Media Monitoring Project For 08/25/2006 –10/1/ 2006
CONTENTS, GENERAL COMMENT,NEWS SELECTION, CENSORSHIP AND UNDER-COVERAGE
a.HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
b.ELECTIONS
c.SUCCESSION

General comment
MMPZ is obliged to dismiss the allegations made by the government-appointed Media
and Information Commission against the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe (MAZ) during the
week as entirely false and a dishonest distortion of an open and legitimate intention.
The attack came almost as a response to an invitation to the commission’s chairman,
Dr Tafataona Mahoso, to attend a media law reform workshop organized by the
Alliance, which comprises the Zimbabwe Union of Journalists, MISA and MMPZ.

The Herald (29/9) and ZBH radios (29/9, 7 & 8am) reported the MIC attacking the three
civic organisations for “portraying themselves to their foreign donors as ‘regime
change activists’” who would repeal AIPPA and POSA by “clandestinely” convening
“conferences under the guise of media law reform”.

Without challenging these claims or discussing the purpose of the workshop, these
media allowed the MIC to vilify the organisations without question, claiming that the
workshop was a “foreign-sponsored propaganda exercise” whose “real purpose”
was to “create a stilted platform from which the activists may engage in an orgy
of anti-Zimbabwe diatribe intended to coincide with other recently staged
events”. This was apparently a reference to the abortive protests staged by the
Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions the previous week.

The Herald did carry a comment by ZUJ chairman, Mathew Takaona, denying that his
organisation was involved in any “clandestine” activities at the end of the article but
claimed it could not obtain comment from MISA. No effort was made to seek comment
from MMPZ.

A more detailed response to the allegations appeared in the online news portal, The
Zimbabwe Situation (1/10). In an IFEX report, the portal quoted MISA dismissing the
commission’s allegations, saying that contrary to its claims that MAZ had “deliberately
excluded key stakeholders” such as the ministries of information and justice, MAZ
had actually invited “well in advance” Acting Information Minister Paul Mangwana, as
well as the MIC itself.

MMPZ endorses these observations that clearly demonstrate there could not have
been anything remotely “clandestine” about the workshop, which was actually held to
discuss the state of media law in Zimbabwe with members of the Parliamentary
Portfolio Committee on Transport and Communications. Eight members of the PPC
attended the meeting, including its chairman, Leo Mugabe, together with several
representatives from civil society from around the country.

Clearly, the deliberate distortion of the truth and the hypocrisy expressed in the MIC
statement demonstrates the depths of dishonesty the institution is prepared to employ
in order to defend its intolerance of any debate about the need to encourage media
development by repealing draconian laws that throttle the free flow of information.

It is regrettable that a government institution so cynically distorts constructive efforts by
civil society to engage the authorities in a debate about the need for media law reform.

In another development during the week, SW Radio Africa (4/10) reported that state
security agents had raided the Zimbabwe distribution office of the UK-based
Zimbabwean newspaper. The paper’s publisher Wilf Mbanga told the station that four
detectives visited the premises of the distributor inquiring how the paper was brought
into the country and whether duty had been paid for it. Reportedly, the detectives
seized some documents relating to the paper’s distribution.

2. News selection, censorship and under-coverage

THE differences in the manner the government media and the private media handle
important issues affecting citizens’ lives was illustrated by their coverage of the
forthcoming elections, human rights abuses and the “succession” issue.

Whereas the government media reported these issues through the official lens or
completely censored them (which exposed the authorities’ determination to subvert
democratic processes), the private media generally subjected them to fair examination.

a. Human rights abuses

The government media’s complicity in the erosion of citizens’ rights was illustrated by
their passive coverage of President Mugabe’s defence of the torture in police custody
of labour and opposition leaders following the foiled public protest by the Zimbabwe
Congress of Trade Unions (ZCTU). All 20 stories on the matter (ZBH [13] and official
Press [7]) simply amplified Mugabe’s statements, which ranged from defending and
justifying the police violence to poking fun at the organisers of the protest marches,
whom he said “deserved” the beatings.

Consequently, they did not condemn his remarks as an indication of the authorities’
blatant disregard for civil liberties enshrined in the constitution and various international
conventions to which Zimbabwe is signatory.

For example, ZTV, Spot FM and Radio Zimbabwe (25/9, 8pm) passively quoted
Mugabe justifying the assaults saying the police were doing “their job to ensure
peace and order in the country”, adding that “anyone who resists police orders”
would be “dealt with forcefully”. He reiterated these crude threats at the end of the
week saying “government won’t stand idle” but would “act decisively against any
threats to law and order”, claiming that ZCTU demonstrations were “illegal” and a
challenge to “the very principle of the rule of law”, ZTV (29/9, 6pm).

