adminLimukani Ncube
“Society undoubtedly needs the media to play a dynamic watchdog role. Nevertheless, watchdogs sometimes bay at the moon, disturb the neighbourhood, strew garbage over the front lawn; can be obsessed by the scent of sex; invade the privacy of the neighbour’s garden and alas, they have been known to bite innocent passersby.”
The above quote, attributed to former South African president, F W de Klerk, himself not an angel by any measure because of his political inclination and being a product of the apartheid regime across the Limpopo, somehow gives a picture of what the media can sometimes do.
The essence of the statement, never mind where it is coming from, is that the media at times does exactly the opposite of what it is supposed to do. Like a guard dog which is supposed to keep intruders out of its master’s home, stay within the parameters of its home and give peace and safety to those who own it, instead causes trouble in the neighbourhood by barking at the moon and disturbing people in their sleep, jumping over fences and messing up gardens belonging to neighbours; perhaps also turning garbage bins upside down. This is to say at times, the media does the opposite of what it is expected to do, or does things far divorced from its normative roles.
Media scholars say the role of a watchdog journalist can be that of a protector or guardian. The role of a watchdog journalist as a guardian is to supply citizens with information they must have “to prevent abuse of power” and to “warn citizens about those that are doing them harm”. George A Donohue, in one of his journals, adds that a guard dog perspective is offered as a way to better understand the functioning of the mass media as an important set of communication agencies in the social system. And how media can be offside.
“This perspective takes into account the varying role performances by mass media in reporting on major public issues. The guard dog metaphor suggests that media perform as a sentry not for the community as a whole, but for groups having sufficient power and influence to create and control their own security systems. This conception is delineated from other perspectives, which include the traditional fourth estate role of watchdog media, the lapdog view of submissive media, and the view of media as part of a power oligarchy.”
Some sections of the local media have in recent weeks been under the spotlight for what Presidential spokesman and permanent secretary in the Ministry of Media, Information and Broadcasting Services, Cde George Charamba, said was “fictitious framing of factions” in Zanu-PF. Cde Charamba went on to warn the private media that since they were turning themselves into infrastructure for the opposition posse , they should not cry foul when the hammer falls.
“I meet the President everyday. He is not even worried about those reports. He is irritated by them actually. You get a feeling of irritation not of concern. He works so well with his two Vice-Presidents and the two Vice-Presidents (Cde Emmerson Mngangagwa and Cde Phelekezela Mphoko) work so well with each other. Decisions in the party are done consensually. They are not done by factions because they don’t exist. Now what you are looking at are little editors who want to overreach. They think they can hurry past the President to put on the table a succession debate. They think they can defeat Zanu-PF on behalf of the opposition because they themselves have put themselves in the opposition camp. Also, even if they can’t defeat Zanu-PF, they think they can make Zanu-PF less sexy. Who they want to look sexy when Zanu-PF is not looking sexy, they can’t say because the opposition is inherently ugly. They know it and they accept it.”
Cde Charamba has repeatedly dismissed the notion that there are factions in the ruling party, insisting that there were personality conflicts to serve President Mugabe and Zanu-PF.
He added that the private media should not cry foul when Government starts crafting the legal regime for the media industry. He said the private media had over the past weeks angered both the ruling party and opposition legislators and this could soon backfire.
“Now there is anger in the opposition against the private media and there is anger in the ruling party against the same. Now those two put together will give you the legislature, the law makers. What is more, as a civil servant, I have to make recommendations to the politicians, best practices. I will recommend most effective ways of controlling errant behaviour in the newsroom. So you will have a piece of legislation that seeks to restrain rather than to enable media practices. Now its not in the long term interest of the media to begin to threaten political players. There is a difference between watching them and threatening them. If you want to play your watchdog role, please do, but let your watching be founded,” he said.
After the sentiments by Cde Charamba, some organisations cried foul, saying Government had threatened the “media”. But veteran journalist and former editor of the Sunday Mail and Chronicle, Mr Stephen Mpofu, in his article in our sister paper, Chronicle last Saturday summed it up when he said by running to foreign institutions to seek refuge, the private media showed that it was controlled by foreign powers and served interests of other people, not Zimbabweans. Is the watch dog on a leash? That is the question.
“That these journalists decided to at all run to mother to report their fears of imaginary reprisals can only suggest that their media organisation or organisations do not truly belong to this country, but rather, receive their modus operandi mandate from contemporary Western imperialism that holds the knife to the throat of the image and indeed, survival of this country.”
Mr Mpofu went on to remind journalists to base their stories on truth, so as to do justice to their readers and the profession.
Even President Mugabe has added his voice, dismissing media reports claiming factional divisions in Zanu-PF. And Cde Charamba was last week forced to explain that Vice President Mngangagwa did not attend some of the rallies addressed by First Lady Dr Grace Mugabe because he would be attending to issues raised by legislators in Parliament in his capacity as leader of Government business in Parliament.
Some sections of the media had claimed that VP Mngangagwa was “snubbing” the rallies, and that VP Mphoko had his powers “whittled”, adding that by attending the rallies, VP Mphoko was “overtaking” VP Mngangagwa in the Zanu-PF pecking order. Cde Charamba said the two VPs had their roles in Government, and there was no contest at all, in as much as there are no factions.
“In terms of the two assignments, no assignment is too small or too big as both are complementary and of mutual reinforcing importance. It has never been this smooth for the President. He feels assisted, he feels the burden of governing is getting lighter, thanks to the two VPs who are working harmoniously in a non-rivaled fashion and with amazing diligence. The President is happy.”
The message you get from Government is that the media should play its true role of being watch dogs; serve the communities and live true to the values and dictates of the profession and not become appendages of political forces.
Information Minister Chris Mushohwe has said Government has no intentions of introducing “repressive” media laws, but maintained that the media, both public and private, should pursue the national interest story, focus on issues that will attract foreign investors into the country to boost the economy, promote unity and peace for the betterment of the nation. He added the media should stand above the bicker of politics. Perhaps its time for media practitioners to ask themselves if they are not baying at the moon.
In fact, Cde Charamba last week said the media should not take his sentiments as a “threat” but a challenge for debate on professionalism in the media.
derick.khumalo