‘OBSERVER’ STEPS UP LGBTI HATE CAMPAIGN

The Swazi Observer group of newspapers is running a hate campaign against LGBTI people.

Over three days it has published articles prominently calling LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) people ‘a curse’ and ‘evil’ and likening them to child sex molesters and people who have sex with animals. 

The reports which appeared on Thursday (21 June 2018), Friday and Sunday contained hate speech and broke Article 13 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists code of conduct which states, ‘Hate speech: ‘Journalists shall avoid by all means the publication of speech that might promote hatred, spite and conflict amongst the Swazi or any other nation.’

Hate speech is a type of speech or writing which can do any of the following: deliberately offend, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, profession, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. It can be aimed at an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.

The Swazi Observer is in effect owned by King Mswati III who rules Swaziland / Eswatini as sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

The newspaper gave space to a witchdoctor and a bishop of a Swazi Zionist church to vilify LGBTI people and to attack a Pride event that is to take place on 30 June 2018.

 

The hate-filled coverage of LGBTI people in Swaziland newspapers is not confined to the Observer. The Times of Swaziland group, the only other mainstream newspaper in the kingdom, has published similar articles in the past. 

What the newspapers have in common is that they allow fundamentalist Christians to set the agenda on what it means to be an LGBTI person. They mainly concentrate on vilifying gay men. 

What the newspapers ignore is that modern scientific evidence shows sexual identity is natural and not some kind of learned behaviour and that LGBTI people do not pose a threat to society.

J Michael Bailey of the University of the Northwestern University, United States, and colleagues reviewed the available scientific research on the subject for the academic journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest in 2016 and concluded that there was considerably more evidence that sexual orientation is caused by the genetics of a person than by a person’s life experiences. In simple terms, people are born homosexual. 

They concluded the most often talked about social causes of homosexuality, that people are recruited by adult homosexuals or homosexuality is caused by poor parenting, is generally not the case. They also conclude there is no good evidence that homosexuality increases where societies are tolerant.

They also conclude that same-sex activity appears to have existed throughout human history and in most cultures, including throughout Africa. Claims that same-sex activity is absent in a particular culture are “often demonstrably false, even when the culture does not have the words to describe such activity”. They conclude that same-sex activity in Africa was observed from the earliest recorded times, which means it was in Africa before the European colonialists arrived and is not imported from the West.

They also conclude that same-sex interactions are common throughout hundreds of animal species so it is not something specific to humans.

Newspapers in Swaziland need to be careful about taking at face value opinions from people whose intention is to discredit LGBTI people. Sections of the church have been at the forefront of this. Editors might usefully question the motives of such writers. They should always question them and insist that the opinions they print are based on established information and not on hearsay, rumour or prejudice.

They would also be advised to consider that there are many LGBTI people in Swaziland and therefore among their readers (or potential readers) and they have the right to have their lives and views represented in the news media just like anyone else. 

Richard Rooney

See also

KING’S NEWSPAPER HATES LGBTI PEOPLE

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/06/kings-newspaper-hates-lgbt-people.html

 

FIRST LGBTI PRIDE IN SWAZILAND

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2018/06/first-lgbti-pride-in-swaziland.html

KING’S NEWSPAPER HATES LGBTI PEOPLE

A report in the Swazi Observer comparing LGBTI people in Swaziland / Eswatini to child molesters and people who have sex with animals was hate speech. It lied to the newspaper’s readers and broke the Observer’s own code of ethical reporting standards.

The report on Thursday (21 June 2018) concerned a proposed LGBTI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex) Pride event due to take place on 30 June 2018. It is being organised by Rock of Hope and is the first of its kind. It has received international support.

 

The newspaper, in effect owned by King Mswati III sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch, reported the Pride had been met with ‘anger and despair’ by people within Swaziland and talked of a letter from ‘concerned parents’ against the event. It did not tell readers that the letter was an online petition from an organisation previously exposed as hate-mongers. No person from Swaziland was quoted in the report.

The report gave details of the letter that demonised LGBTI people and said they were a danger to children.

The report was hate speech and broke Article 13 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists code of conduct which states, ‘Hate speech: ‘Journalists shall avoid by all means the publication of speech that might promote hatred, spite and conflict amongst the Swazi or any other nation.’

Hate speech is a type of speech or writing which can do any of the following: deliberately offend, degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, profession, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. It can be aimed at an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.

The group writing the petition calls itself Parents of Eswatini (Parents of Swaziland). It published it on the CitizenGo website. The petition appears to originate in Germany.

In April 2018 Swazi Media Commentary exposed the website as a hate group. CitizenGo started in Spain in 2013 as a project of an organisation called HazteOir. It now claims to have millions of supporters in more than 50 countries, according to the Open Democracy website.

