Swaziland’s Prime Minister has praised the Swazi media for the support they have given him and his government over the past five years.
Themba Dlamini was speaking at the final Swaziland’s editor’s forum breakfast meeting before the forthcoming elections.
Dlamini said past meetings had given people the opportunity to understand government policies and programmes.
He said there was value in the ‘constant interaction’ between government and media that these monthly meetings represented.
I am not surprised that the Prime Minister is pleased with the media’s behaviour because, put simply, they haven’t really given him a hard time at all.
The forum is billed as an opportunity for the media to question the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues on matters of interest to the nation, but in his speech the PM was very open about the fact that he would only answer the questions that he wanted to.
I personally don’t see that as being much of an open dialogue. A real interaction would only take place when the Prime Minister and senior politicians were forced to answer questions they did NOT want to answer.
The breakfast meetings take place every month and usually get extensive coverage in the media. This month for example the Swazi Observer (4 July 2008) devoted one page and the Times of Swaziland, two pages to the meeting. Usually the reports are summaries of what the PM said. There is no attempt to get alterative voices in the stories.
This is entirely typical of the Swazi media and must be why the Prime Minister thinks the meetings are so valuable: he gets to put his own point of view across.
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter in its report His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007 showed how this happens in practice.
The report, written by Mary Ellen Rogers, gives an example of a report in the Times of Swaziland (15 November 2007). The story headlined PM Doubts Ngozo was shot at 35cm radius was about the PM’s defence of the police service against allegations that officers fatally shot an unarmed suspect at close range.
The only source in the story was the Prime Minister himself.
Rogers comments,
‘The report just provided a summary of the PM’s statements. As such, the information was extremely limited. There was no context to explain the shooting and critically no information about what was contained in the post-mortem report that the PM so readily discredits.
‘There was no information to counter or verify the PM’s claims. The PM speaks of investigations that are complete, but we are not told any detail about the investigations such as who conducted them and under what circumstances.
‘There is confusing reference to a previous coroner but no information on when the current coroner will hear this case and what the likely consequences would be for the officers involved.’
Personally, I can see why the PM is pleased with the Swazi media. The media have such a lack of curiosity that the PM can get away with anything.
To emphasise the point look at my post yesterday (5 July 2008) about the PM praising the state of the Swazi economy.
To see the full text of the Prime Minister’s speech to the Editors’ Forum, click here
See also
P.M. PRAISES SWAZI MEDIA
Showing posts with label His Master’s Voice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label His Master’s Voice. Show all posts
Sunday, 6 July 2008
Thursday, 26 June 2008
SWAZI GVT DOMINATES NEWS
There is an old saying among the more cynical media watchers that there is no need to censor or impose state controls on journalists, because journalists will keep in line without coercion.
I was reminded of this when I was looking through a research report on political reporting in Swaziland.
I have written about His Master’s Voice, Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007 previously. The report published in June 2008 by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland chapter, is a fascinating expose of the weaknesses of political reporting in particular and journalism more generally in Swaziland.
The research reveals that journalists in Swaziland are not doing their jobs. One of the roles of the journalist is to give people clear information about what is going on around them. Another role is to hold those in power to account.
Swazi journalists fall down on both of these roles.
The research, written by Mary Ellen Rogers, shows that political reporting in the Swazi media is overwhelmingly dominated by the voices and views of government.
Groups with opposing views, NGOs and ordinary people hardly get a chance to have their voices heard.
According to research, government sources accounted for 57 per cent of all sources in political coverage. Government here refers to cabinet, ministry staff, MPs, senators, spokespeople and such like.
But when you take a broader definition of ‘government’ to include King Mswati III, the justice system, traditional authorities and parastatals, the dominance of government voices in political stories increases to 75 per cent.
The second biggest single group of sources after government is civil society, but this sector only accounts for 13 percent of all sources in political coverage. Civil society refers to sources such as educators, workers, ordinary citizens, business people and religious leaders.
The research reveals that ‘a typical political story is a story with one source and that source is from government’. Government spoke most often about development. The issues that government spoke about least were poverty, crime and social welfare.
