Does VMCZ really monitor practice of ethical journalism?

Geoffrey Nyarota
The column penned by the Editor of The Zimbabwe Independent, Dumisani Muleya, last Friday, October 11, 2013, under the headline “The Rage of Dinosaurs” represented the scaling of new heights in the practice of unethical journalism. The decline in the standards of journalism in Zimbabwe has become topical in media circles over the past two weeks since I broached the subject at a public meeting convened by Information, Media and Broadcasting Services Minister, Professor Jonathan Moyo, recently.

I was clearly the oldest journalist to attend the meeting and I believe I contributed more than the rest of print journalists present, especially on the subject of the decline in the standards of journalism in our country.

Three days later, Muleya published a column written by himself, in which he made reference to “such aberrations and self-serving noises by some media dinosaurs and old-fashioned journalists seeking relevance in the midst of fast-changing and bewildering digital media revolution”.

When I submitted to him my response to this unwarranted attack, I protested at what I considered to be his unethical response to my contributions at the meeting.

He refused to publish my response, saying my article was too long and he had just proceeded on leave.
In any case, so he argued, he had never referred to me by name as a dinosaur.

Frustrated by this unethical and unprofessional betrayal I submitted the article to The Herald, where it was published in its entirety.
No doubt peeved by this unexpected turn of events, Muleya immediately penned “The Rage of Dinosaurs”, an inadvertent admission that it was me after all, that he had referred to as a “media dinosaur” not that there was ever any doubt in the minds of those familiar with this saga that I was the “dinosaur” of Muleya’s first article.

“I had to hit back,” he fulminated in that second article, “because I felt he behaved like one of those dying breeds of Neanderthal editors who still inhabit and roam the shrinking terrain of palaeolithic journalism in the age of digital media, bullying colleagues and behaving like a bull in a China shop.”

Muleya says he is hitting back at an article that appeared in The Herald. What he does not disclose to his readers is the fact that the article appeared in The Herald after it was submitted to his own paper, The Zimbabwe Independent, where he refused to publish it point-blank. Giving his reasons in writing, he refused to publish my own response to his attack on me, in which he characterised me as a media dinosaur.

The editor effectively denied me my right of reply.
This is the quintessence of unethical journalism practice.

He attacked me in his paper for statements that I made at a public meeting. When I responded to his attack, he denied he had referred to me by name as a media dinosaur.

Yet he now admits he hit back at me and, to add insult to injury, now suggests I behave like “one of those dying breeds of Neanderthal editors who still inhabit and roam the shrinking terrain of palaeolithic journalism in the age of digital media”.

By his own admission, Muleya had me in mind when he made reference to the presence of dinosaurs at the Ministry of Information meeting. It is common knowledge among those at the meeting that it is I who spoke at length on the subject of the decline in the standards of journalism in Zimbabwe.

For reasons that I don’t understand, this suggestion seems to have incensed Muleya.
He accuses me spuriously of bullying professional colleagues, but does not cite any example or identify any of the victims of my bullying. He addresses his readers as if they are all privy to the knowledge that I bully colleagues, when this is news, even to me.

Perhaps he would care to cite evidence even now of cases where I allegedly bullied colleagues.
Perhaps he is referring to a recent article by me where I took two journalists to task over stories that they caused their newspapers to publish.

In one case the named reporter claimed that former Deputy Prime Minister Thokozani Khupe had shaved off her hair to protest at the alleged theft of the July 31 election by Zanu-PF.
I pointed out that the same paper had reported two years ago that Khupe had lost her hair because of chemotherapy treatment for cancer.

Before MDC-T lost this particular election, Khupe was already sporting a clean-shaven pate for health, not political factors.
In the other case a reporter or reporters claimed that the late former Minister Enos Nkala had refused to appear before the Sandura Commission back in 1989.