It reported, ‘HatzeOir was founded in 2001. [In 2017], a team of investigators in Spain traced links between the group and “El Yunque”, a mysterious secret society that allegedly has cells across Mexico and the US mobilised to “defend the Catholic religion and fight the forces of Satan though violence or murder”, according to Mexican investigative journalist Alvaro Delgado. Previously, in 2014 a judge dismissed a claim by HazteOir disputing links between the groups.

‘CitizenGo describes itself as “pro-family” and a defender of life, family, freedom, and dignity. Madrid lawyer Ignacio Arsuaga, reportedly the great-grandson of the late dictator General Francisco Franco, sits at the helm of both it and HatzeOir,’ the website reported.

The Political Research Associates website reported, ‘CitizenGo has a variety of longstanding ties to right-wing organizations and right-wing efforts around the globe.’

It added, it operated primarily through an online petition platform ‘to push an anti-LGBTQ, anti-abortion agenda’.

Richard Rooney

See also

LESBIAN AND GAY MURDERS IN SWAZILAND

http://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2015/03/lesbian-and-gay-murders-in-swaziland.html

HATE SPEECH AND GAYS

https://swazimedia.blogspot.com/2007/07/hate-speech-and-gays.html

MEDIA NEED ETHICAL CODE FOR ELECTION

As in elections anywhere in the world, the media in Swaziland should play an important part in keeping people informed about what is going on. In the free world it is generally accepted that the media have a prime responsibility to examine what government is and is not doing, by reporting the news, interpreting the news, influencing citizens’ opinions, setting the agenda for government action, and socializing citizens about politics and encouraging a political culture to evolve.

Most of the time the Swazi media are not very good at any of these things: they do not even explain to their audience that the election is irrelevant because people are not electing a government.

The elections which are held every five years have been criticised by international observer groups as undemocratic because political parties are banned and the parliament has few powers in the kingdom ruled by King Mswati III, sub-Saharan Africa’s last absolute monarch.

There are two chambers in the Swazi parliament: the House of Assembly and the Senate. Of the 65 members of the House, 10 are chosen by King Mswati and 55 are elected by the people. In the Senate, King Mswati chooses 20 of the 30 places. The other 10 are chosen by members of the House of Assembly. None are elected by the people.

The king then choses a prime minister and his cabinet.

In the past, media in Swaziland have performed poorly at election time. In the kingdom all broadcast media that carries news, except one TV station, are state-controlled and restrict what can be broadcast, denying airtime to voices that oppose the government or the king.

There are only two newspaper groups in the kingdom. The Swazi Observer group is owned by a company controlled by the king and the Times of Swaziland group, which is the only independent source of daily news.

The Electoral Institute of Southern Africa (EISA) which monitored the 2008 election later reported campaigning lasted about five weeks and was a low key affair, with no rallies or marches, and was restricted to the handing out of pamphlets, the distribution of T­shirts and a few paid advertisements in the media.

EISA reported the use of larger posters – some of them in colour – by some candidates and vigorous door to door canvassing by candidates’ supporters. Nevertheless, compared with elections in other parts of southern Africa, campaigning generated little public interest.

In Swaziland, political parties are banned, so elections are not a contest for ideas or practical policies. Instead, candidates are elected as individual representatives of their constituencies and voters are encouraged to choose the person they think will deliver most for them when they reach parliament.

Campaigning in 2008 focused on local issues such as promises of clinics, transport infrastructure and employment creating projects.

After the 2008 election, EISA reported that only a minority of observers felt that media coverage was good and treatment was fair.

EISA reported:

·         The media did attempt to keep voters informed, but did not recognise the role they should be playing as voter educators.

·         Coverage by the print media was better than that of the broadcast media.

·         Coverage by public media was biased and the private media were censoring themselves and inclined to favour some candidates over others.

These experiences of the 2008 election were similar to those of 2003 when media in Swaziland were criticised for not giving enough information to the people of the kingdom about what was going on.

On the day of the 2003 election itself state-controlled Radio Swaziland did not even report that an election was taking place. Coverage by all broadcasting media during the campaign was scant. There were no programmes or any other discussions on elections in the few weeks leading to polling day, EISA said in a report on that year’s election.

EISA also said among newspapers, the Observer tended to be ‘conservative’ in its reporting and the Times, ‘tended to sensationalise the issues’.

The Commonwealth Expert Team (CET) which observed the elections in 2003 came to similar conclusions about the media. It liked the ‘vigour’ of the print media coverage, but also criticised the Times for being sensational. The report said, ‘we hope that it will do more in future to discuss issues as well as to report on personalities’.

The inadequate media coverage in 2003 prompted the CET to recommend that in future elections a Code of Conduct for media personnel covering elections should be drawn up. This, it felt, would ‘ensure high standard and balanced coverage’ in reporting.

