Media standards in Swaziland poor, need for wide-ranging reforms, report states

The media in Swaziland (eSwatini) need wide-ranging reforms but these will be difficult because of the kingdom’s ‘repressive political environment’, a new report found.

The standard of journalism in the kingdom where King Mswati III rules as an absolute monarch need to improve, the African Media Barometer (AMB) said.

It said there were ‘challenges  with regards to accuracy and fairness’.

It said there had been some improvements in recent years but, ‘issues such as unbalanced stories, misquotes, exaggerated headlines as well as spelling and grammatical errors mar reporting standards’.

The AMB report was written by a panel of 12 people all working in Swaziland. There were five from the media and seven from civil society. They met over three days in October 2018.

In its report AMB said, ‘Another challenge is the skewed reporting of eSwatini society. The media do not always fairly represent all voices in society, including minorities. For instance, women’s voices in the media continue to be marginalised to a great extent while content continues to be male-dominated. Similarly lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ) issues are not often covered by the media and when they are, they are reported in a negative way. Persons with disabilities are also marginalised both in news content and in the newsrooms.’

AMB also found, ‘Self-censorship and corruption, which are common in newsrooms, also affect media professionalism and the integrity of the news. Panellists pointed to the extremely low salaries combined with the poor working conditions of journalists as a cause of corruption. 

‘Corruption is not only prevalent amongst the lowest paid journalists, but also occurs with editors and managers. The close relationship between the media and political or business elites contributes to corrupt behaviour in the higher echelons of the media.’

The wide-ranging 65-page report added, ‘Lack of ‘access to information’ legislation ensures that accessing public information is difficult. The Official Secrets Act and other cultural practices restrict the media in their efforts to obtain information and report freely on the activities of government. Accessing information for ordinary citizens, particularly those in rural communities, is not easy. In 2007, the government released a draft Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Bill, however, 11 years later, the Bill has not been passed.’

AMB concluded, ‘There is no doubt that eSwatini needs wide ranging media reforms. This could be achieved through a concerted advocacy effort by civil society organisations. However, over the years, the effectiveness of civil society has declined due to the repressive political environment and dwindling donor funding. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) needs resuscitation to ensure its effectiveness. The Media Workers Union of Swaziland (MWUS) needs to be inclusive of media organisations including the Times of Swaziland, the only independent newspaper in the country. The recently formed Swaziland Media Consortium (SMC) made up of eight media bodies is a step in the right direction. The SMC operates under the Coordinating Assembly of Non-Governmental Organisations.’

See also

Journalists in Swaziland endure year of harassment as they try to do their jobs

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2019/05/journalists-in-swaziland-endure-year-of.html

Increase in support for free press

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2016/05/increase-in-support-for-free-press.html

Making media freedom in Swaziland is more than a dream

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2019/08/making-media-freedom-in-swaziland-is.html 

Swaziland Govt minister is far from truth when she praises media freedom in kingdom

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2019/11/swaziland-govt-minister-is-far-from.html

Censorship total at Swazi state media

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/05/censorship-total-at-swazi-state-media.html

JOBS SHAKE-UP AT SWAZILAND RADIO

A shake-up of jobs at Swaziland’s government-controlled radio broadcaster has highlighted continuing concerns about the way the station operates.

The radio station Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Services (SBIS) is a government department and all people who work there are civil servants.

The Swazi Observer newspaper reported on Friday (29 February 2008) that five journalists had been transferred from the station. The journalists were moved to a variety of jobs, mostly as ‘information officers’ at government departments. In some cases the moves were job promotions.

The Weekend Observer on Saturday (1 March 2008) revealed that the Civil Service Commission (CSC) took the decision about transfers without consultation with management at SBIS.

The Weekend Observer also interviewed staff at SBIS who accused the CSC of favouritism. The Weekend Observer reported, ‘the promoted employees are those that are said to be in the good books of supervisors at the station and those considered to be “bad boys” have been ignored.’

Staff morale at SBIS has been low for years. The Weekend Observer reported that in the past there was an ‘outcry’ when several journalists were sent against their will to work in remote rural areas of Swaziland.

In 2005, the Swaziland House of Parliament set up a committee to investigate the operations of the SBIS radio. In particular there were concerns about low staff morale at the radio stations and the direction the station was taking.