This is false, as pointed out in my own article.
Nkala did appear before Sandura, and in dramatic fashion too. He only resigned after he was found guilty of perjury, after he told terrible lies while testifying under oath.

If this is what Muleya now calls “treating or whipping journalists like dogs” then I plead very guilty in the national interest.
Muleya describes the article that he refused to publish as “being riddled with inaccuracies, factual errors and even misrepresentations, like his discredited book, “Against the Grain”.

This is the first time I am being informed that my book, “Against the Grain, Memoirs of a Zimbabwean Newsman”, is discredited. Discredited by whom?

Again Muleya speaks as if such information is in the public domain. All he is seeking to do is to discredit the book himself.
Perhaps Muleya is referring to the scathing attack on the book by Professor Jonathan Moyo within hours of the book being released in 2006. This particular “review” was published with relish on New Zimbabwe.com. With due respect, I don’t believe Prof Moyo ever wrote another book review thereafter.

His “review” of “Against the Grain” must, therefore, be taken in the context of the hostility then prevailing between him and the author and the fact that Prof Moyo is cast in very bad light in my book.

Again with due respect to him, this must therefore, rank as the first book review ever written by one angry villain of the same book.
Incidentally, there are other reviews readily available on the Internet, such as one which starts: “This is one of the most revealing and moving testimonies of a media icon — Geoffrey Nyarota — as he delves into the diminishing democratic spaces within the media fraternity in post-colonial Zimbabwe.

“His chronicle of events from the liberation war in the country and the risks which he took during the war which subsequently helped to bring about political independence is so touching, especially given that it is the same administration that Nyarota risked his life for which eventually forced him into exile in the USA.”

Another review states boldly: “This is a ‘must read’ if you are interested in where Zimbabwe is coming from and you may probably understand some of the problems it faces today. Good work, Geoff.”

Finally, it is no mean achievement for an author’s first book to qualify for a book review in The Economist.
In the new spirit of reconciliation now prevailing in Zimbabwe’s media circles, I am dying for an opportunity to ask Prof Moyo in the not-too-distant future, whether he actually had time to go through the whole book before he hastily sat down to critique it.

More importantly, the performance of “Against the Grain” must be taken in the context of the decision on the part of the publishers, Zebra Press of Cape Town, not to distribute the book in Zimbabwe, its intended market. The publishers explained that their Zimbabwean distributor had failed to remit a substantial amount of money over the years for titles previously supplied because of an acute shortage of foreign currency then prevailing in the country.

My book thus became a victim of Zimbabwe’s serious economic doldrums.
Finally, all journalists, renowned editors included, do make the occasional error of spelling or fact.
In the newspaper world editors employ teams of sub-editors who take rigorous measures to ensure that words such as Twitter are not spelt as Tweeter in their newspaper.

This ruthless casting of aspersions on me by Muleya is clearly motivated by nothing other than personal malice as opposed to professional considerations.

Sadly, I believe I can trace the source of this malevolence to an unfortunate incident back in 2010 when I approached and offered to recommend Muleya for a fellowship with the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University in the United States.
I did this on the basis of the performance of The Zimbabwe Independent. I was myself a Nieman Fellow twice. Recommendations by former fellows are normally taken seriously by the Foundation.

I requested Muleya to submit his Curriculum Vitae to enable me to assess his suitability for the fellowship more accurately.
I found the duly submitted CV not entirely impressive in that, contrary to my earlier impression, he was only an assistant editor at The Zimbabwe Independent, among other reasons.

I therefore took the decision not to pursue the matter any further. My error was to fail to explain to Muleya the reason for this change of heart which resulted in the dashing of his hopes.

I suppose it’s now “hit back time”, to quote the obviously aggrieved Muleya’s own words in the last of his two offending articles.
But the editor of a newspaper cannot be allowed to use his position to fight his little personal wars.

Such practice is most unethical. The media fraternity now anxiously waits to see if the Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe seriously monitors the practice of ethical journalism.