That was 10 years ago, but nothing has happened to improve election coverage since.

The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) does have a code of conduct that provides a framework of reference to all practicing journalists in Swaziland, both full-time and freelance in their day-to-day work.

The code is meant to ensure that members adhere to the highest ethical standards, professional competence and good behaviour in carrying out their duties. Its overriding concern is that members of the media should conduct themselves with a high sense of responsibility without infringing the rights of individuals and society in general.

However, the SNAJ code is not followed by editors in Swaziland and it does not deal with the coverage of elections. In this respect Swaziland is falling behind other countries in Africa. Since the turn of the century a number of African states have produced guidelines for journalists and other media personnel when covering elections. Among these states are Sierra Leone and Somaliland.

In an attempt to begin a discussion on what a code of conduct on election coverage might look like in Swaziland, here is a draft code of conduct for covering elections in the kingdom.

There is no need to reinvent the wheel as many such codes of conduct exist elsewhere in Africa. This proposed draft code borrows extensively from codes of Somaliland and Tanzania.

 

Preamble

The preamble should make some definitive statements about what the role media have in the process of politics, such as these.

The media play an important role in monitoring the electoral process. By covering the election events and the political campaign, the media ensure that the public is aware of what is happening.

The media help the public to make a free and informed choice. They do this in three ways in particular:

• By communicating political messages from parties and candidates;

• By relaying important voter information from election administrators;

• By subjecting the whole election process to independent scrutiny and comment.

Individual journalists

Then we might look at the responsibilities of individual journalists.

Such as:

• The first duty of a journalist is to report accurately and without bias.

• A journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which s/he knows the origin. A journalist shall not suppress essential information.

• A journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.

• A journalist shall report in a balanced manner. If a candidate makes an allegation against another candidate, the journalist should seek comment from both sides wherever possible.

• A journalist shall do the utmost to correct any published information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate.

• As far as possible, a journalist shall report the views of candidates and political parties directly and in their own words, rather than as they are described by others.

• A journalist shall avoid using language or expressing sentiments that may further discrimination or violence on any grounds, including race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.

• When reporting the opinions of those who do advocate discrimination or violence, a journalist shall do the utmost to put such views in a clear context and to report the opinions of those against whom such sentiments are directed.

• A journalist shall not accept any inducement from a politician or candidate.

• A journalist shall not make any promise to a politician about the content of a news report.

• A journalist shall take care in reporting the findings of opinion polls. Any report should wherever possible include the following information:
• who commissioned and carried out the poll and when
• how many people were interviewed, where and how were they interviewed and what is the margin of error
• what was the exact wording of the questions.

• A journalist shall regard the following as grave professional offences:
• plagiarism
• malicious misrepresentation
• telling lies, slander, libel or unfounded accusations
• acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression.

Media houses

Media houses have a vital role in ensuring fairness in the dissemination of information. The people have the right to know what all the candidates are standing for and not just those that the media house owners might support.

• In all media, there shall be a clear separation between fact and comment. News reporting should reflect the facts as honestly perceived by journalists. Comment may reflect the editorial line of the publication.

• State-owned media shall not express an editorial opinion in favour of or against any candidate.

• State-owned media have a duty to be balanced and impartial in their election reporting and not to discriminate against any candidate in granting access to air time.

• If media houses accept paid political advertising, they shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis and at equal rates for all candidates.

• News, interviews, information or current affairs programmes or articles in the state media shall not be biased in favour of or against any candidate.

• The media shall provide equitable and regular coverage to all candidates.

• The media shall encourage and provide access to the voters to express their opinion and views.

• The media shall promote democratic values such as the rule of good law, accountability and good governance.

• Any candidate or party that makes a reasonable claim of having been defamed or otherwise injured by a broadcast or publication shall either be granted the opportunity to reply or be entitled to a correction or retraction by the broadcaster or publisher or by the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement. The reply or correction shall be broadcast or published as soon as possible.

• News coverage of press conferences and public statements concerning matters of political controversy (as opposed to functions of state) called or made by the head of government, government ministers, or members of parliament shall be subject to a right of reply or equal time rules. This obligation acquires even greater force when the person making the statement is also standing for office.

• State-owned media shall publish or broadcast voter education material.

• Voter education material shall be accurate and impartial and must effectively inform voters about the voting process, including how, when and where to vote, to register to vote and to verify proper registration; the secrecy of the ballot (and thus safety from retaliation); the importance of voting; the functions of the offices that are under contention; and similar matters.

• Voter education shall include programmes in minority languages and programmes targeted for groups that traditionally may have been excluded from the political process, such as women and people with disabilities.

• Media houses should monitor their own output to make sure that it conforms with the standards set out in this code of conduct.

