CENSORSHIP AND THE SWAZI MEDIA

We are about to take part in an interesting experiment about journalism in Swaziland.

Today (4 July 2008) in Mbabane I presented the results of a research project into imposed censorship and self-censorship in the Swazi media.

The research, conducted on behalf of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter, involved interviewing journalists in Swazi media houses about their personal experiences of imposed and self-censorship.

Every single one I spoke to said that the biggest cause of censorship was the Swazi monarchy, and in particular King Mswati III. The censorship was both imposed (i.e. direct threats made to the media) or self inflicted (fear of upsetting the king made journalists leave out angles to stories or leave out stories completely).

Many journalists from across the spectrum of Swazi media were present at my presentation.

And here comes the ‘experiment’. We must now wait and see how the media report the research. If, of course, they report it at all.

While we wait, here is an extract from the research that reports on what journalists told me about their personal experiences of censorship and the monarchy.

I have the full report called The Existence of Censorship in Newsrooms in Swaziland as a Word file. If you want a copy please email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com

Fear of offending the monarchy is by far the biggest cause of censorship in Swazi media houses. Respondents returned time and again to the consequences to the journalist and the media house of offending King Mswati III.

One respondent said, ‘The biggest problem in Swazi journalism is the King – who everybody tries to avoid.’

One problem identified by a respondent was the rule that ‘you don’t criticise the King’. This led people to try to extend this to say you cannot criticise a cabinet minister, because the King appoints him and to criticise a cabinet minister, ‘indirectly you criticise the King’ for making a bad appointment. According to the respondent, ‘It took a long time before media houses decided it doesn’t work like that.’

One respondent related this example of how the King interfered.

‘The King himself told us he is not happy with us reporting on how he is spending his money and how his wife was buying clothes. So any time a story to that effect comes through we generally don’t venture into that area. So [he made] one order and it has stood for a long time.’

Orders to media houses sometimes come directly from the King (rather than from someone on behalf of the King). It would seem that these summons are not made consistently across the media. The Times group seems to have been called more often than the Observer.

Many respondents referred to an incident in March 2007 when King Mswati III ordered the Times Sunday to publish an apology for publishing an article sourced from Norway that said the King was partly responsible for Swaziland’s economic ills. The King also demanded that the features editor of the Times Sunday be dismissed for allowing the report to be published. The King also said that the newspaper must never again refer to him as a ‘dictator’ (even though the report did not use this word). The King said if his demands were not met he would close down the Times Sunday and the other newspapers published by its owner.

A summary of comments by respondents on the incident suggests that the publisher went along with the King’s demands because the publisher did not want to take the risk of not knowing what would follow if he did not apologise. So for a quiet life, the publisher did what he was told.

Another example, generally known in the media industry and cited by some respondents, concerned the King’s first daughter (who was of adult age) who willingly gave a media interview that the King did not like. The King summoned journalists to see him and demanded to hear a recording of the interview as proof that the interview really did take place. The King then told the media that they would not be allowed to interview her again without the King’s expressed permission.

Swazi media have interpreted this dictate to mean that they may not interview any of the King’s children.

Another example cited was a report about one of the King’s wives going to Matsapha airport to see off her daughter who was going on a trip. The King was ‘livid’ when the report appeared and made his feelings known to the media. He said the report had embarrassed him.

According to one respondent, the problem the media face now is what do they do the next time the Queen is seen in public? If they report it, the King might be offended and give them trouble. ‘So we don’t, we don’t want trouble.’

There are some areas about the royal family that are not covered by newspapers, either because of direct censorship (i.e. King Mswati III has said they must not) or through self-censorship (media houses fear the consequences of upsetting the King).

One topic cited by respondents as being off limit was the national budget where it relates to the royal expenditure.

King Mswati III in effect owns the Observer and Weekend Observer newspapers and there is ‘an extra sensitivity’ at these newspapers when reporting about the King and royalty. It is generally accepted throughout Swazi media that the Observer is ‘the King’s newspaper’.

The person who at any time holds the position of ‘chief editor’ of the Observer group is the person who would tackle royal assignments.

One respondent described one of the chief editor’s responsibilities as being to protect the ‘good standing’ of the royal family.

The Observer would also try to ‘correct the misconception’ that the King had a lavish lifestyle.

This situation seems to be generally recognised by the Swazi media – both inside and outside of the Observer group.

A summary of respondents’ views in this area suggests that the Observer will not report things that put the King and the Queen Mother in a ‘bad light’ or publish something that ‘ridicules’ them. Among topics that will not be published are reports of the activities of political ‘progressives’ and the things they say during their demonstrations. The Observer might report that there had been a rally and it might say police broke it up, but it would not report details of the purpose of the demonstration. The Observer also shies away from using the term ‘the ruling class’ in stories, unless readers confused the term to mean ‘the King’.

The Observer will not publish stories that embarrass the King. One example cited by many respondents was a car crash the King was involved in. The story was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland, on 2 April 2008, but not published at all in the Observer. It was thought that publishing the report would offend His Majesty.

The Observer will not report on the issue of polygamy as this may be interpreted as a criticism of the King (who has 13 wives).

The Observer would not give advance reports of the King’s activities, for example, a trip abroad, unless the King’s office had officially announced it. To publish information known to the newspaper, but not officially announced by the King, would be deemed ‘disrespectful’ to the King.

Away from the Observer, arguments sometimes take place within media houses about how far they can go when reporting about the King. Caution usually wins. Some journalists say they would prefer to see how far they can go and ‘take a chance’.