The lack of or the absence of humour in the Zimbabwean mass media is reflective of how far intolerant of opposing views we have become as a society.
The depiction of social ills in a humorous way is limited to cartoon sections and a few columns like the Financial Gazette’s Cabinet files, the few satiric expositions remain insufficient in fostering democratic debate through the mass media.
In progressive democracies humour or satire is a common feature used by commentators in addressing social vices and in playing the watchdog role on those in authority. The lack of humour in our mass media tells a lot about the culture of intolerance of oppositional views in the Zimbabwean society.
“Unrestrained liberty which is critical to democracy means being able to tell people what they do not want to hear” says Takura Zhangazha of MISA Zimbabwe.
The South African media is a stride ahead of Zimbabwe in promoting democracy and pluralism and this is also shown by the presence of humour within their mass media. Chenjerai Hove’s Article in the Mail and Guardian of 25 February to 4 March initialled “In the Mind of a Dictator” is an example of a satiric expose of tyrant leaders.
Because of ownership patterns in our mass media, legislation such as POSA and AIPPA and the threat of victimisation, the use of humour is compromised.
The Public Order and Security Act (POSA) section 16 cripples the potential of the media to satirise the President in person or his office.
The Offences Against Constitutional Government and Public Security section criminalizes the Undermining of authority or insulting President in whatever way.
Such immunity does not have a place in a true democracy because it provides unnecessary cover to politicians who ironically are supposed to be answerable to the public.
Bill Saidi the acting Editor of The Standard bore witness on how certain sections of our society fail to tolerate humour as a way of commenting on certain social issues.
A cartoon of Monkeys laughing at the Zimbabwean Army personnel’s pay slips carried in The Standard culminated in Saidi receiving a bullet in a brown envelope and a threat to “watch out”.
As a reaction to these threats Saidi went on to give sound opinions on how leaders who are intolerant towards humour have the tendency of becoming dictators.
Contrary to satiric exposure the public media adopts what can be termed as “hate speech” which demonstrates immense hatred of those who hold opposed views to our own or which are not inclined to the dominant ideology we seek to promote. It is important to point out that in Zimbabwe experience on the ground clearly show that the government has no monopoly over this intolerance.
In columns such as Nathaniel Manheru’s “The Other Side” and Dr Mahoso’s “African Focus” and much of Caesar Zvayi’s articles these elements of hate speech are predominant. Labelling is a common feature within these columns; the opposition are often dubbed “puppets” and the civil society “evil”
Referring to the former minister of information and publicity Prof Jonathan Moyo, Nathaniel Manheru had such malice in the The Saturday Herald, July 8, 2006 “Now he dares tell anyone about Zimbabwe’s politics, which have vomited him to fringes, set to be buried come next poll? Come on!” Such is the common use of hate speech.
This hate speech does not promote public debate where ideas are supposed to fight each other with the weaker ones dying a natural death but instead it promotes hatred between people of different views.
Satiric commentary should be a tradition in a true democracy and unpopular speech should not be criminalised, as it remains vital to the health of public opinion.
In promoting democracy the mass media has to be more accommodative to humour and understand that the debate about public affairs is not always done with evil motives.
Satire remains critical to freedom of expression that is not only an aspect of individual liberty but essential for the quest for truth and vitality of society as a whole.
The depiction of social ills in a humorous way is limited to cartoon sections and a few columns like the Financial Gazette’s Cabinet files, the few satiric expositions remain insufficient in fostering democratic debate through the mass media.
In progressive democracies humour or satire is a common feature used by commentators in addressing social vices and in playing the watchdog role on those in authority. The lack of humour in our mass media tells a lot about the culture of intolerance of oppositional views in the Zimbabwean society.
“Unrestrained liberty which is critical to democracy means being able to tell people what they do not want to hear” says Takura Zhangazha of MISA Zimbabwe.
The South African media is a stride ahead of Zimbabwe in promoting democracy and pluralism and this is also shown by the presence of humour within their mass media. Chenjerai Hove’s Article in the Mail and Guardian of 25 February to 4 March initialled “In the Mind of a Dictator” is an example of a satiric expose of tyrant leaders.
Because of ownership patterns in our mass media, legislation such as POSA and AIPPA and the threat of victimisation, the use of humour is compromised.
The Public Order and Security Act (POSA) section 16 cripples the potential of the media to satirise the President in person or his office.
The Offences Against Constitutional Government and Public Security section criminalizes the Undermining of authority or insulting President in whatever way.
Such immunity does not have a place in a true democracy because it provides unnecessary cover to politicians who ironically are supposed to be answerable to the public.
Bill Saidi the acting Editor of The Standard bore witness on how certain sections of our society fail to tolerate humour as a way of commenting on certain social issues.
A cartoon of Monkeys laughing at the Zimbabwean Army personnel’s pay slips carried in The Standard culminated in Saidi receiving a bullet in a brown envelope and a threat to “watch out”.
As a reaction to these threats Saidi went on to give sound opinions on how leaders who are intolerant towards humour have the tendency of becoming dictators.
Contrary to satiric exposure the public media adopts what can be termed as “hate speech” which demonstrates immense hatred of those who hold opposed views to our own or which are not inclined to the dominant ideology we seek to promote. It is important to point out that in Zimbabwe experience on the ground clearly show that the government has no monopoly over this intolerance.
In columns such as Nathaniel Manheru’s “The Other Side” and Dr Mahoso’s “African Focus” and much of Caesar Zvayi’s articles these elements of hate speech are predominant. Labelling is a common feature within these columns; the opposition are often dubbed “puppets” and the civil society “evil”
Referring to the former minister of information and publicity Prof Jonathan Moyo, Nathaniel Manheru had such malice in the The Saturday Herald, July 8, 2006 “Now he dares tell anyone about Zimbabwe’s politics, which have vomited him to fringes, set to be buried come next poll? Come on!” Such is the common use of hate speech.
This hate speech does not promote public debate where ideas are supposed to fight each other with the weaker ones dying a natural death but instead it promotes hatred between people of different views.
Satiric commentary should be a tradition in a true democracy and unpopular speech should not be criminalised, as it remains vital to the health of public opinion.
In promoting democracy the mass media has to be more accommodative to humour and understand that the debate about public affairs is not always done with evil motives.
Satire remains critical to freedom of expression that is not only an aspect of individual liberty but essential for the quest for truth and vitality of society as a whole.
By Darlington Muyambwa, Bsc Honours Media and Society Studies Level 2.2, MSU
No comments:
Post a Comment