Candidates

Codes of conduct in election coverage in other African states recognise that political parties contest elections. In Swaziland, which is not a democracy, political parties are banned. The kingdom has its own unique form of ‘democracy’ which only allows candidates to stand for election as individuals.

The purpose of this draft code of conduct for Swaziland is to deal with the elections that will take place in 2013. It is highly unlikely that there will be a change of heart among the kingdom’s ruling elite before the elections are held, so we must assume that candidates will not be aligned to any political party. Therefore, this code of conduct is addressed to individuals; although it would apply equally to political parties should they be allowed to exist.


• All candidates shall respect the freedom of the media.

• Candidates shall not harass or obstruct journalists who are engaged in their professional activities.

• Incumbent candidates shall not abuse their office to gain unfair advantage in access to the media. This provision applies to all media, but is of particular relevance with state-controlled media.

• Candidates shall not offer bribes or inducements to journalists or media houses to encourage them to attend campaign events or to report favourably on them or unfavourably on other candidates.

• Candidates should not misrepresent the stated positions or any other factual information about other candidates.

• Candidates should avoid using language that is inflammatory or defamatory, or that threatens or incites violence against any other person or group.

Swaziland Needs Election Code of Conduct for Journalists by Swazi Media

ROLE OF SWAZILAND'S JOURNALISTS

Media houses in Swaziland are often criticised for not being very reflective about the work that they do.

However, at regular intervals you will find Swazi journalists criticising media people abroad for the way they write or broadcast about Swaziland. Usually, the Swazi journalists are unhappy about the way King Mswati III is portrayed (i.e. as a lavish spender who is out of touch with his people).

It is a great pity that the Swazi media do not give over more time and space to reflect on what they think their role should be in Swaziland (beyond being cheer leaders for the king).

I was reminded of this at the breakfast meeting organised by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland Chapter for World Press Freedom Day last Friday (2 May 2008). One speaker said that it was all right trying to teach people how to be journalists but there was nothing better than learning ‘on the job’ what it means to be a journalist in Swaziland. It was the bit about ‘journalist in Swaziland’ that struck me, as if there were something special about Swaziland.

People often like to think about Swaziland as being unique. Some people even go so far as to believe that Swaziland has been specifically singled out by God (in a good way, I hasten to add. With all the suffering in the kingdom, one could be excused for thinking God was punishing the place.)

I don’t think Swaziland is that unique, and especially the journalism in the kingdom. Journalists do face problems in Swaziland, especially when you consider that it is not a democracy, but journalists in other countries also have their problems.

Having said that, I’d like to draw your attention to an article that appeared in the Namibian newspaper in Windhoek, Namibia (7 March 2008). It was headlined ‘The Role of Journalism in Namibia’ and written by a university lecturer, Robin Tyson.

What struck me about the article was that if you deleted the word ‘Namibia’ and replaced it with ‘Swaziland’ what Tyson has to say about Namibia would apply very much to Swaziland.

Tyson wrote (of Namibia), ‘Unfortunately, after 17 years of independence, there remains a gap between the “freedom of speech” espoused in the Constitution, and the application of antiquated laws’.

Tyson also made reference to a move by the Namibian government to introduce a Government Media Council (something that the Swazi Government also from time to time threatens to do). Namibia’s Minister of Information and Broadcasting said when introducing the Media Council, ‘the media has the power to contribute to our nation building and socio-economic development’.

However, Tyson points out, that in an editorial responding to these comments Gwen Lister, editor of The Namibian, reminded people that while the media have rights and responsibilities, those responsibilities ‘are towards the people and not towards the Government of the day’.

A former Namibian Prime Minister Dr Hage Geingob himself often used to say, the Namibian nation is a house built with bricks. Remove one brick (by publishing ‘damaging’ stories, for instance) and the entire structure might fall. Some media therefore resort to what the late Zimbabwean journalist William Musarurwa called ‘minister and sunshine journalism’. Following this model, ministers opening clinics, schools or shopping centres would dominate the headlines. (Any regular viewer of Swazi TV News or listener to SBIS radio would immediately recognise ‘sunshine journalism’ as the dominant news agenda for both these state-owned news organisations).

But media have a duty to probe and to ask difficult questions and to provide a platform for democratic debate and a ‘vent’ for people’s opinions.

In Namibia, NBC radio introduced a PM’s Question Time, which allowed listeners to hear the Prime Minister and to give him feedback on what they thought. What Swazi Prime Minister would have the courage to do such a thing? The nearest we have is a monthly breakfast meeting attended by senior journalists and the PM and other Cabinet ministers. But if you look at the journalism that results from these meetings you can see that they are very tame affairs. Certainly, there are no journalists holding the government to account at these meetings.