When the then Minister of Public Service and Information Themba Msibi tabled the report to Parliament it was rejected as inadequately researched.

According to a report in the Times of Swaziland at the time (7 November 2005) there were suspicions that SBIS management were the only ones consulted in the preparation of the report.

The minister denied there was low staff morale, but conceded ‘there may be some few individuals who are disenchanted’.

The low staff morale has been with SBIS for some time, but I don’t think morale is the worst of the station’s problems.

Government has a vice-like control on SBIS. This is seen in the way it treats its staff members, which is bad enough, but it can also been seen in what it allows – and does not allow – on air.

Apart from SBIS there is only one other radio station in Swaziland and that is the Christian radio station, Transworld Radio.

According to The African Media Barometer - Swaziland report of 2005 (AMB 2005), the Christian radio station Transworld Radio approached King Mswati III in 1974 with the request to be licensed as an operator that does not serve the local market but Africa as a whole. The King agreed and registered Transworld Radio as a mission by way of a Royal Command. In 2003, Transworld Radio (through a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ between the station and the Director of SBIS) gained access to the local frequencies FM 96 and FM 101 in ‘an obvious attempt to block the spill-over from South Africa’s Radio Zulu and Radio siSwati’.

So, no local radio stations in Swaziland can be considered to be independent of the ruling elites in Swaziland.

AMB 2005 also reported that information is heavily censored on radio. For example, the report stated, when a caller to a radio talk show touches on a sensitive issue, he or she is immediately taken off air. Some sectors of society such as trade unions and political formations are officially barred from appearing on SBIS.

Both SBIS and state-controlled Swazi TV ‘hardly offer balanced and fair information reflecting the full spectrum of diverse views and opinions,’ the report stated.

AMB 2005 went on, ‘On both stations, royalty and government ministers tend to dominate air time. Whilst Swazi TV occasionally features trade unions and other progressives in their news bulletins, SBIS is a no-go area for the opposition including trade unions.’

AMB 2005 found some positive aspects of SBIS, which it believed to be ‘generally diverse’.

The report stated, ‘Whilst the opposition and trade unions are banned from appearing on the airwaves, NGOs and government departments such as police are given free time almost on a daily basis. News is packaged around the King and government ministers. When the King is engaged in a public function, the news and current affairs slots tend to be heavily skewed towards him.

‘Live talk shows are allowed only when they deal with what the government perceives as “soft” or “safe” topics. Programmes considered to be too critical of the status quo have in the past been taken off air.’

The report was produced by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in conjunction with Frederich Ebert Stiftung. Panellists from the media and civil society in Swaziland met for two days in 2005 to discuss the state of the media in Swaziland.

When the AMB met again two years later in 2007, the panel was able to detect a slight improvement in SBIS programmes.

AMB 2007 said, ‘The last two years have seen a slight improvement at SBIS in providing balanced and fair content. The daily breakfast show, for example, presents a greater diversity of voices and airs opinions that might challenge the status quo.’

AMB 2007 also highlighted youth programmes, programmes on women’s issues and a plethora of sports programmes.

‘However, children’s programming is very scant, there are no human rights-based programmes and no programmes servicing minority religious groups.

‘In fact, recently members of the Bahai faith applied for airtime, but were reportedly denied on the basis that they do not preach the gospel. SBIS and the Ministry of Home Affairs are now negotiating their application.’

AMB 2007 reported that in terms of news content, stories are still packaged around the king and the government. Single-sourced stories are common, capturing only the views of government.

AMB 2007 reported, ‘There is a definite hierarchy that must be followed – stories about the King always lead, followed by the Prime Minister, Cabinet and then individual ministers and MPs.

‘As an example of the preference given to government stories, it was confirmed that if the choice of lead story were between the PM delivering a speech or major bush fires that wiped out hundreds of homes, the PM’s speech would always lead. MPs are allocated exclusive airtime on SBIS once a week to air their views.’

AMB 2007 also criticized a satirical show called ‘Khalamdumbadumbane’, where the presenters are frequently accused of perpetuating harmful gender stereotypes and being misogynists.

‘It was said the show does a disservice to women and to the cause of gender equality, particularly because the main presenter is the traditional prime minister and wields enormous influence,’ AMB 2007 stated.

