Radio Swaziland news fails as a medium for news and information and instead serves only the interests of the Swazi Royal Family and the king’s government.
These are the main conclusions from a survey of Radio Swaziland English Service evening news bulletins.
The bulletins which run for 10 minutes in the evenings are broadcast at 6pm and repeated word for word at 7pm.
To research what news items the bulletins contained I did a survey of the 6pm bulletin for five days (Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) spread over a two week period in November 2007.
The bulletins are unusual in radio terms because they do not contain any news reporting as such. Instead a single news reader announces the news from a script. Often the reader announces in flat tones which makes even the most potentially interesting report sound like a death notice. Nowhere in the bulletins are there any ‘on-the-spot’ reports from journalists at the scene where news happened.
All this makes listening to Radio Swaziland News a very uncomfortable and boring experience.
The news items covered are not very interesting either.
In my survey I counted the first six items in the news bulletin, making a total of 30 from across the five days. Of these 30 only three reports in the entire period were not about the Royal Family or government ministries.
As an example, here is the running order for the news on Thursday 8 November 2007. The bulletin started with a report from the Ministry of Enterprise and Employment that an overseas’ company may set up a factory in Swaziland to manufacture bags. This was followed by reports from the Ministry of Housing, the Ministry for Tourism, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Public Services and the Ministry of Public Works.
In all the above cases the ‘news’ report was mostly an announcement about something positive that the ministry was doing.
It is said by media observers in Swaziland that all stations under the control of Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service (SBIS), which includes Radio Swaziland English Service, have a definite hierarchy that must be followed when it comes to presenting the news. It runs something like this: stories about the King always lead, followed by the Prime Minister, Cabinet and then individual ministers and MPs.
I don’t know if this hierarch officially exists, that is that it is written down as a definite policy, but the evidence of my survey suggests that it is true. During the period I surveyed on two days there were stories about the Royal Family and both times they were the first story read out. This was even when one of the reports only involved the King in a minor way (it was about a fund he had founded making a donation to build a health clinic).
Radio Swaziland is part of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service which is a government department. By its own account SBIS is ‘responsible for disseminating news and information aimed at educating, informing and entertaining the Swazi nation effectively and impartially for the purposes of development and social welfare through radio broadcasts and publications.’
It goes on to say, ‘The overall role of the SBIS is to assist the Government of Swaziland meet her priorities under the National Development Strategy (NDS), and in particular towards the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic, poverty alleviation and employment generation.’
My survey suggests that Radio Swaziland News fails to entertain (it really is so boring that I only listen to it when I am researching it). It is informative only in the narrow sense that it contains information from government departments but it is difficult to see how any listener could make any use of the information that the bulletins contain.
The news is not impartial since the only point of view it contains comes from the Royal Family or the King’s government.
There has been a lot of discussion in Swaziland this year about transforming SBIS into a public service broadcaster.
Public service broadcasting aims to inform, educate and entertain in a way in which the commercial or state sector left unregulated would not do. Generally, it is understood that public service broadcasters air a wide range of programmes in a variety of tastes and interests. They speak to everyone as a citizen and everyone has an opportunity to access the airways and participate in public life.
The World Radio and Television Council put it well when it said that public service broadcasting stations help people to develop knowledge, broaden horizons and enable people to better understand themselves by better understanding the world and others.
On the evidence of my survey, Radio Swaziland is nowhere close to meeting these criteria.
See also
RADIO SWAZILAND ENGLISH NEWS
BROADCASTING FOR THE PUBLIC
Showing posts with label Radio Swaziland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Radio Swaziland. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 November 2007
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
MEDIA FOR DEMOCRACY
‘Democracy won the day’, the Times of Swaziland told us on Monday (5 November 2007) when commenting on the weekend’s local government elections.
It went on to applaud voters for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of choice.
On the face of it things might be looking up in Swaziland, an undemocratic kingdom ruled by an autonomous king.
But, even the Times acknowledged that not many people actually went out to vote.
Both the Times and the Swazi Observer had pages of coverage on the elections in their editions on Monday, but apart from a passing reference to voter apathy in the Times' editorial neither newspaper made any reference to the low turnout.