In his article, Tyson refers to a new book from UK journalist Nick Davies (Flat Earth News, 2008) in which Davies says that media are no longer strong and vibrant searchers after that elusive ‘truth’. Instead, they often fail to check the most basic of untruths (or incomplete truths) given by a company, industry or even minister. They are susceptible to spin of the most blatant nature.

Rather, and often because of understaffing and time pressures, they simply grab the press release or speech and publish verbatim.

There also seems to be confusion about what news actually is. News should be, objective, honest, accurate, balanced, and, within all possible degrees, true.

Tyson reminds us that journalism codes of ethics in Namibia (and, of course, also in Swaziland) highlights all of these factors, also encouraging fair treatment of minorities such as children, gays and the disabled.

Tyson says no media editor in their right mind would tolerate ‘lies’ to be published, for, in the long term, it would lead to the publication losing all credibility and, thus, sales. The existing laws on defamation provide ample recourse to those aggrieved by ‘untrue’ reporting.

Because of this, all media publish or broadcast corrections where errors are made. After all, journalists are also human. But, Tyson says, the ‘untruths’ that media are being accused of are, in the vast majority, not news at all. They are letters to the editor, editorial comments, columns by writers, analysis pieces, or other items of a subjective nature.

Tyson says this needs to be seen as opinion rather than fact, subjective rather than objective writing. In other words, when reading a newspaper, we need to understand the clear difference between fact (news stories) and opinion (editorials, columns, letters, SMS messages, etc).

Tyson leaves us with a rallying call, which I support. ‘We must empower ourselves to become involved in the debate. We need to […] become active voices in these debates. If we disagree with a caller, phone in to the radio show. If we don't agree with a letter writer or columnist, write to the newspaper.

‘Let us use the existing media platforms, not as propaganda machines of “sunshine journalism”, but as communication marketplaces where we can meet, talk, and, finally perhaps, agree to disagree.’

See also
SWAZILAND MEDIA FREEDOM DAY

SWAZI ELECTION – CODE OF CONDUCT

Media houses in Swaziland need to start preparing for the national election that is due to take place later this year (2008).

At the last election in 2003 Swazi media were criticised for not giving enough information to the people of the kingdom about what was going on. On the day of the election itself Radio Swaziland didn’t even report that an election was taking place.

The poor media coverage prompted the Commonwealth Expert Team, which monitored the election in Swaziland, to recommend that in future elections a Code of Conduct for media personnel covering elections should be drawn up. This, it felt, would ‘ensure high standard and balanced coverage’ in reporting.

But nothing much has happened since then. The Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) has a code of conduct that provides a framework of reference to all practicing journalists in Swaziland, both full-time and freelance.

The code is meant to ensure that members adhere to the highest ethical standards, professional competence and good behaviour in carrying out their duties. Its overriding concern is that members of the media should conduct themselves with a high sense of responsibility without infringing the rights of individuals and society in general.

However, the SNAJ code is not followed by most journalists in Swaziland and it does not deal with the coverage of elections. In this respect Swaziland is falling behind other countries in Africa. Since the turn of the century a number of African states have produced guidelines for journalists and other media personnel when covering elections. Among these states are Sierra Leone and Somaliland.

Here, in the latest of an occasionally series of posts I am writing on the Swazi elections 2008, is an attempt to start people thinking about what a code of conduct on election coverage could look like in Swaziland, I want to propose a draft code of conduct for covering elections in Swaziland.

I do not want to reinvent the wheel so I have borrowed extensively from codes of Sierra Leone, Somaliland and also work done by ACE Electoral Knowledge Network.

Preamble

The preamble should make some definitive statements about what the role media have in the process of politics, such as these.

The media play an important role in monitoring the electoral process. By covering the election events and the political campaign, the media ensure that the public is aware of what is happening.

The media help the public to make a free and informed choice. They do this in three ways in particular:
• By communicating political messages from parties and candidates;
• By relaying important voter information from election administrators;
• By subjecting the whole election process to independent scrutiny and comment.

Individual journalists

Then we might look at the responsibilities of individual journalists.

Such as:
• The first duty of a journalist is to report accurately and without bias.
• A journalist shall report only in accordance with facts of which s/he knows the origin. A journalist shall not suppress essential information.
• A journalist shall observe professional secrecy regarding the source of information obtained in confidence.
• A journalist shall report in a balanced manner. If a candidate makes an allegation against another candidate, the journalist should seek comment from both sides wherever possible.
• A journalist shall do the utmost to correct any published information that is found to be harmfully inaccurate.
• As far as possible, a journalist shall report the views of candidates and political parties directly and in their own words, rather than as they are described by others.
• A journalist shall avoid using language or expressing sentiments that may further discrimination or violence on any grounds, including race, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other opinions, and national or social origins.
• When reporting the opinions of those who do advocate discrimination or violence, a journalist shall do the utmost to put such views in a clear context and to report the opinions of those against whom such sentiments are directed.
• A journalist shall not accept any inducement from a politician or candidate.
• A journalist shall not make any promise to a politician about the content of a news report.
• A journalist shall take care in reporting the findings of opinion polls. Any report should wherever possible include the following information:
• who commissioned and carried out the poll and when
• how many people were interviewed, where and how were they interviewed and what is the margin of error
• what was the exact wording of the questions.
• A journalist shall regard the following as grave professional offences:
• plagiarism
• malicious misrepresentation
• calumny, slander, libel or unfounded accusations
• acceptance of a bribe in any form in consideration of either publication or suppression.