SBIS clearly has many problems. It is difficult to see how the Civil Service Commission’s decision to arbitrarily move journalists from the station can help solve them. It is also clear that the Government has no intention of changing the way it deals with SBIS, for to do so would lessen the control it has on the station and therefore its control over what ordinary people in Swaziland can hear about, and what they cannot.


See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
RADIO NEWS NOT FOR THE PEOPLE
RADIO SWAZILAND ENGLISH NEWS
READ ALL ABOUT KING MSWATI III
PARLIAMENT INTIMIDATION GOES ON
BROADCASTING FOR THE PUBLIC

CELEBRATING THE SWAZI LANGUAGE

This week is siSwati Week in Swaziland – an opportunity to celebrate Swaziland’s indigenous language.

The Times of Swaziland on Monday (18 February 2008) told readers it ‘joins the nation in celebrating our mother tongue’.

To show its commitment to the siSwati language, throughout the week it intends to publish some of the winning entries in a national schools siSwati writing competition.

Well, thanks very much Times of Swaziland, but it is being a little bit dishonest when it says how much it wants to celebrate the siSwati language. In November 2006 it closed down indefinitely the only newspaper in Swaziland in the siSwati language. It did this because the newspaper, called Tikhatsi TeMaswati, wasn’t making the African Echo, the company that owns the Times, any money.

Ever since its closure, people living in the rural areas of Swaziland (and that’s about 75 percent of the kingdom’s population of nearly one million people) have been asking for its return.

According to the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007 report, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter, Tikhatsi TeMaswati was a translation of articles already published in English in the Times. Had it carried original reports in siSwati it might have done better, the report stated.

It goes on to say that its main obstacle was attracting advertisers who assume people reading siSwati are poor and are, therefore, not worth advertising to.

That’s true. To make money a newspaper has to be attractive to advertisers. Just about every newspaper in the free world gets more of its income from selling advertising space than from the price people pay to buy it.

In Swaziland, about 70 percent of the population have an income of less than one US dollar a day (E7) and most of these people live in the rural areas. They have no money to spend so it follows that advertisers are not interested in them. If advertisers aren’t interested then a newspaper company is not going to make money by supplying poor people with a newspaper.

That’s how it works in Swaziland. The only newspapers published in the kingdom are in the English language and they circulate mostly in urban areas, which is where people with money live. Very few people in the kingdom are what you could call rich, but there are enough people with some money to attract advertisers.

Commercial companies whose only real interests are in making profits will not produce loss-making newspapers, even if there is a demand for them from poor people.

So, the Times can congratulate itself all it wants about supporting the siSwati language, but if it is genuine in this support it will open up Tikhatsi TeMaswati again.

SWAZI NEWSPAPER CENSORS CRITICISM

Swaziland’s Weekend Observer newspaper has censored criticism about itself.

The newspaper decided not to let its readers know just how badly it misreported one of Swaziland’s leading non-government organisations.

The newspaper misrepresented the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter in a report of MISA’s latest survey on the media, the African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007.

As I reported before the Weekend Observer allowed Channel Swazi director Qhawe Mamba to ‘punch holes in’ the survey, recently published by MISA.

The Weekend Observer said that the AMB survey had said that Channel Swazi was co-owned by Mamba with King Mswati III. The newspaper then allowed Mamba and Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer of Swaziland’s only other television station, the government-controlled Swazi TV, to criticise the AMB report.

At no time was MISA asked to comment. That was unprofessional enough, but as I reported the AMB report never said Channel Swazi was co-owned by the king. So there was no story – and the Weekend Observer would have known this if anyone there had bothered to read the survey that was being criticised.

MISA complained about the Weekend Observer report and it was given space for a ‘right to reply’ in the following issue (9-10 February 2008). This is laudable and is in line with article 10 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) code of conduct, which states that a fair opportunity should be given to individuals and organisations to respond to issues

But the Weekend Observer went on to let itself and its readers down badly.

MISA gave an account of the AMB and how it was based on the views of a panel of media experts in Swaziland ‘knowledgeable about the media landscape in Swaziland’.

MISA gave Mamba and Maziya a ticking off. MISA said,

‘We are seriously concerned that the AMB was so misconstrued by the very people who most need to understand it. The report is a vital tool for both Mamba and Maziya. Understanding how people perceive your station is one way of improving and developing your product. Instead of taking the feedback personally they should be thankful for the assistance.’

And as far as the Weekend Observer’s readers know, the criticism ended there.

