The emerging alliance between civil society organizations such as MISA, MMPZ, FAMWEZ, known for their virulent anti-statism on any subject involving the state and the media on the one hand, and quazi neutral to pro-state professional associations such as ZUJ and the hither-to defunct Media Lecturers Association to push a common agenda for media policy reform in Zimbabwe is an interesting development which every patriotic Zimbabwean can only wish well.
The reform, among other things, advocates the establishment of a voluntary media council to operate alongside but independently of statutory media regulatory authorities like the MIC.
But hark, like many well-intentioned initiatives in this country which have suffered a still birth this process may well meet a similar fate.
A bit of context: The initiative to establish a self-regulatory body for the media comes in the wake of what has been widely condemned as a repressive regime of media laws and statutory frameworks put in place since 2000 by government to clamp down on dissenting voices in the media.
It is beyond question that there has largely been a negative backlash to the state’s attempt to keep the media under its leash.
Privately owned newspapers critical to the powers that be were shut down forcing hundreds of journalists out of employment and into exile where (in their new diasporic havens beyond the surveillance range of Tafataona Mahoso’s Media and Information Commission) they went on to establish a new brand of ‘guerrilla’ media platforms from which they launched a much more sustained blistering attack on the government.
Etched firmly on Zimbabwe’s post 2000 media physiognomy, like stubborn pimples, are such media realities as The Zimbabwean, Studio 7, SW Radio Africa in addition to Internet based news websites; Zimonline.com; Zimdaily.com; Newzimbabwe.com to mention only a few, hosted in foreign lands, anonymous weblogs all peddling what they claim to be the hottest news on developments in Zimbabwe but invariably damning to the country’s image internationally (witness the hate speech and obscenities that are freely hurled at Zimbabwean personalities left right and center with impunity).
It is against this backdrop that many people are beginning to ask uncomfortable questions about whether state regulation of the media has served Zimbabwe well.
Which is better to have the rubble rousers in your own backyard and where they can always be made to account for their actions in the full knowledge that we share a common destiny for better or for worse, or force them to get sanctuary with your detractors beyond your jurisdiction and where the long arms of the law can’t even reach them?
Even more devastating has been the scorching effect of state regulation on the media market a situation that makes continuous training of journalists paradoxical as the new graduates soon experience a rude awakening when they realise that there is no such industry in demand of their skills in this country. They are faced with the choice to join the great trek into the diaspora as professional government bashers in exchange for the dirty dollars or stay home and starve.
It is in this mold of thinking that some in MAZ may be sincerely searching for a solution to the Zimbabwe media question.
Others among them no doubt may just be spoiling for a fight against the government and it is the existence of such elements, which often puts government on the defensive and unwilling to cooperate.
Unfortunately for us in this country however, the donor dollar has tended to favour those whose approach is unabashedly confrontational with state actors. The moderates who advocate a win-win approach to negotiation with government are often not so favoured and in the process often loose the initiative to those with the money who then highjack the agenda.
This often gives ammunition to those in government circles who quickly and conveniently misconstrue the discourse of self-regulation for the media as attempts to smuggle the hated ultra-neo-liberal agenda of rolling back the state through the backdoor.
They would thus take it as their patriotic duty to ensure that the triumphal march of what to them is a neo-liberal project whose object is to delegitimate state institutions like the MIC so that saintly civil society can fill in the vacuum created is prevented.
They often charge that anyone who calls for the disbanding of inefficient state institutions no matter how justified are mere pawns caught up in larger global ideological battles whose scope goes well beyond the alibi of a mere concern with safeguarding of some universal rights and liberties of the local population.
In the meantime we all await with abated breath for the triumph of reason, to see an end to the acrimonious mutual suspicion that has characterised relationships between state and non state actors in Zimbabwe.
Self-regulation and statutory regulation of the Zimbabwean media should not be viewed in terms of the one replacing the other, rather as playing a complimentary role.
Thus, it is in this spirit that true patriotic sentiment counsels tolerance of new and progressive ideas like the setting up of an all inclusive, nondiscriminatory voluntary media council in Zimbabwe.
Dr Obediah Mazombwe could not have put it more aptly when he argues in an article published in The Sunday Mail on 6 May 2007, that the idea of self-regulation resonates with our own African values and norms.