Development was also a favoured topic for the king. When the king was heard in political coverage he was almost exclusively speaking about development issues. On occasion, he was captured speaking on interstate relations, economics and corruption. Just two stories captured the king speaking about HIV AIDS.
Swazi journalists also let down the people by failing to hold those in power to account. There is no questioning of those in authority and very little contextualising of events.
The research stated,
‘Reporters tended to take events at face value. That is, they rarely asked questions of relevant sources and scrutinized the underlying issues. This resulted in very superficial reporting that covered who, what, when, where but repeatedly ignored the how and the why of the event.
‘It was rare to find evidence of the reporter directly questioning sources. Typically, a political story would just summarise the source’s public statements.
‘Few stories displayed an effort by the journalist to pursue the source with follow-up questions or take questions to other relevant sources.’
The report says that this failure by journalists ‘was particularly the case for television and radio’. Personally, I think this is unsurprising since most broadcasting in Swaziland is state-controlled and that which isn’t (Channel Swazi and Voice of the Church) is indistinguishable from the others in that they vehemently support the status quo in Swaziland.
His Master’s Voice goes on to identify that few stories were properly contextualized.
‘It was clear from many stories that the reporter’s aim was to report the simple facts of an event. There was rarely an effort to go beyond these basic details to explain the backdrop against which the event occurred, conduct research, interview diverse sources, find connections to other relevant stories, events, or mention recurring patterns.
‘As such, political stories were mostly reported as isolated incidents, with no attempt to explain the significance of the event within the broader social context, examine the impacts and mention solutions.’
The standard of political journalism in Swaziland is clearly very poor. I think there are a number of reasons for this and mostly, these are cultural. Swaziland is not a questioning society; people seem content on believing what they are told, without understanding there is more than one way to look at an issue. You only have to look at the way people believe the words of bogus pastors in the kingdom to see this in action.
The education system in Swaziland doesn’t encourage research. Pupils learn facts and then reproduce them in their essays. Journalists do much the same thing in their reports.
These cultural deficiencies can be seen in all walks of life in Swaziland, so perhaps we shouldn’t single out journalists for special mention in this regard.
However, we do expect higher standards from people who call themselves ‘journalists’, since they are supposed to be representing the needs of ordinary people, especially, but not exclusively, when questioning those in power.
His Master’s Voice offers a couple of recommendations on how to improve the standard of political reporting in Swaziland. It says that working journalists and editors should be trained in areas such as conducting research, fact checking, interviewing sources, balancing stories and adding context and analysis to stories. There should also be educational programmes for the media on political issues and matters of governance.
Personally, I think there is an over emphasis on ‘training’ here. It seems like a ‘quick fix’ and doesn’t really tackle to deep-seated problems that are ingrained in Swazi culture.
To change culture takes generations – not a couple of week-long training workshops.
I have the full His Master’s Voice report as a PDF file. If you want a copy, email me here swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
REPORTING AND THE SINGLE SOURCE
I was reminded of this when I was looking through a research report on political reporting in Swaziland.
I have written about His Master’s Voice, Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007 previously. The report published in June 2008 by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) – Swaziland chapter, is a fascinating expose of the weaknesses of political reporting in particular and journalism more generally in Swaziland.
The research reveals that journalists in Swaziland are not doing their jobs. One of the roles of the journalist is to give people clear information about what is going on around them. Another role is to hold those in power to account.
Swazi journalists fall down on both of these roles.
The research, written by Mary Ellen Rogers, shows that political reporting in the Swazi media is overwhelmingly dominated by the voices and views of government.
Groups with opposing views, NGOs and ordinary people hardly get a chance to have their voices heard.
According to research, government sources accounted for 57 per cent of all sources in political coverage. Government here refers to cabinet, ministry staff, MPs, senators, spokespeople and such like.
But when you take a broader definition of ‘government’ to include King Mswati III, the justice system, traditional authorities and parastatals, the dominance of government voices in political stories increases to 75 per cent.
The second biggest single group of sources after government is civil society, but this sector only accounts for 13 percent of all sources in political coverage. Civil society refers to sources such as educators, workers, ordinary citizens, business people and religious leaders.
The research reveals that ‘a typical political story is a story with one source and that source is from government’. Government spoke most often about development. The issues that government spoke about least were poverty, crime and social welfare.