There was an additional paragraph in the ‘right to reply’, but the Weekend Observer cut it out.

This is what that paragraph said.

‘But what is of most concern to us at MISA is that the Weekend Observer published such an unbalanced story. The journalist never called MISA for comment so that he could present both sides of the issue. The reader was only given the opinions of Mamba and Maziya. But, of course, that's no surprise to us. The AMB cites lack of balance as one of the major deficiencies in the Swazi media. Now is that fact or mere perception?’

I’m with MISA on this one. The Weekend Observer reporter didn’t read the survey, then allowed the survey’s publishers to be seriously criticized by the two leading players in Swaziland television. Then the reporter didn’t allow MISA to respond to the criticism.

But it’s not all the reporter’s fault. The news editor and editor of the Weekend Observer allowed a seriously unbalanced news report to appear in the newspaper.

Unfortunately, as the AMB survey itself pointed out, this was not an isolated incident. I believe the Swazi media are seriously biased. Sometimes this is deliberate, for example when the views of ruling elites are treated as truth. Sometimes this is because the journalists have no idea what they are doing. Just watch Mamba’s Channel Swazi news any day of the week to see what I mean.

See also
OFFICIAL – CHANNEL SWAZI IS BIASED
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
DIRE OUTPUT ON SWAZI CHANNEL S

POLITICIANS INTERFERE AT SWAZI TV

The head of the state-controlled Swazi TV has told politicians to leave the television station alone.

Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer, called a media conference to condemn politicians for ‘meddling into the affairs’ of Swazi TV.

The Times of Swaziland reported on Wednesday (6 February 2008) Mayiza saying ‘their interference was killing not only the station, but his efforts to improve it’.

The plea from Maziya seems a bit naive because Swazi TV is a government controlled station directly answerable to the Minister of Public Service and Information (presently S’gayoyo Magongo). This is an accepted fact in Swaziland and the only reason Swazi TV is allowed to broadcast is so that it can be a propaganda voice for the government and King Mswati III.

The editorial independence of Swazi TV is not guaranteed by law.

The African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland chapter last month that poor funding is particularly evident at Swazi TV where resources are scarce, quality of programmes is poor and there is very little local content. Swazi TV relies mostly on government subsidies, but supplements its income with license fees and advertising.

The poor quality of its programmes has also been attacked by Swaziland members of parliament.

The Times reports Maziya ‘like a man possessed’ saying that ‘political heavyweights should allow the station’s authorities to execute their duties free of interference’.

The Times continues, ‘Maziya emphasised that the political interference was killing not only the station, but his efforts to improve it.’

The Times contacted the Minister of Public Service for comment. He is quoted by the newspaper saying he was the only politician in the ministry ‘In as far as I’m concerned I’m not interfering, but doing my job.’

It can be no coincidence that Maziya’s comments came the day after the Times revealed (4 February 2008) that an auditor’s letter had disclosed financial irregularities, including the purchase of equipment worth more than E2.5 million (350, 000 US dollars), some of which was never delivered.

With his comments about political interference, Maziya may be trying to divert attention from the financial irregularities at Swazi TV, which has been heavily criticised in the past for its poor management.

Meanwhile, the Swazi Observer (Wednesday 6 February 2008) did not include Maziya’s comments on political interference in its report on Maziya’s media conference. It concentrated on the news that Swazi TV management had suspended the station’s financial controller over the unaccounted money.

CLARIFICATION
The auditor general cleared Swazi TV of misappropriating funds or irregularities in the purchasing of equipment, contrary to the letter from the auditors mentioned in this blog, according to a report in the Times Swaziland 3 April 2008.

Richard Rooney 6 April 2008.

See also
TWO WEEKS TO SAVE SWAZI TV

OFFICIAL – CHANNEL SWAZI IS BIASED

The head of the only independent television station in Swaziland has admitted publicly that his station airs biased programmes.

Qhawe Mamba, who co-owns Channel Swazi (Channel S), confirmed this week that the station would always praise King Mswati III.

This news may come as no surprise to the channel’s few viewers, but it is good to have the information confirmed nonetheless. It also means that we should not trust news and current affairs programmes that appear on Channel Swazi, as they will always support the king and by extension the kingdom’s corrupt ruling elite.