And the figures weren’t so much low as minute. All over the kingdom candidates were being elected by so few people you could fit them all into a bus. Running my eye down a list of winning candidates I can see a candidate who won with a total of 31 votes, while other winners had 56, 49, and 36 votes.
Looking at these pitiful figures, I think we can safely say that ‘democracy did not win the day’. Nobody won, but the fact that the newspapers missed the big electoral story (the low turnout) speaks volumes about the Swaziland media.
One of the definitions of ‘democracy’ is ‘a system of government by the whole people’. On that definition what happened at the weekend does not constitute a ‘democracy’ and these elections were a sham.
Political parties are banned in Swaziland and there is nowhere safe for people to meet and discuss politics. It is no wonder that when ‘election’ time comes people ignore them, through fear or apathy.
Next year Swaziland has its national elections. Again, political parties will be banned and people will be asked to vote for candidates on the basis of their individual abilities.
It is difficult to organise politics in Swaziland, even at election time. In the last national elections in 2003, political meetings in Swaziland were allowed, but only with the permission of the Election Office. Once permission was obtained campaigns were then held in the tinkhundla centres, (local state-controlled offices) the only venue where such meetings can be held. The Electoral Office and representatives of the local chiefs ran the meetings. This effectively meant that the state was able to control all public political discussion.
A Commonwealth election monitoring team criticized Swaziland’s lack of press freedom during the elections and expressed disappointment at government-owned Radio Swaziland’s reporting on the campaign, saying that restricted coverage reduced voters’ knowledge of the candidates and harmed their ability to hold candidates accountable.
In its editorial on Monday the Times said that by the 2008 elections ‘people should have made some intelligent choices in candidates’. But it is not clear how they can make these choices unless the Swazi media help them.
I don’t blame the journalists. They suffer in the same way as the Swazi people. They don’t really understand what ‘democracy’ is since few of them have lived in a democratic country. A state of emergency was in force in Swaziland for the past 34 years imposed by Royal proclamation in 1973. The new Swazi Constitution does little to encourage democracy since although it allows freedom of association it effectively bans political parties.
There may be some hope. The Times editorial at least identifies the problem, ‘We need men and women of high integrity, who are willing to put people first, refuse to be corrupted by greed or the system and be willing to step down as a matter of principle without fear if they do not subscribe to the self serving interests of certain individuals in this country. That is how important your vote is’.
It went on to applaud voters for exercising their constitutional right to freedom of choice.
On the face of it things might be looking up in Swaziland, an undemocratic kingdom ruled by an autonomous king.
But, even the Times acknowledged that not many people actually went out to vote.
Both the Times and the Swazi Observer had pages of coverage on the elections in their editions on Monday, but apart from a passing reference to voter apathy in the Times' editorial neither newspaper made any reference to the low turnout.
And the figures weren’t so much low as minute. All over the kingdom candidates were being elected by so few people you could fit them all into a bus. Running my eye down a list of winning candidates I can see a candidate who won with a total of 31 votes, while other winners had 56, 49, and 36 votes.
Looking at these pitiful figures, I think we can safely say that ‘democracy did not win the day’. Nobody won, but the fact that the newspapers missed the big electoral story (the low turnout) speaks volumes about the Swaziland media.
One of the definitions of ‘democracy’ is ‘a system of government by the whole people’. On that definition what happened at the weekend does not constitute a ‘democracy’ and these elections were a sham.
Political parties are banned in Swaziland and there is nowhere safe for people to meet and discuss politics. It is no wonder that when ‘election’ time comes people ignore them, through fear or apathy.
Next year Swaziland has its national elections. Again, political parties will be banned and people will be asked to vote for candidates on the basis of their individual abilities.
It is difficult to organise politics in Swaziland, even at election time. In the last national elections in 2003, political meetings in Swaziland were allowed, but only with the permission of the Election Office. Once permission was obtained campaigns were then held in the tinkhundla centres, (local state-controlled offices) the only venue where such meetings can be held. The Electoral Office and representatives of the local chiefs ran the meetings. This effectively meant that the state was able to control all public political discussion.
A Commonwealth election monitoring team criticized Swaziland’s lack of press freedom during the elections and expressed disappointment at government-owned Radio Swaziland’s reporting on the campaign, saying that restricted coverage reduced voters’ knowledge of the candidates and harmed their ability to hold candidates accountable.