Development was also a favoured topic for the king. When the king was heard in political coverage he was almost exclusively speaking about development issues. On occasion, he was captured speaking on interstate relations, economics and corruption. Just two stories captured the king speaking about HIV AIDS.
Swazi journalists also let down the people by failing to hold those in power to account. There is no questioning of those in authority and very little contextualising of events.
The research stated,
‘Reporters tended to take events at face value. That is, they rarely asked questions of relevant sources and scrutinized the underlying issues. This resulted in very superficial reporting that covered who, what, when, where but repeatedly ignored the how and the why of the event.
‘It was rare to find evidence of the reporter directly questioning sources. Typically, a political story would just summarise the source’s public statements.
‘Few stories displayed an effort by the journalist to pursue the source with follow-up questions or take questions to other relevant sources.’
The report says that this failure by journalists ‘was particularly the case for television and radio’. Personally, I think this is unsurprising since most broadcasting in Swaziland is state-controlled and that which isn’t (Channel Swazi and Voice of the Church) is indistinguishable from the others in that they vehemently support the status quo in Swaziland.
His Master’s Voice goes on to identify that few stories were properly contextualized.
‘It was clear from many stories that the reporter’s aim was to report the simple facts of an event. There was rarely an effort to go beyond these basic details to explain the backdrop against which the event occurred, conduct research, interview diverse sources, find connections to other relevant stories, events, or mention recurring patterns.
‘As such, political stories were mostly reported as isolated incidents, with no attempt to explain the significance of the event within the broader social context, examine the impacts and mention solutions.’
The standard of political journalism in Swaziland is clearly very poor. I think there are a number of reasons for this and mostly, these are cultural. Swaziland is not a questioning society; people seem content on believing what they are told, without understanding there is more than one way to look at an issue. You only have to look at the way people believe the words of bogus pastors in the kingdom to see this in action.
The education system in Swaziland doesn’t encourage research. Pupils learn facts and then reproduce them in their essays. Journalists do much the same thing in their reports.
These cultural deficiencies can be seen in all walks of life in Swaziland, so perhaps we shouldn’t single out journalists for special mention in this regard.
However, we do expect higher standards from people who call themselves ‘journalists’, since they are supposed to be representing the needs of ordinary people, especially, but not exclusively, when questioning those in power.
His Master’s Voice offers a couple of recommendations on how to improve the standard of political reporting in Swaziland. It says that working journalists and editors should be trained in areas such as conducting research, fact checking, interviewing sources, balancing stories and adding context and analysis to stories. There should also be educational programmes for the media on political issues and matters of governance.
Personally, I think there is an over emphasis on ‘training’ here. It seems like a ‘quick fix’ and doesn’t really tackle to deep-seated problems that are ingrained in Swazi culture.
To change culture takes generations – not a couple of week-long training workshops.
I have the full His Master’s Voice report as a PDF file. If you want a copy, email me here swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
REPORTING AND THE SINGLE SOURCE
Sunday, 22 June 2008
REPORTING AND THE SINGLE SOURCE
Political reporting in the Swazi media is poor because there is little or no attempt on the part of journalists to find out information beyond a single source.
A fully rounded news report on any topic ought to have a variety of voices so that all sides of a story can be covered. This also ensures that all relevant information is included in the report.
This is especially important when the topic being reported about is a matter of controversy.
The recently published research report, His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007, reveals that most political stories in Swaziland media only have one source of information.
According to the report, written by Mary Ellen Rogers and published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, 55 percent of political stories only had one source of information.
This, the report concludes is the ‘chronic problem in the Swazi media’ and it spreads across newspapers, radio and television.
‘The number of single-sourced stories in political coverage is fairly evenly distributed across all media. Though the Times Sunday had notably fewer single sourced stories (41 percent) than the worst performer, Weekend Observer (68 percent), it still published an extraordinarily high number of single-sourced stories.’
Sources were usually confined to the person who was the subject of the story. For example, if the story was about the Prime Minister denouncing the police union, most reporters would only source the Prime Minister. ‘There was very rarely any effort to take the event/issue to other relevant sources to seek verification, responses, comment or analysis.’