The Weekend Observer (2-3 February 2008) reports Mamba saying that Channel Swazi is seen frequently praising the king. The Weekend Observer reported Mamba saying ‘this is something they would do always because they paid allegiance to their king in their capacity as bona fide citizens’.

Mamba is reported saying, ‘We are citizens of the Kingdom and we have to be patriotic.’

This intentional bias directly contravenes the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct. Section one states that it is the duty of every journalist to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend, the truth. A journalist should provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information.

Deliberately distorting news and information about King Mswati III in order to be ‘patriotic’ is the job of a propagandist, not an independent journalist.

Mamba was quoted in a news report in which he criticised the survey African Media Barometer (AMB) Swaziland 2007, recently published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter.

Mamba told the Weekend Observer that the AMB report had said that Channel Swazi is co-owned by Mamba with King Mswati III. The report then gave him space to criticise the report more generally. The Weekend Observer then enlisted Vukani Maziya, the chief executive officer of Swaziland’s only other television station, the government-controlled Swazi TV, to join in criticism of the report.

The newspaper interviewed nobody from MISA, the publisher of the AMB report.

Nor, it would seem did the Weekend Observer reporter bother to read the AMB report itself because the AMB report doesn’t say that the king co-owns the station.

What the report actually says is that Channel Swazi is ‘privately owned “on behalf of his majesty”’.

As I wrote on 24 January 2008 Swaziland is not a democracy and the government on behalf of the monarchy keeps a strong control of broadcast media. However, in 2001, in an effort to mislead the outside world that Swaziland allowed freedom of expression, the government allowed Channel Swazi, to begin operating within the kingdom.

King Mswati III supported Channel Swazi, because he wanted to show that his regime was democratic and respected human rights.

Now, Mamba has confirmed that his television channel will always support the king. With such a man as Mamba in charge of an ‘independent’ television channel the king doesn’t need to invest any of his own E1.4 billion (200 million US dollars) wealth on a television station when he has someone to do his bidding for him for no payment at all.

See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
DIRE OUTPUT ON SWAZI CHANNEL S

NEED TO AUDIT SWAZI JOURNALISTS

Journalists in Swaziland need more and better training to help them work more professionally.

This was one of the findings of the African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007 report I wrote about last Friday (25 January 2008).

One of the report’s recommendations was that a ‘skills audit’ of existing Swaziland journalists should be made. A ‘skills audit’ is a method of analysing how well journalists do the work they are paid to do.

I don’t know how likely it is that the audit will actually take place, but if a similar exercise that took place in South Africa is anything to go by, the results could be startling.

In 2002, the South African National Editors’ Forum (Sanef) published its own audit of journalism skills. The audit was undertaken because there was concern about the quality and standard of journalism in the country, and there was a need to establish the extent of the problem and find ways of dealing with it. This is very similar to the situation Swaziland finds itself in today.

The skills audit looked at journalism reporting, writing and accuracy skills among reporters with between two and five years experience.

The findings of the South African skills audit will ring bells here in Swaziland.

The report stated that one of the most pressing problems facing the media industry was the juniorisation of the industry. This is exactly what Swazi journalists have been complaining about for years.

Other issues identified in the report were:
- Reporters’ skills to properly report on and write about news events
- Mistrust between government and the media
- Transformation in the media industry
- News coverage and comment on socio-economic challenges
- Management of news, staff and infrastructure
- Apparent lack of training
- Profile of reporters

The report is too long to reproduce here but you can find more details at the Sanef website.

To give you a flavour of what the report says, here is a breakdown of what news editors said about their reporting staff:

- Development of story ideas: 30-60% of reporters do not initiate stories
- Relevant issues considered: only 10-20% consider all relevant issues
- Deadline pressure: 10-34% submit despite possible errors
- Background: 20% not sufficient
- Editorialising: 8% editorialise
- Enterprise/inventiveness: 40% not result of reporters' enterprise
- Insight: 20% lack insight
- Factual accuracy: 10% not factually accurate
- Sources: 8% not credible sources; 23% do not double check sources
- Fair/honest, balance/completeness: 10% lack skills & experience
- Sensitivity: almost 20% lack it - urgent attention needed
- Personal accountability: 30% average/below
- Possible errors/imbalance: 50% do not highlight errors


If we were to do a similar audit in Swaziland, I strongly suspect the results would not be any better.

