admin
little or no justice having been done to it.
First, it has almost become just ritualistic for Zimbabweans to celebrate the day each year with heavy philosophy that is barely informed by appropriate social perspective regarding fewer women than men in the country’s mass communication media.
Secondly, the rhetoric delivered is often marrowless as little, if any reference is made to journalism as a utilitarian tool for the social and economic advancement of people in any given society.
As a point of departure, any discussion of gender inequality in the media should be premised on traditional African society in which the education of a boy child took precedence over that of the girl child so that Zimbabweans today see the ramifications of that negative traditional societal attitude through the negligible numbers of women plying their trade in that “noble profession” in the shadow of their menfolk.
Thus, the inequality of opportunities in journalism between women and men is a sociological challenge which must of necessity be tackled from a sociological perspective.
The antiquated belief that educating a boy child was a more prudent investment in the future as the boy would look after his parents in old age – unlike an educated girl-child who got married “to enrich” her in-laws with new-found skills – has to be blamed for the disparities that see more men occupying top editorial positions today in both the print and the electronic media.
What this then means is that when journalism – previously the preserve of whites with African men opened mere black dots on white canvas – was opened to blacks in this country at Independence more educated men and fewer women entered college to enter as scribes.
Therefore, to equalise the opportunity for women and men in journalism requires a levelling of the “playfield” by say, setting aside more funds for the training of more women in journalism so that the desired parity or, near parity is achieved in the long run.
However, dangling the monetary carrot alone might not do the trick.
In addition, journalism has to be demystified as a “dangerous profession” in which women are more vulnerable to violence than their male counterparts when covering such events as strikes and demonstrations.
But such scare-crow talk should not be a deterrent to women as both they and men are made of the same flesh and disposed to all kinds of harm at the workplace.
Some people brag about journalism as being “the right profession for the right people” with some adding their own chauvinistic beat to the effect that women have less brains than men, to rise up the rungs on the editorial ladder to the chair of editor.
Nothing could be further from the truth, however. The truth, if it can be called that at all, is that women do suffer “a staying capacity” in that once married they are more likely than not to be removed from the profession by their husbands to care for their family, or to do other less demanding jobs that do not require them to stay away from home at work till late at night, overseeing newspaper production, for instance.
That is no doubt, one of the reasons why newspapers, particularly in Africa and in more advanced countries overseas have more male editors at the top than female ones.
But of course, one finds more female reporters in the electronic media where reporting an event through a microphone can be said, with due respect to the fair sex, to be less aesthetic or artistic than producing a news story to be read in newspapers by a readership that also tends to be more critical with regards to the quality of the story.
It is all very well for people celebrating World Press Day; to bemoan, on swigs of wine or of some less liberal beverage about fewer, or a lack of women ruling the roost in Zimbabwe’s news media, but any suggestions in their speeches of fast-tracking women to the highest echelons in editorial departments should be dismissed.
Window dressing any professional positions with people still wet behind the ear, be they men or women, can only help lower professional standards and, consequently dilute the quality of products with disappointing results.
Then, there is the question of using World Press Day by media practitioners to re-look their role in transforming society through the communication tools with which they work and, which also serve as sources of the daily existence of their families.
Sadly, such sober reflections are rarely heard, if at all. Yet, the different media tend to operate as though they were located in a society other than their own and, whose polarisation, destabilisation or even destruction will have no effect on the journalists themselves and their families.
Surely, World Press Day should serve as an important occasion for introspection by journalists in order to mend any dysfunctional professional ways so that they unite; fighting the ills of their people; and, pushing developmental programmes to give their country a brave new future.
Be that as it may, the media stands together in the final analysis as mirrors reflecting the beauty or ugliness of their people, and different institutions.
If these are besmirched by any muck, the press, as a collective mirror can never, and should never ever be expected to tell a lie by reflecting what is not.
Situations do occur in many societies where powerful individuals or the powers that be will attempt to break the mirror – the press – for exposing their ugliness.
But, any tendencies to emasculate journalists working diligently and in all patriotism to expose the wrongs of society and so draw attention for them to be put right, only add up as a disservice to society.
So, World Press Day should be a day when the media and those that they serve, forge stronger ties to build a nation instead of their side engaging in self-destructive behaviour.
A fish-and-chips partnership cannot fail to forge such mutual, attitudinal co-existence for the benefit of the country as a whole.
Online Reporter