The report says,
‘Adding sources is the most obvious way to deepen information and develop the story. But the monitoring revealed journalists across all media did not regularly source people other than those who were the subject of the event. And broadcasting, in particular, demonstrated a pattern of ignoring relevant sources in favour of government sources.
‘For example, a Swazi TV report of a film industry conference attended by the Minister for Public Service and Information interviewed the Minister only, despite the fact that there were many other non-government sources that would have been more relevant and informative.’
By coincidence (I think) a senior print journalist has also been considering the use of sources by Swazi journalists. Ackel Zwane, writing in the Swazi Observer (13 June 2008), blames the problem of ‘flimsy sourcing’ on the unwillingness of sources ‘to be on the record’.
According to Zwane, Swazi Government officials are among the worst culprits.
‘The sources claim they have been “gagged” by their superiors, especially ministers. This is common in countries such as ours where there is no access-to-information law.
‘Under the circumstances, as in the case of Swaziland, the information is closely guarded against being public and becomes private property of the government of the day.
‘Gagging the government officials, by extension, is gagging the media.’
Zwane continues, ‘The government has been so unwilling to cooperate with the media that journalists have become all too happy to give anonymity to inside sources in exchange for nuggets of information. Even higher-ups simply giving routine briefing sessions often demand anonymity, hence the proliferation of the term “senior government official”’
This problem, Zwane says is also common in the private business sector. He cites the cases of the recent strikes in the textile industries and at Standard Bank as examples where employers would not give information to reporters, forcing them to submit incomplete stories to their editors.
Personally, I think journalists have very real problems if they use anonymous sources. The use of such sources makes it impossible for anyone to rely on and trust the information and analysis that it is contained in the news reports and articles. This means the use of anonymous sources undermines the integrity and standing of the work of journalists and the media generally.
One way around the problem of the use of anonymous sources is for journalists generally to use more sources.
MISA’s report, His Master’s Voice, makes a useful recommendation when it suggests that journalists should have a greater diversity in the role of sources, so that they include analysts and experts or people speaking from personal experience.
Or put another way: the more people you have in your report, the les you need to rely on any one of them individually.
I have the His Master’s Voice report as a PDF file. If you would like a copy email me here. swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
ANONYMOUS SOURCES
A fully rounded news report on any topic ought to have a variety of voices so that all sides of a story can be covered. This also ensures that all relevant information is included in the report.
This is especially important when the topic being reported about is a matter of controversy.
The recently published research report, His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007, reveals that most political stories in Swaziland media only have one source of information.
According to the report, written by Mary Ellen Rogers and published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, 55 percent of political stories only had one source of information.
This, the report concludes is the ‘chronic problem in the Swazi media’ and it spreads across newspapers, radio and television.
‘The number of single-sourced stories in political coverage is fairly evenly distributed across all media. Though the Times Sunday had notably fewer single sourced stories (41 percent) than the worst performer, Weekend Observer (68 percent), it still published an extraordinarily high number of single-sourced stories.’
Sources were usually confined to the person who was the subject of the story. For example, if the story was about the Prime Minister denouncing the police union, most reporters would only source the Prime Minister. ‘There was very rarely any effort to take the event/issue to other relevant sources to seek verification, responses, comment or analysis.’
The report says,
‘Adding sources is the most obvious way to deepen information and develop the story. But the monitoring revealed journalists across all media did not regularly source people other than those who were the subject of the event. And broadcasting, in particular, demonstrated a pattern of ignoring relevant sources in favour of government sources.
‘For example, a Swazi TV report of a film industry conference attended by the Minister for Public Service and Information interviewed the Minister only, despite the fact that there were many other non-government sources that would have been more relevant and informative.’
By coincidence (I think) a senior print journalist has also been considering the use of sources by Swazi journalists. Ackel Zwane, writing in the Swazi Observer (13 June 2008), blames the problem of ‘flimsy sourcing’ on the unwillingness of sources ‘to be on the record’.
According to Zwane, Swazi Government officials are among the worst culprits.
‘The sources claim they have been “gagged” by their superiors, especially ministers. This is common in countries such as ours where there is no access-to-information law.
‘Under the circumstances, as in the case of Swaziland, the information is closely guarded against being public and becomes private property of the government of the day.