The audit led to a lot of debate in South Africa and a main conclusion was that journalists needed more ‘training’ and better ‘education’.

Training and education may be major factors in increasing the capacity of journalists in Swaziland, but as I wrote in an article in the academic journal Ecquid Novi, African Journalism Studies, there is also a major cultural hurdle to overcome before the kingdom can produce good professional journalists.

Children in Swaziland learn informally and formally. Informal education centres on the home and community where children are taught to respect and defer to their elders. This respect and deference does not encourage a questioning attitude in people. The non-democratic nature of the country also requires people to defer to the wishes of local chiefs (who are in effect representatives of the monarch).

Formal learning takes place at school, but analytical learning is discouraged because success for both individual teachers and schools is measured in terms of the numbers of examination passes. This encourages rote learning in the classroom and the cramming of students to pass examinations.

This type of learning does not produce people with inquiring minds.

See also
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED
SELF-CRITICAL SWAZI JOURNALISTS

‘TIMES’ OF SWAZILAND GROVELS – AGAIN

It seems that my suspicion yesterday that the Times Sunday invented a source of information in a report about Swaziland Prime Minister Themba Dlamini’s trip to the Bahamas was well founded.

The Times Sunday’s companion newspaper the Times of Swaziland had a grovelling front page apology to the Prime Minister, the Swazi Cabinet and just about everybody else as well yesterday (29 January 2008).

The Times Sunday (27 January 2008) had reported that the Prime Minister took his pastor with him when he went on a trip to the Bahamas to collect an award for his ‘humanitarianism’. The Times Sunday reported that the Prime Minister said he personally paid the expenses for the pastor to join him on the trip. The newspaper then cited unnamed ‘sources’ saying that the cost of the pastor’s trip came from government funds.

Yesterday (29 January 2008), I queried whether we could believe the newspaper because it based its information on ‘sources’ which it did not name. I wrote, ‘it is very difficult to believe newspapers when they do not reveal the source of their information’.

Yesterday the Times published this fulsome apology on its front page.

In an article carried in the Times Sunday – PM Takes His Pastor to Bahamas – an impression was created that we were disputing the PM’s word when he said he had paid for his pastor Phila Mathunjwa to accompany him by quoting our sources as saying part of the pastor’s expenses were borne by government. The truth is that the PM paid for all his pastor’s fares. We wish to unreservedly apologise to the PM, his Cabinet and all concerned.

As apologies go this one is pretty abject. But it is not quite up to the standard of the apology made by both the Times and the Times Sunday last March when it published an article about King Mswati III after publishing this from the Afrol news agency

‘Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family. The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati’s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.’

When this appeared the king threatened to close down the African Echo, the group that owns the Times and the Times Sunday, unless a grovelling apology was forthcoming. The apology duly appeared.

See also
SWAZI PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW
CLOSURE THREAT TO TIMES

SWAZI PEOPLE HAVE NO RIGHT TO KNOW

News that the Swaziland Prime Minister Themba Dlamini took his pastor with him when he went on an all expenses paid trip to the Bahamas has reopened important questions about government secrecy in the kingdom.

The Times Sunday reported this week (27 January 2008) that the pastor went with the Prime Minister when he and his wife travelled to receive an award for ‘humanitarian’ work.

Details remain sketchy about what exactly the ‘humanitarian’ work consisted of. The government’s official spokesman Percy Simelane and the PM himself have never publicly explained what Mr Dlamini actually did to deserve the award.

The Times Sunday reports that the pastor accompanied the PM, and this fact is accepted, but nobody can explain why the pastor was needed.

The next part gets tricky. The Times Sunday reports Simelane saying that the PM paid for the costs of the pastor’s trip. But the newspaper also quotes ‘sources’ saying that the Swazi taxpayer footed the bill.

So we have a conflict here. Who really paid the bill? It is a pity that the Times Sunday did not name its source. As I have written before it is very difficult to believe newspapers when they do not reveal the source of their information. How can readers be sure that the newspaper didn’t just make it up?

There would be no dispute over who paid the pastor’s bill if people in Swaziland had the right to get information from their government.

Last October the Times of Swaziland tried to find out how much the PM’s trip to the Bahamas cost and was told to get lost because the information was ‘classified’.

But why should the cost of the PM’s trip remain a secret? In any open society the information would be freely available and people could judge for themselves whether the money was well spent.

