offence at The Herald’s publication of an article that alleged that the late General Solomon Mujuru had a hand in pushing Zimbabwe People first leader, Joice Mujuru and MDC-T leader, Morgan Tsvangirai, together. I will not attempt to question the accuracy of The Herald’s article, being not an employee of that paper, but my interest is in the ethics card that was used to criticise the paper and the article.

Some went further to imply that General Mujuru should be above criticism because he is late, “Wafa wanaka”, as they say.

If politicians and journalists should go by this belief that the dead should be beyond reproach and suspicion and have no political beliefs ascribed to them, should not the same ethics be upheld by surviving spouses of these same individuals?

Case in point, when Joice Mujuru launched her party, Zimbabwe People First , she saw no problem in invoking the late General’s name and liberation war credentials to boost her own profile, knowing full well that the General was not in a position to affirm or lend credence to her claims.

For all intents and purposes, Joice Mujuru is the one who made the late General an active player in today’s politics and opened his memory to question.

From my understanding of The Herald’s article, the late General’s liberation war record was not in question, it was never disputed that he was the first black Army Commander and his political record was not “savaged” as one paper sought to claim.

What was in question was his conduct and political leanings post-independence, during a specific period. So, for the lunatic fringe to cry foul and run to the hills claiming that the late General’s good name had been dragged through the mud was a bit too much pretentious on their part.

After all, does it mean that if one participated in the liberation struggle, he or she should be above reproach or question?

If Joice Mujuru can come out and claim that her late husband was more or less a saint and he was incorruptible, why should the public not question her version of events, given that she is the one who put his legacy in the public domain in the first place? Joice also does not have copyright over the late national hero and his memories. What is good for the goose should definitely be good for the gander.

On another point, in an interview with The Standard in July this year, Joice Mujuru gave out that had the late General been alive, he would have fully supported her formation of Zimbabwe People First.

To quote verbatim, Joice told the paper that; “Certainly yes; there are many decisions that I took that he supported. I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t support this one.”

If Joice has no qualms using Solomon Mujuru’s name to advance her cause, putting words into his mouth, why should the General’s conduct not be questioned in the media?

Sections of the media seeking to prop up Joice Mujuru and Zimbabwe People First have also unashamedly sought to squeeze out as much mileage as they can from the late General, referring to Joice as “the widow of the late General” or “persecuted widow”.

Politics is not a game for the faint-hearted or pretentious lot and upon her entrance as an opposition political party leader, Joice Mujuru sought to ride on the “chema” of General Mujuru. Her and her band of followers and praise singers should not now cry foul when both her and her late husband’s actions are brought into question.

She sought to hide behind General Mujuru’s legacy and memory, not realising that she was exposing the same to intense scrutiny accorded to any player in Zimbabwean politics.

What also caught this writer’s attention is the fact that some sections of the media that cried murder most foul over the alleged desecration of Mujuru’s name and allegedly unfair attack on Joice Mujuru, have no qualms referring to the President of the Republic of Zimbabwe, who is old enough to be their father, as frail, bellicose, belligerent and any other vile name they can think of.

Does it mean then that media ethics are subjective and should only be applied when reporting on those opposed to President Mugabe and Zanu-PF?

Where are the so-called media ethics when day in and day out the daily newspapers are attacking the First Family and concocting all sorts of lies? As the wise sages noted, all is fair in love and war.