‘Gagging the government officials, by extension, is gagging the media.’
Zwane continues, ‘The government has been so unwilling to cooperate with the media that journalists have become all too happy to give anonymity to inside sources in exchange for nuggets of information. Even higher-ups simply giving routine briefing sessions often demand anonymity, hence the proliferation of the term “senior government official”’
This problem, Zwane says is also common in the private business sector. He cites the cases of the recent strikes in the textile industries and at Standard Bank as examples where employers would not give information to reporters, forcing them to submit incomplete stories to their editors.
Personally, I think journalists have very real problems if they use anonymous sources. The use of such sources makes it impossible for anyone to rely on and trust the information and analysis that it is contained in the news reports and articles. This means the use of anonymous sources undermines the integrity and standing of the work of journalists and the media generally.
One way around the problem of the use of anonymous sources is for journalists generally to use more sources.
MISA’s report, His Master’s Voice, makes a useful recommendation when it suggests that journalists should have a greater diversity in the role of sources, so that they include analysts and experts or people speaking from personal experience.
Or put another way: the more people you have in your report, the les you need to rely on any one of them individually.
I have the His Master’s Voice report as a PDF file. If you would like a copy email me here. swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
ANONYMOUS SOURCES
Tuesday, 17 June 2008
SWAZI POLITICAL DEBATE ‘NARROW’
The media in Swaziland narrow the opportunities for political debate, according to research recently published.
The narrow range of topics covered by newspapers, television and radio, is in some ways simply a reflection of the priorities that Swaziland’s government has.
The research called His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, examined media output over five weeks in 2007.
It examined which topics were covered in political reporting in the media, identifying the type of political events, issues and debates that were reported, and how often.
The report found ‘that there was little diversity in political reporting. Political reporting was clearly dominated by just four issues: labour/workers rights, the justice system, development and corruption. Other topics such as HIV AIDS and poverty are barely reported on as political issues or in relation to government policies and activities.’
The most common political story was about labour/workers’ rights issues (14 percent of all political stories). Within this topic there were a variety of stories, including workplace disputes involving government, dealings between government and unions, efforts to form a police union, civil servants and teachers demanding better pay and conditions, a nurses’ strike, activities and initiatives of the Department of Employment and court cases on labour issues pitting government against workers. No one particular labour story dominated.
This led the report’s author, Mary Ellen Rogers, to conclude, ‘This diversity of political stories on labour-related issues demonstrates that workers’ rights across the board was the dominant political story.’
Political stories about the justice system were mainly about court rulings on casesinvolving government, in particular the Mzikayise dispute over burial rights of a former chief. Other justice system stories were about constitutional issues, legislation, bills, High Court appointments and the Judicial Services Commission.
The narrow range of topics covered by newspapers, television and radio, is in some ways simply a reflection of the priorities that Swaziland’s government has.
The research called His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007, published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland chapter, examined media output over five weeks in 2007.
It examined which topics were covered in political reporting in the media, identifying the type of political events, issues and debates that were reported, and how often.
The report found ‘that there was little diversity in political reporting. Political reporting was clearly dominated by just four issues: labour/workers rights, the justice system, development and corruption. Other topics such as HIV AIDS and poverty are barely reported on as political issues or in relation to government policies and activities.’
The most common political story was about labour/workers’ rights issues (14 percent of all political stories). Within this topic there were a variety of stories, including workplace disputes involving government, dealings between government and unions, efforts to form a police union, civil servants and teachers demanding better pay and conditions, a nurses’ strike, activities and initiatives of the Department of Employment and court cases on labour issues pitting government against workers. No one particular labour story dominated.
This led the report’s author, Mary Ellen Rogers, to conclude, ‘This diversity of political stories on labour-related issues demonstrates that workers’ rights across the board was the dominant political story.’
Political stories about the justice system were mainly about court rulings on casesinvolving government, in particular the Mzikayise dispute over burial rights of a former chief. Other justice system stories were about constitutional issues, legislation, bills, High Court appointments and the Judicial Services Commission.
Development stories were about development projects and policies that involve government. The monitoring revealed that development was one of the government's policy areas most commonly reported on.