Media trainers face hard choices when they meet this Saturday, to support or to oppose self-regulation for the media.
The reform, among other things, advocates the establishment of a voluntary media council to operate alongside but independently of statutory media regulatory authorities like the MIC.
But hark, like many well-intentioned initiatives in this country which have suffered a still birth this process may well meet a similar fate.
A bit of context: The initiative to establish a self-regulatory body for the media comes in the wake of what has been widely condemned as a repressive regime of media laws and statutory frameworks put in place since 2000 by government to clamp down on dissenting voices in the media.
It is beyond question that there has largely been a negative backlash to the state’s attempt to keep the media under its leash.
Privately owned newspapers critical to the powers that be were shut down forcing hundreds of journalists out of employment and into exile where (in their new diasporic havens beyond the surveillance range of Tafataona Mahoso’s Media and Information Commission) they went on to establish a new brand of ‘guerrilla’ media platforms from which they launched a much more sustained blistering attack on the government.
Etched firmly on Zimbabwe’s post 2000 media physiognomy, like stubborn pimples, are such media realities as The Zimbabwean, Studio 7, SW Radio Africa in addition to Internet based news websites; Zimonline.com; Zimdaily.com; Newzimbabwe.com to mention only a few, hosted in foreign lands, anonymous weblogs all peddling what they claim to be the hottest news on developments in Zimbabwe but invariably damning to the country’s image internationally (witness the hate speech and obscenities that are freely hurled at Zimbabwean personalities left right and center with impunity).
It is against this backdrop that many people are beginning to ask uncomfortable questions about whether state regulation of the media has served Zimbabwe well.
Which is better to have the rubble rousers in your own backyard and where they can always be made to account for their actions in the full knowledge that we share a common destiny for better or for worse, or force them to get sanctuary with your detractors beyond your jurisdiction and where the long arms of the law can’t even reach them?
Even more devastating has been the scorching effect of state regulation on the media market a situation that makes continuous training of journalists paradoxical as the new graduates soon experience a rude awakening when they realise that there is no such industry in demand of their skills in this country. They are faced with the choice to join the great trek into the diaspora as professional government bashers in exchange for the dirty dollars or stay home and starve.
It is in this mold of thinking that some in MAZ may be sincerely searching for a solution to the Zimbabwe media question.
Others among them no doubt may just be spoiling for a fight against the government and it is the existence of such elements, which often puts government on the defensive and unwilling to cooperate.
Unfortunately for us in this country however, the donor dollar has tended to favour those whose approach is unabashedly confrontational with state actors. The moderates who advocate a win-win approach to negotiation with government are often not so favoured and in the process often loose the initiative to those with the money who then highjack the agenda.
This often gives ammunition to those in government circles who quickly and conveniently misconstrue the discourse of self-regulation for the media as attempts to smuggle the hated ultra-neo-liberal agenda of rolling back the state through the backdoor.
They would thus take it as their patriotic duty to ensure that the triumphal march of what to them is a neo-liberal project whose object is to delegitimate state institutions like the MIC so that saintly civil society can fill in the vacuum created is prevented.
They often charge that anyone who calls for the disbanding of inefficient state institutions no matter how justified are mere pawns caught up in larger global ideological battles whose scope goes well beyond the alibi of a mere concern with safeguarding of some universal rights and liberties of the local population.
In the meantime we all await with abated breath for the triumph of reason, to see an end to the acrimonious mutual suspicion that has characterised relationships between state and non state actors in Zimbabwe.
Self-regulation and statutory regulation of the Zimbabwean media should not be viewed in terms of the one replacing the other, rather as playing a complimentary role.
Thus, it is in this spirit that true patriotic sentiment counsels tolerance of new and progressive ideas like the setting up of an all inclusive, nondiscriminatory voluntary media council in Zimbabwe.
Dr Obediah Mazombwe could not have put it more aptly when he argues in an article published in The Sunday Mail on 6 May 2007, that the idea of self-regulation resonates with our own African values and norms.
Media trainers face hard choices when they meet this Saturday, to support or to oppose self-regulation for the media.
Their decision either way is bound to have far reaching ramifications on the future shape and direction of Zimbabwe’s mediascape.
By the Oracle
No comments:
Post a Comment