These statements were allowed to pass without scrutiny.

Likewise, the official papers simply allowed Mugabe to defend the police brutality by
twisting the motive of the ZCTU protest. The Herald and Chronicle (25/9), for instance,
neither provided evidence establishing the link between the ZCTU’s protest with the
alleged US/Britain “regime change” agenda, nor demonstrated how the union leaders
wanted “to become a law unto themselves”. Also, no attempt was made to question
Mugabe’s use of inflammatory and insulting language in defending the police violence
and denigrating the union leaders, especially secretary-general Wellington Chibebe.

The Herald and Chronicle (26/9) just cited him chiding the ZCTU saying: “(They)
think that they can organize demonstrations and look for potbellied people like
Chibebe to demonstrate…Musatyisidzirwe nanaChibebe vane mazitumbu; rizere
mweya hamuna zvirimo”(don’t be intimidated by Chibebe with his potbelly: it
contains nothing but air).

It was against this background that the government papers avoided interpreting two of
the three incidents of rights violations they carried in light of continued state sanctioned
rights abuses. Instead, The Herald and Chronicle (26/9) merely treated the arrest of 17
MDC officials for holding an “illegal” meeting in Kariba as normal and criminalized the
gathering by linking it to an attempt by the “National Constitutional Assembly to
hold an illegal demonstration in Harare” that had been “thwarted” by the police.
The agenda of the meeting remained undisclosed.

This contrasted with the front-page publicity The Sunday Mail (1/10) accorded to the
alleged attack on a University of Zimbabwe ZANU PF political activist by suspected
MDC supporters. The report was sensational, single-sourced and sought to depict the
opposition, especially the Tsvangirai-led MDC, as violent.

Only the private media (except the Mirror stable, which adopted the government media
slant) challenged Mugabe over his remarks. Not only did they view his comments as an
illustration of government’s complicity in human rights abuses, they also publicised the
international community’s indignant reaction to Mugabe’s remarks. Those quoted
expressing dismay included the UN, the International Bar Association (IBA) and
international trade unions. Studio 7 (27/9, the Gazette (28/9) and the Zimbabwe
Independent, for example, quoted IBA executive director Mark Ellis saying Mugabe’s
statements “added weight to evidence that torture and other serious violations of
international law” were “sanctioned at the highest level in Zimbabwe”.

In addition, the private media carried several stories on human rights violations and
recorded eight incidents of abuses. They included the press-ganging of vendors and
pushcart operators to attend Mugabe’s homecoming at Harare International Airport, the
alleged torturing to death of a soldier by military police, and the arrest and assault of
opposition members and civic activists.

The government media ignored most of these cases. They also censored revelations
that several civic groups had boycotted a UNDP-brokered conference on the proposed
establishment of a human rights commission in protest against government repression
(the Gazette and Independent).

b. Elections

The forthcoming council and parliamentary elections also contested for media space
during the week. The print media devoted 12 stories to the matter, eight of which were
carried by the government Press and five by the private papers. Twenty stories
appeared in the electronic media (ZBH [12] and private electronic media [8]).

Although the figures gave the impression that the media significantly covered the
matter, there was hardly any investigation into the mechanics governing the elections.
As a result, the electorate was left no wiser on the state of the voters’ rolls, the number
of polling stations and their location, ward and constituency boundaries and
identification particulars required for voting. Neither was there any effort to establish
how many observers would be accredited for the polls.

Otherwise, the government media seemed only interested in promoting ZANU PF.

For example, out of the 12 campaign stories ZBH carried, eight (67%) were solely on
ZANU PF campaigns, while the remaining four (33%) were on the ruling party and the
Arthur Mutambara-led MDC. ZBH also carried 12 other reports in which ZANU PF
officials and senior civil servants were quoted campaigning for the ruling party.

None were on the Morgan Tsvangirai-led MDC.

In fact, the only time that Tsvangirai’s faction was mentioned was when President
Mugabe derided its leader as a “stooge” of British Prime Minister Tony Blair during a
ZANU PF rally in Mashonaland Central (ZTV, 30/9, 8pm).