But Swaziland isn’t an open society and those in ruling positions can do what they like. We are right to be suspicious because corruption is rife in Swaziland and it is estimated that it is costing ordinary honest Swazi people E40 million (about 6 million US dollars) each and every month.

The report of the African Media Barometer Swaziland 2007 published last week condemned the state of freedom of information in Swaziland.

Part of the report reads,

‘There is no freedom of information legislation in Swaziland. The government and public institutions cannot be forced to disclose information of public interest. The Official Secrets Act 1963 makes it entirely the government’s prerogative whether to release information or not, and there is no means of appealing against government decisions. There are no formal procedures for obtaining public information and requests often get caught up in bureaucratic red tape. Information that should be in the public domain, such as the defence budget and the budget of the King’s office, is never disclosed.

‘There is an attempt to introduce freedom of information (FOI) legislation in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Draft Bill 2007. However, there are concerns that the draft bill contains too many restrictions on accessing information and, in fact, turns the whole idea of FOI on its head by opening up ways for the government to access private information, rather than opening up the public’s access to public information.’

So that just about sums it up. Swazi people will only be told what the government wants them to know and that situation is not going to change any time soon.

See also
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FIGHT
RIGHT TO KNOW DAY
SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED

SWAZI MEDIA RIGHTS STILL RESTRICTED

The rights to freedom of expression and media freedom are severely restricted in Swaziland.

That was the unsurprising conclusion of an extensive examination of the Swazi media published on Wednesday (23 January 2008).

However unsurprising the conclusion, the report offers one of the most comprehensive analyses of the media in Swaziland in recent years.

The report, called African Media Barometer – Swaziland 2007, reveals that the media environment in Swaziland is still characterised by self-censorship, lack of independence from government, little diversity and competition, no transparent and independent broadcasting regulation, no self-regulation and a lack of professionalism among media practitioners.

The report was produced by the media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in conjunction with Frederich Ebert Stiftung. Eight panellists from the media and civil society in Swaziland met for two days in July 2007 to discuss the state of the media in Swaziland.

The panel’s conclusions were overwhelming negative and regular readers of this blog will be aware that I share much of the pessimism of the panellists.

There is too much in the 48-page report for me to discuss in one post, but (for a change?) I would like to share with you some of the positive developments the panellists were able to identify over the past two years in Swaziland.


Positive developments

- The adoption of the Constitution, which guarantees both freedom of expression and media freedom.

- Increased public consciousness of the right to freedom of expression and increased efforts by the media to enable people to exercise their right to freedom of expression.

- The drafting of six new media bills, designed to introduce freedom of information legislation, legislation establishing a public broadcasting corporation and an independent broadcasting regulator, amend the Books and Newspaper Act and replace the outdated Cinematography Act.

- Increased editorial freedom and independence at the state broadcasters, spearheaded by journalists willing to challenge the status quo.

- The resurrection of the media union with the launch of the Media Workers’ Union of Swaziland (MWUS).

- Increased salaries for media practitioners.


Main drivers for positive change

- Government’s change in attitude, making it more open to free media activity, has been an important catalysts for change and is evidenced, for example, by government’s efforts to reform some media laws and provide funds to train journalists.

- Media managers who are determined to bring about industry reform and development.

- MISA Swaziland has been instrumental in many different areas of media development, e.g. facilitating exchange programmes and in-house training for journalists, assisting with the launch of the Media Complaints Commission and voicing opposition to statutory regulation, critiquing the six media bills and conducting media content research.

- The Ministry of Public Service and Information (in particular the Director of Information), which is tasked with implementing the Information and Media Policy and is overseeing the drafting of new media legislation.

- Journalists who are willing to take risks by resisting self-censorship and censorship from the authorities.


Activities needed over the next few years

Despite these ‘positive’ aspects of the Swaziland media landscape, the report remains overwhelmingly negative in its findings. To try to improve the situation the African Media Barometer report suggested the following activities that could happen over the next few years.

- A skills audit should be conducted in all media houses to assess the existing capacity of media practitioners at all levels.

- Skills development opportunities for working journalists should be increased, both in-house training as well as enrolment in external part-time and full-time courses.

- On-the-job training and mentorship programmes need to be established in all media houses to ensure entry-level reporters are given sufficient direction and guidance.