The stories about corruption included coverage of a drug procurement scandal where three MPs were accused of abusing their office, an E50m (more than 4 million US dollars) corruption case involving key government figures, government fraud and conflict of interest stories, in particular, a story a story about conflict of interest at the parastatal, Swaziland Electricity Company (SEC).
These four topics - labour/workers’ rights, justice system, development and corruption - occupied almost 50 percent of the political coverage during the monitoring period.
On the other hand, government spending, democracy, HIV/AIDS and poverty together accounted for just nine percent of all political stories.
The report also found that political reporting was overwhelmingly dominated by stories ‘of national significance’, that is stories that had a national focus – these accounted for 86 percent of all political stories.
The report noted that the representation of regional political stories was ‘extremely low.’ Hhohho was ‘clearly the favoured region’. Hhohho is home to Swaziland’s capital city Mbabane and is also the region where all the kingdom’s media houses are based.
The report concluded, ‘The media’s concentration in Hhohho limits its potential to report equitably on all regions.
‘Lubombo, Shiselweni and Manzini barely featured in political reporting.’
I have the full report as a PDF file. If you want a copy, email me here swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
SWAZI POLITICAL REPORTING IS POOR
The stories about corruption included coverage of a drug procurement scandal where three MPs were accused of abusing their office, an E50m (more than 4 million US dollars) corruption case involving key government figures, government fraud and conflict of interest stories, in particular, a story a story about conflict of interest at the parastatal, Swaziland Electricity Company (SEC).
These four topics - labour/workers’ rights, justice system, development and corruption - occupied almost 50 percent of the political coverage during the monitoring period.
On the other hand, government spending, democracy, HIV/AIDS and poverty together accounted for just nine percent of all political stories.
The report also found that political reporting was overwhelmingly dominated by stories ‘of national significance’, that is stories that had a national focus – these accounted for 86 percent of all political stories.
The report noted that the representation of regional political stories was ‘extremely low.’ Hhohho was ‘clearly the favoured region’. Hhohho is home to Swaziland’s capital city Mbabane and is also the region where all the kingdom’s media houses are based.
The report concluded, ‘The media’s concentration in Hhohho limits its potential to report equitably on all regions.
‘Lubombo, Shiselweni and Manzini barely featured in political reporting.’
I have the full report as a PDF file. If you want a copy, email me here swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
SWAZI POLITICAL REPORTING IS POOR
Saturday, 14 June 2008
SWAZI POLITICAL REPORTING IS POOR
A major report into the quality of political reporting in Swazi media has found many areas in need of improvement.
Among the report’s main findings were:
Political coverage lacked diversity: The media are dominated by four topics, which took up a half of all political coverage. These topics were (i) labour/workers rights, (ii) the justice system, (iii) development and (iv) corruption.
At the same time topics such as government spending, democracy, HIV AIDS and poverty received little attention.
Regional stories were severely lacking: Political reporting gave minimal attention to regional stories and overwhelmingly favoured stories from Hhohho region, which includes the capital city of Mbabane and also the main parliament and Senate.
Female journalists were underrepresented: Female journalists were responsible for just 12 per cent of political coverage. The state-controlled broadcasting stations State-controlled Swazi TV and SBIS radio had the highest percentage of female journalists reporting on government and political issues. The Swazi News and Times Sunday had no political coverage written by women during the monitoring period.
The report called His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007 was published earlier this month (June 2008) by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter.
I doubt very much if regular readers of Swaziland’s newspapers or viewers and listeners to the kingdom’s radio and television would find anything unusual in the report’s findings.
That is not to say that the report has little value. Quite the opposite, His Master’s Voice gives evidence to what until now for many people would be not much more than gut reaction.
The report, which was written by Mary Ellen Rogers, surveyed media over a five-week period in 2007.
Among others of its main findings were:
The majority of political reporting was single-sourced: 55 percent of stories only had one source of information or opinion. The Times Sunday had the least numberof single-sourced stories (41 percent), while the Weekend Observer had the most(68 percent). Political reporting was heavily dominated by male voices. Female voices barely featured in political stories, accounting for just 4 percent of all human sources. Swazi TV’s political coverage contained the most female voices (23 percent). Swazi News had just one female source in its political reporting during the monitoring period.