The official Press adopted a similar trend. For instance, of the eight stories the official
papers carried on elections, five were positive coverage of the ruling party campaigns.
Only one story sought the views of all the contesting parties on the conduct of the
election (The Herald 26/9). Still, the story did not investigate concerns by both factions
of the MDC that the electoral process was biased against them, citing cases in which
their candidates were denied registration resulting in the ruling party fielding about 400
candidates unopposed. Rather, the following day The Herald (27/9) passively reported
Jerry Gotora of the newly formed Zimbabwe Local Government Association (ZILGA)
saying he “was pleased” with the results of the nomination courts, which he said,
“confirmed the existence of democracy in Zimbabwe”.


But while the government media gave ample space to the ruling party, they barely
examined the party’s campaign messages and activities. It was against this background
that ZBH simply reported Mugabe’s computer handouts in Mashonaland Central (ZTV,
30/9, 8pm) – ahead of the polls – as normal without viewing them as tantamount to
vote-buying.

It was only the private media that tried to expose the authorities’ unorthodox means to
tilt the scales in ZANU PF’s favour. They reported the MDC accusing the ruling party of
setting stringent requirements for the nomination of candidates to disqualify its
contestants. The Financial Gazette’s story (28/9), We were robbed: MDC factions, is
an example. It quoted the opposition claiming that besides the “prohibitive cost” of
registering and “difficulties…in getting clearance certificates from the police”,
their candidates were also heavily fined for failing to seek timely council clearance to
participate in the polls “even though there was no legal provision for such fines”.

It also cited the MDC accusing suspected ZANU PF youths in Bindura of having
allegedly closed Goldprint, the main photographic service in the town, thereby
“thwarting” the nomination of hundreds of prospective candidates who did not have
photographs.


Studio 7 (26/9) also reported the opposition highlighting similar bureaucratic
impediments. However, the reports simply relied on the opposition and lacked
independent verification. Moreover, there was no attempt to investigate the reasons
behind ZANU PF’s failure to field candidates in at least seven wards, where the
opposition won unopposed.


Apart from exposing electoral controversies, the Gazette recorded two incidents of
politically motivated violence against MDC activists by suspected ZANU PF supporters.

Similarly, the private electronic media carried eight stories on political violence,
harassment and arrests of MDC candidates and activists ahead of the elections.

Again, the reports were only based on the opposition’s allegations and lacked official
corroboration.

c. Succession

The official media evaded tackling the succession issue despite carrying several ruling
party officials alluding to it. The latest debate seemed to have been sparked by Sunday
News (24/9) and Radio Zimbabwe (24/9, 1pm) reports in which ZANU PF spokesman
Nathan Shamuyarira allegedly revealed that the “party was likely to push for joint
presidential-parliamentary elections to be held in 2010” through a constitutional
amendment. He later claimed he was misquoted (ZTV, 27/9, 8pm and The Herald
28/9).

The official media simply allowed his denial to pass without establishing what he had
said exactly, or relating his statements to revelations by the Independent last year
linking the succession squabbles in the ruling party to the planned postponement of the
presidential poll.

Instead, they either reported Mugabe urging aspirants to “desist from fighting over
the succession issue” and freely “throw their hats into the ring”, or cited other
senior party officials discouraging such debate saying: “No sun rises while another
exists” (The Manica Post 29/1 and The Sunday Mail and Sunday News 1/10).

ZTV and Spot FM (30/9, 8pm) carried similar reports.

However, the private electronic media did not display such professional dereliction in
the three stories they carried on the subject. They discussed the possible reasons
behind the planned constitutional amendment and its implications on the country’s
governance.

The online agency, Zimdaily (27/9), for example, quoted an unnamed ZANU PF official
claiming that the amendment was meant to give Mugabe more time “to identify and
nurture a successor, something that cannot be done in a year given the fissures
that have developed in ZANU PF…”

Other unnamed ruling party officials echoed similar views on Studio7 and New
Zimbabwe.com (28/9).

The private Press’ five stories on the subject largely exposed the contradictions in the
succession debate. For example, while the Gazette and the Independent quoted
Shamuyarira admitting that the succession debate was “definitely on”, they reported
others like Vice-President Joseph Msika suggesting that the leadership was not yet
ready for the debate, saying the matter was a “petty issue” that was “unacceptable”.

This appeared to be confirmed by The Sunday Mirror (1/10), which quoted party
national chairman John Nkomo claiming that the succession issue “would only arise
at the 2009 congress therefore debate at the moment is academic”.

The lopsided manner in which the government media handled the three topics was
reflected by their over-dependence on official and ruling party voices at the expense of
alternative ones as shown in Figs 1 and 2.