Online Press needs reform

comprise the web editions of the mainstream traditional newspapers.
These mostly publish the same information as what appears on their printed pages, with of course the exception of breaking news and perhaps the extra yet important news too late to appear on the newsprint but too significant to ignore for 24 hours.
The news on these organisations’ web pages is as good or as bad as the reputation of their printed counterparts. The organisations responsible are media firms with a physical address and are regulated under Zimbabwe’s media laws. Maybe because their news is constantly monitored, most of what they present to the public, whether in printed pages or on the Internet is reliable and verifiable.
The second category was in fact not in existence until late 2003. When the Daily News closed its doors after its failed legal challenge against AIPPA, the media law, dozens of trained journalists that had worked for the paper lost their jobs.
The shrinking newspaper market forced most of the redundant journalists to seek opportunities outside the country and outside local traditional news companies. Some of them found the Internet to be an ideal medium for information dissemination.
Following the closure of the Daily News, new online newspapers published by Zimbabweans, but operating outside the country emerged. Zimbabwean journalists used technology to post local news from abroad and escape press regulation. Since they publish online, they are not bound by Zimbabwean laws.
The Zimbabwean newspaper forms a sub-category where though the printed copies of the newspaper are sold in Zimbabwe; both versions of the paper are run by personnel living out of the country.
Post-millennium Zimbabwe media laws do not cover online publications, although the government had previously attempted to introduce legal measures seeking to monitor and regulate Internet content. In 2006, the Interception of Communications Bill was presented to Parliament, but was eventually passed in 2008 minus the statutes that aimed at regulating Internet content. The Interception of Communications Act is more concerned with direct one-way or two-way communication through e-mails, phones and other communication equipment.
Online regulation is not alien to Zimbabwe only, though some in the journalism fraternity strongly believe regulation of Zimbabwean online information is a threat to press freedom.
But some of the online publications’ actions do not help advance that argument. Back in 2007, one United Kingdom-based news site initiated and ran a campaign that sought to publish private and personal information of people with links to Zanu-PF and living abroad.
Apparently, the hope was that Western governments hosting Zimbabweans would force them out through deportations.
The information provided and published made specific reference to employment and/or study history, and a whole host of data that intended to “expose” or “unmask” friends and family of members of Zanu-PF.
For an online newspaper that says it is on the same side as democracy, it becomes a mystery why it would knowingly violate individual rights to privacy and in the process endangering their lives by publishing places where they could be found.
Sure, some may be living abroad illegally, but so are many others of diverse political affiliations. Not that the site did not have a point, but the execution of their plan was unethical and with legal question marks.
The campaign grew primarily because of contributions by members of the Zimbabwean online public both at home and abroad.
Contributions are very important for the online newspapers. Stories are filed from Zimbabwe by “reporters” working from within and using pseudonyms, conveniently labelled as fearless foot soldiers protecting their identities for fear of persecution.
They hardly fit their label, because they are actual reporters employed in Zimbabwean newsrooms earning some extra cash as double agents, or are freelance journalists either struggling to enter the mainstream media where vacancies are scare, or newsmen that identify themselves as onliners, and thus make a living solely on posting stories to the foreign-based news sites.
Some of these reporters have a tendency of simply using different terminology to rewrite an already existing news story, yet have the audacity to place their pseudonym byline at the top. Maybe they really are fearless!
None of that has so far been challenged. A technical challenge with online news regulation is how to implement it. The physical addresses and in most cases the names of the people responsible for the websites are not made available and it is possible for a person with electricity, a computer and Internet access to run what may appear to be a very big newspaper.
It may be important to know how the online newspapers are funded. Content is offered free of charge, and judging from the infrequent and low advertising presence, the online newspapers generate an inconsequential amount in revenue, if any.
News gathering and web hosting, however, require money. Unless the online newspapers’ owners are investing in a loss-making business, sponsorship is being provided by external sources, and this brings their organisations’ supposed independence into question.
Any action against an “independent” newspaper would always invite proclamations such as “clampdown on Press freedom” from some quarters but the lawlessness now threatening to be part of the online culture is not helpful.
Stories that appear suspiciously like bar talk, typically devoid of official comment or the other side of the argument are finding their way to the online news pages. The use of vulgar and hateful language appears to be condoned.
This should be the time for the online newspapers to at least form their own regulatory body that reviews content on their own sites.
If the owners or the senior members of the internet news sites do really care about objectivity, fairness and responsible journalism, then it would be to their credit and for their benefit if they take genuine steps towards reforming their platform and in the process gain some respectability.