Again, it will come as no surprise to media watchers in Swaziland that government voices dominated political coverage in Swaziland. Political parties are banned in Swaziland and there are no organised ‘opposition’ voices in parliament or the Senate. The only potential for organised alternative views to those of the government come from non-government organisations.
The MISA report found that government sources accounted for 57 percent of all sources, and when government was defined more broadly to include the executive, judiciary and traditional authorities, the dominance of government voices jumped to 75 percent.
When the government spoke, it spoke most frequently about development. Among topics government spoke about least were social welfare and poverty.
The report concluded that a ‘typical’ political story in the Swazi media was ‘a basic event description, reported by a male journalist, containing one male government source, and, if biased, favoured government.
‘Coverage of government and political issues was largely superficial and uncritical and captured a limited range of views and voices.’
There clearly is a lot of work that needs to be done to improve the service the Swazi media give their audiences (readers, viewers, listeners).
The MISA report is packed with detail about the present state of political reporting and contains many recommendations for improvement.
I’ll say more about this report in future blogposts.
I have the full report as a PDF file. If you want a copy, email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
SWAZI JOURNALISTS TOLD ‘TELL THE TRUTH’
Among the report’s main findings were:
Political coverage lacked diversity: The media are dominated by four topics, which took up a half of all political coverage. These topics were (i) labour/workers rights, (ii) the justice system, (iii) development and (iv) corruption.
At the same time topics such as government spending, democracy, HIV AIDS and poverty received little attention.
Regional stories were severely lacking: Political reporting gave minimal attention to regional stories and overwhelmingly favoured stories from Hhohho region, which includes the capital city of Mbabane and also the main parliament and Senate.
Female journalists were underrepresented: Female journalists were responsible for just 12 per cent of political coverage. The state-controlled broadcasting stations State-controlled Swazi TV and SBIS radio had the highest percentage of female journalists reporting on government and political issues. The Swazi News and Times Sunday had no political coverage written by women during the monitoring period.
The report called His Master’s Voice: Political Reporting in Swaziland 2007 was published earlier this month (June 2008) by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA) Swaziland Chapter.
I doubt very much if regular readers of Swaziland’s newspapers or viewers and listeners to the kingdom’s radio and television would find anything unusual in the report’s findings.
That is not to say that the report has little value. Quite the opposite, His Master’s Voice gives evidence to what until now for many people would be not much more than gut reaction.
The report, which was written by Mary Ellen Rogers, surveyed media over a five-week period in 2007.
Among others of its main findings were:
The majority of political reporting was single-sourced: 55 percent of stories only had one source of information or opinion. The Times Sunday had the least numberof single-sourced stories (41 percent), while the Weekend Observer had the most(68 percent). Political reporting was heavily dominated by male voices. Female voices barely featured in political stories, accounting for just 4 percent of all human sources. Swazi TV’s political coverage contained the most female voices (23 percent). Swazi News had just one female source in its political reporting during the monitoring period.
Again, it will come as no surprise to media watchers in Swaziland that government voices dominated political coverage in Swaziland. Political parties are banned in Swaziland and there are no organised ‘opposition’ voices in parliament or the Senate. The only potential for organised alternative views to those of the government come from non-government organisations.
The MISA report found that government sources accounted for 57 percent of all sources, and when government was defined more broadly to include the executive, judiciary and traditional authorities, the dominance of government voices jumped to 75 percent.
When the government spoke, it spoke most frequently about development. Among topics government spoke about least were social welfare and poverty.
The report concluded that a ‘typical’ political story in the Swazi media was ‘a basic event description, reported by a male journalist, containing one male government source, and, if biased, favoured government.
‘Coverage of government and political issues was largely superficial and uncritical and captured a limited range of views and voices.’
There clearly is a lot of work that needs to be done to improve the service the Swazi media give their audiences (readers, viewers, listeners).
The MISA report is packed with detail about the present state of political reporting and contains many recommendations for improvement.
I’ll say more about this report in future blogposts.
I have the full report as a PDF file. If you want a copy, email me at swazimedia@yahoo.com
See also
SWAZI JOURNALISTS TOLD ‘TELL THE TRUTH’
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)