- Civic education on freedom of expression, access to information and media freedom needs to be conducted by the media and civil society organisations.

- The law reform process needs to be launched to ensure all media unfriendly laws are repealed or amended to conform to the Constitution. The establishment of a law reform commission should be fast-tracked.

- A national conference on law reform should be conducted to produce an action plan and way forward on the law reform process.

- The consultation process on the six draft bills needs to continue with a new consultant and should include a broader base of stakeholders.


The AMB report is published by MISA – Swaziland and available from its office.

MISA hopes to put the report on its internet site sometime soon.

See also
SWAZI GOVERNMENT HITS ITS CRITICS
UNREALITY OF SWAZI MEDIA FREEDOM
MEDIA AND GOOD GOVERNACE

SWAZI GOVERNMENT HITS ITS CRITICS

Government departments are punishing Swazi newspapers that write critical articles about them by withholding advertisements.

‘The government is the biggest single advertiser and wields enormous power in the small advertising market. Government regularly uses this power to control media content,’ it was revealed at a workshop held in Swaziland.

A panel of experts in the African Media Barometer workshop heard that censoring the news to protect advertisers has become increasingly common in Swaziland.

A report on the workshop reveals, ‘Recently the Ministry of Health ran a series of announcements in the Observer, but refused to run them in the Times. When the newspaper confronted the Ministry they said they withheld the advertisements because they were unhappy with the Times’ criticism of the Ministry over the public health crisis. The Observer has had similar experiences of government withholding advertisements on particular issues. This is not the result of top-level policy, but rather “just depends on which government department it is”’

Government departments can get away with this because the newspapers rely on advertising and a large proportion of that advertising income comes from the government. The advertising market in Swaziland is too small to sustain many media outlets. Government and parastatals are the big advertisers and if the were removed from the market, the media would barely survive. Advertising from private businesses is rare and ad hoc.

The report adds, ‘And since the government and parastatals are the biggest advertisers, this means information critical of government and public bodies can be withheld from the public.’

The workshop, which was held in July 2007, also heard that other advertisers are also protected by newspaper owners. The report states, ‘Recently the Times rejected an investigative piece that dug up dirt about a major advertiser.’ The owner of the Times made the editor shelve the article.

This kind of behaviour led the Media Institute of Southern Africa – Swaziland Chapter (MISA) to conclude that ‘media owners are more concerned about protecting their business than fighting for media freedom.’


See also

ADVERTISERS ‘CONTROL THE MEDIA’

CLOSURE THREAT TO ‘TIMES’

The Times of Swaziland came close to being forced to close earlier this year after it published a report critical of King Mswati III.

This news has emerged from a recently published report looking at media freedom in Swaziland.

The Times was threatened with closure unless it published an apology after it reproduced a news report from an international news agency, Afrol.

The Afrol article (which can be read in full here) gave details of an International Monetary Fund report on Swaziland.

It said, ‘Swaziland is increasingly paralysed by poor governance, corruption and the private spending of authoritarian King Mswati III and his large royal family. The growing social crisis in the country and the lessening interest of donors to support King Mswati’s regime has also created escalating needs for social services beyond the scale of national budgets.’

Such open criticism of the king is not allowed in Swaziland (not even in so-called independent newspapers like the Times Sunday). On the Thursday (22 March 2007) following publication an ‘unreserved apology’ to the king was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland (repeated in the following week’s Times Sunday). The apology signed by both the publisher and managing editor of the Times Group said the article ‘was disparaging to the person of His Majesty in its content, greatly embarrassed him and should not have passed editorial scrutiny.’

It went on, ‘Our newspapers take great care with matters regarding the monarch, being conscious always of the unbreakable link of the King with the Nation. What occurred is reprehensible and we will renew our vigilance in editorial matters with the utmost vigour.’

To make absolutely certain that there was no doubt of the newspaper group’s subservience to the King, it finished the apology, ‘Once again your Majesty, our sincere and humble apologies.’

Now, a report from African Media Barometer, which is based on a workshop conducted with media experts in Swaziland, states that the Times was threatened with closure over the publication of the report. Details are sketchy, but the background to the incident appears to be that the publisher of the Times was summoned by Royal authorities and ordered to make the apology. Fearful of a demand to close the newspaper, he did as he was told

See also

SWAZI MEDIA TOE THE LINE