Media houses

Media houses have a vital role in ensuring fairness in the dissemination of information. The people have the right to know what all the candidates are standing for and not just those that the media house owners might support.

• In all media, there shall be a clear separation between fact and comment. News reporting should reflect the facts as honestly perceived by journalists. Comment may reflect the editorial line of the publication.
• Publicly owned media shall not express an editorial opinion in favour of or against any candidate.
• Publicly owned media have a duty to be balanced and impartial in their election reporting and not to discriminate against any candidate in granting access to air time.
• If media houses accept paid political advertising, they shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis and at equal rates for all candidates.
• News, interviews, information or current affairs programmes or articles in the public media shall not be biased in favour of or against any candidate.
• The media shall provide equitable and regular coverage to all candidates.
• The media shall encourage and provide access to the voters to express their opinion and views.
• The media shall promote democratic values such as the rule of good law, accountability and good governance.
• Any candidate or party that makes a reasonable claim of having been defamed or otherwise injured by a broadcast or publication shall either be granted the opportunity to reply or be entitled to a correction or retraction by the broadcaster or publisher or by the person who made the allegedly defamatory statement. The reply or correction shall be broadcast or published as soon as possible.
• News coverage of press conferences and public statements concerning matters of political controversy (as opposed to functions of state) called or made by the head of government, government ministers, or members of parliament shall be subject to a right of reply or equal time rules. This obligation acquires even greater force when the person making the statement is also standing for office.
• Publicly owned media shall publish or broadcast voter education material.
• Voter education material shall be accurate and impartial and must effectively inform voters about the voting process, including how, when and where to vote, to register to vote and to verify proper registration; the secrecy of the ballot (and thus safety from retaliation); the importance of voting; the functions of the offices that are under contention; and similar matters.
• Voter education shall include programmes in minority languages and programmes targeted for groups that traditionally may have been excluded from the political process, such as women and people with disabilities.
• Media houses should monitor their own output to make sure that it conforms with the standards set out in this code of conduct.

Candidates

Codes of conduct in election coverage in other African states recognise that political parties contest elections. In Swaziland, which is not a democracy, political parties are banned. The kingdom has its own unique form of ‘democracy’ which only allows candidates to stand for election as individuals.

The purpose of my draft code of conduct for Swaziland is to deal with the elections that will take place in 2008. It is highly unlikely that there will be a change of heart among the kingdom’s ruling elite before the elections are held, so we must assume that candidates will not be aligned to any political party. Therefore, this code of conduct is addressed to individuals; although it would apply equally to political parties should they be allowed to exist.


• All candidates shall respect the freedom of the media.
• Candidates shall not harass or obstruct journalists who are engaged in their professional activities.
• Incumbent candidates shall not abuse their office to gain unfair advantage in access to the media. This provision applies to all media, but is of particular relevance when publicly funded media are under direct control by the government of the day.
• Candidates shall not offer bribes or inducements to journalists or media houses to encourage them to attend campaign events or to report favourably on the party or unfavourably on other parties or candidates.
• Candidates should not misrepresent the stated positions or any other factual information about other parties and candidates.
• Candidates should avoid using language that is inflammatory or defamatory, or that threatens or incites violence against any other person or group.


This has been a brief attempt to get people thinking about what a code of conduct might include. I know that it consists mainly of lists of things to do (and not to do). I hope in future posts to return to this draft code and put some flesh onto the bones.

See also
SWAZILAND ELECTIONS BACKGROUND
SWAZI MEDIA ELECTION COVERAGE
SWAZILAND ELECTION BOYCOTT
SWAZI ELECTION AND THE NEW P.M.
WILL ELECTION DESTABILISE SWAZILAND?
SWAZI RADIO AND THE ELECTIONS
SWAZI ELECTION ‘MAY NOT BE FAIR’

‘OBSERVER’ BACKS SWAZI HATE GROUP

A new hate group has launched in Swaziland with the support of the Swazi Observer.

A group calling itself the Prolife Movement in Anglophone Africa (PMAA) was given a full page in the Observer yesterday (Wednesday 27 February 2008) to highlight what it says are the ‘evils’ of
- Condoms
- Sex education
- Radical feminism
- Homosexuality, and
- Abortion

The Observer allowed a spokesman purporting to be the ‘regional coordinator’ of the PMAA to spout dangerous nonsense such as ‘condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV and AIDS’ and the use of condoms ‘may lead to certain deaths’.

The Observer gave the ‘spokesman’ the opportunity to say that ‘radical feminism’ had the ‘potential to increase the rate of abortion, substance abuse, homosexuality and lead to moral decadence of society’.

At no point did the Observer require the PMAA to offer one shred of evidence to support its assertions.

Also, PMAA claimed to be already present in 82 countries around the world with the aim to be in every country by 2010.

I don’t know who this PMAA is because when I searched for it on the Internet its name didn’t appear. Not on any of the general search engines I used, nor in search engines for news articles, nor in search engines for blogsites. And all of this despite the organisation’s claim to be in 82 countries around the globe.

So who are the members of PMAA? The Observer article claimed that it has connections with the Catholic Church and the Salesians in Manzini.

By publishing this nonsense from PMAA the Observer has broken the very first article of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct, which states it is the duty of every journalist to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend, the truth.

To properly serve the public, a journalist should make adequate inquiries, do cross-checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information, the code states.

The Observer has also broken Article 6 of the same code of conduct. Article 6 states that a journalist shall not originate material which encourages discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, colour, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

It also contravenes Article 13 on ‘hate speech’, by publishing material that might promote hatred, spite and conflict.

I would like the Observer to tell its readers more about PMAA. Some of the questions its reporter could ask PMAA are: who are your leaders? Where does your finance come from? Why are you such a shadowy organisation? Why do you tell deliberate and dangerous lies about condoms and HIV AIDS?

The Observer has disgraced itself by publishing this propaganda for an extreme organisation that has one aim only and that is to spread hatred throughout Swaziland.

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

SWAZI JOURNALISTS AND FREEBIES

Cell phone company MTN is certainly getting hectares worth of free publicity in the Swazi newspapers.

The Times of Swaziland on Friday (15 February 2008) devoted a page to a free trip its managing editor Martin Dlamini had taken to the AFCON football tournament in Ghana at the phone company’s expense. The Times thought the ‘report’ was so important it cancelled the managing editor’s regular Just Thinking column of comment on current events to make room for it.

This gave readers the chance to be told by Martin that he stayed in a five-star hotel and attended a gala dinner. He was also given E500 (about 75 US dollars) worth of free MTN airtime.

Martin got a bit too excited. He told his readers that he was one of the privileged few ‘to be granted an exclusive audience’ with the MTN Group President. Someone should remind Martin that ‘audiences’ are granted by monarchs and emperors, not mere businessmen.

Martin was not alone on the trip. I reported on Friday how the Chief Editor of the Swazi Observer Musa Ndlangamandla took four pages of his newspaper to report on his free trip to the AFCON football tournament in Ghana. Musa was like a child let loose in a toy shop. He seemed especially pleased that he was given a room to himself in a hotel.

I made a lot of fun of Musa on Friday but there is a serious point about all this freeloading the Swazi media have been doing with MTN.

Journalists are supposed to be representatives of their readers (or listeners or viewers) and to do this job well they need to be independent of the people or organisations they report about. With this independence comes credibility. When journalists take gifts, holidays, free airtime, lunches or other ‘freebies’ they destroy their credibility.

Many news organisations across the world forbid staff to any ‘freebies’, even relatively small items like free tickets to concerts or sports events.

In Swaziland the Swaziland National Association of Journalists Code of Conduct is silent on freebies, but Article 3 on professional integrity does state that journalists should avoid conflicts of interest and should not accept bribes.

I don’t think that the free trips at MTN’s expense with fine meals and free airtime amount to ‘bribes’ but the acceptance of freebies by the journalists does compromise their objectivity, or, at the very least, appears to.

See also
‘SWAZI OBSERVER’ GRAVY TRAIN

PASTOR AND THE PRYING SWAZI PRESS

This is the story of the pastor, the widow and the prying Swazi Press.

The pastor and the widow snuggled down for a kiss and a cuddle under a wattle tree near the Spar supermarket in Mbabane, Swaziland’s capital city.

Then two men, looking for shade to eat their lunch, spotted the couple. They recognised the man as a pastor from their church.

The next thing we know reporters and a photographer from the Swazi Observer arrived on the scene and the next day (Wednesday 6 February 2008) a photograph of the pastor and the widow appeared on the newspaper’s front page along with the headline PASTOR CAUGHT HAVING SEX WITH WIDOW.

If that wasn’t enough the Observer published another ten photos – yes, you read that right, ten photos – on an inside page of the couple and also a news report alerting Observer readers to just how shocking this behaviour was.

Here’s some of what the Observer had to say:

‘On arrival, reporters found the pastor fondling, caressing and kissing the widow as they moved a step further.

‘When our photographer arrived at the scene, several metres from Spar parking, the couple was in deep pleasure.’

Well, I suppose it depends what you mean by ‘deep pleasure.’ They were kissing but they were not having sex. The eleven photographs show both the pastor and the widow fully clothed. So the Observer headline was not accurate. Sensational yes: accurate, no.

The couple were not named but they could be clearly identified from the photographs, even though the newspaper did block out their eyes.

The story took a new twist on Friday (8 February 2008) when the Observer again published a picture of the couple on its front page along with a report on an inside page that the League of Swaziland Churches was investigating the ‘randy pastor’.

The League’s president told the Observer, ‘We are even tempted to believe that this man is not a Christian because Christians do not engage in such practices.’ You learn something new every day: Christians do not have sex.

The story of the pastor and the widow has appeared on the Observer’s website and people across the world have picked it up and are having a good laugh about it. (See the blogsite Of Course, I could Be Wrong as an example.)

In journalism they say that sex always sells newspapers. Add to that a bit of religion and you have a perfect recipe for a circulation builder.

But there is a serious question that needs to be answered: has the Observer violated the rights to privacy of the pastor and the widow?

There are no hard and fast rules about exactly what constitutes an invasion of privacy. It depends to a large extent on who is involved and where people are at the time

Swazi journalists have some help here. Article 5 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Conduct states that journalists should respect privacy and human dignity. The code goes onto say that intrusions into a person’s private life can only be justified when done in the public interest.

The SNAJ code seems quite clear, but trying to apply it to the pastor and the widow is less so.

Most people would probably agree that two people kissing and cuddling together is a private act and their actions should not be photographed and published in a newspaper. But is it still a ‘private act’ if the couple are cuddling under a tree close to a supermarket car park? They probably couldn’t have reasonably expected to remain unseen. So in this case the couple were not in a private place.

But even if the couple were in a public place and seen cuddling by people passing by, was the Observer right to publish eleven photographs, including one on the front page? The answer to that question is less simple.

The SNAJ code allows for a person’s privacy to be breached ‘in the public interest’. We need to be careful how we define ‘public interest’. We should not confuse it with something that is ‘interesting to the public’. I have no doubt that the exploits of the pastor and the widow are interesting to the public. The way the story is being shared on the Internet shows this to be true. But the cuddling couple are the subject of gossip. People are having a bit of a laugh at their expense and that is all. Newspapers shouldn’t be gossip sheets; they need to be held to higher standards.

So is the story in the ‘public interest’? The Press Complaints Commission in the UK defines matters ‘as being in the public interest if they are a matter of i) detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour ii) protecting public health and safety iii) preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organization.’

The Observer report about the pastor and the widow is not exposing crime, nor is it protecting public health or safety.

Some people may argue, however, that the Observer is preventing the public from being misled by the action of an individual.

The pastor is to an extent a public figure because people who attend his church know him and as a pastor he is also a man of God. People might reasonably expect the pastor to have a higher standard than the rest of us when it comes to kissing and cuddling in public. In that case, the Observer might have a case for saying that it is exposing the pastor as dishonest.

In Swaziland the newspapers often expose pastors for the unacceptable ways they behave. Usually, however, pastors are exposed for criminal activity, such as rape or paedophilia (having sex with children). It is not clear whether the ‘randy pastor’ in the Observer report has committed an offence. There probably are laws about ‘having sex’ in public, but that isn’t what the pastor and the widow were up to. Anyway, I have seen no media reports that the pastor has been charged with committing a crime.

But the Observer report doesn’t attempt to ‘expose’ the pastor for wrongdoing. The report just details the circumstances in which the pastor and the widow were discovered and the pastor’s reaction when he noticed he was being photographed.

So this doesn’t look to me like a report in the ‘public interest’.

So to recap, a man who is a little bit famous had a kiss and a cuddle with a widow who is not famous at all. They had their cuddle in a public place and a nosey photographer took photographs and the next day a newspaper published 11 of them for everyone to see.

The Observer has breached the right to privacy of the couple because of the way it handled its report. It seems to me that the Observer set out to humiliate the pastor in the way the journalist wrote the report and the way the editor published it, first by putting a picture on the front page, then by publishing a report on page three and then by putting ten photographs on page nine.

The treatment of the story was overkill. The pictures were meant to titillate readers over a bit of hanky panky by a ‘randy pastor’. Nowhere in the coverage did the Observer attempt to show that the pastor’s behaviour was inappropriate for a man of the church and therefore it wasn’t really concerned about the ‘public interest’ and only in a story that might be ‘interesting to the public’.

See also
SWAZI MORALISTS ATTACK WIDOW