In its editorial on Monday the Times said that by the 2008 elections ‘people should have made some intelligent choices in candidates’. But it is not clear how they can make these choices unless the Swazi media help them.
I don’t blame the journalists. They suffer in the same way as the Swazi people. They don’t really understand what ‘democracy’ is since few of them have lived in a democratic country. A state of emergency was in force in Swaziland for the past 34 years imposed by Royal proclamation in 1973. The new Swazi Constitution does little to encourage democracy since although it allows freedom of association it effectively bans political parties.
There may be some hope. The Times editorial at least identifies the problem, ‘We need men and women of high integrity, who are willing to put people first, refuse to be corrupted by greed or the system and be willing to step down as a matter of principle without fear if they do not subscribe to the self serving interests of certain individuals in this country. That is how important your vote is’.
Tuesday, 6 November 2007
RADIO SWAZILAND ENGLISH NEWS
Radio Swaziland needs to work harder to meet its own aim to inform the Swazi nation effectively and impartially for the purposes of development and social welfare.
That is one of the conclusions of a survey into the news bulletins on the English service of Radio Swaziland.
Radio Swaziland is part of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service which is a government department. By its own account SBIS is ‘responsible for disseminating news and information aimed at educating, informing and entertaining the Swazi nation effectively and impartially for the purposes of development and social welfare through radio broadcasts and publications.’
It goes on to say, ‘The overall role of the SBIS is to assist the Government of Swaziland meet her priorities under the National Development Strategy (NDS), and in particular towards the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic, poverty alleviation and employment generation.’
To test whether the radio station was living up to its own mission, I did a survey of the English Service of Radio Swaziland for the week Monday to Friday starting on Monday 29 October 2007. I took the 6 am bulleting (which is repeated word for word at 7 am) and I counted the first six items of the bulletin. Usually there are no more than six items in the entire bulletin which lasts for 10 minutes.
There is only one voice heard on Radio Swaziland news – that of the news reader. No journalists report from the scene of an event and there are no voices of people who have made the news.
The reading ability of the news readers is generally poor. They have difficulty reading the English language aloud and it is very common for them to take two or three attempts at pronouncing some words.
In my survey there were 30 reports in total. Of these only nine were about Swaziland. On three days (Monday, Tuesday and Thursday) there was only one news report each day from Swaziland.
The most popular source of news was from South Africa (13 items). Otherwise, during the week there was one report from each of the following countries: Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Sudan, Spain, Russia and Taiwan. Two news reports had no obvious national source.
Of the nine reports from Swaziland, six were speeches or statements from government ministers (including the prime minister), one was about the Swazi Royal Family and two were about private businesses.
Of the six statements from ministers only two concerned the workings of government (a report of impending legislation against sexual abuse of women and children and a report on road reconstruction).
On the evidence of this week’s listening Radio Swaziland cannot be said to be fulfilling its role to ‘responsible for disseminating news and information aimed at educating, informing and entertaining the Swazi nation effectively and impartially for the purposes of development and social welfare through radio broadcasts and publications.’
This is because only nine of the 30 reports were about Swaziland and on three days only one report came from the kingdom. These figures alone show that the radio station doesn’t even place Swaziland at the top of its news agenda (there are more reports from neighbouring South Africa).
When it does report on Swaziland it only reports the ‘official’ voices of government, royalty or business. This may be Radio Swaziland’s response to its remit of ‘disseminating news and information’, but if it is it is a very one-sided interpretation.
Nowhere in any bulletin did we hear the voices of ordinary people. Nor, is there any opposition views aired to the government position. This is dangerously close to government propaganda rather than ‘impartial’ news and information.
SBIS needs to reflect carefully about its mission and look at ways that its service can improve and truly offer news that helps development and social welfare.
(Radio Swaziland also airs news bulletins in the evening. I’ll write about those another time.)
That is one of the conclusions of a survey into the news bulletins on the English service of Radio Swaziland.
Radio Swaziland is part of the Swaziland Broadcasting and Information Service which is a government department. By its own account SBIS is ‘responsible for disseminating news and information aimed at educating, informing and entertaining the Swazi nation effectively and impartially for the purposes of development and social welfare through radio broadcasts and publications.’
It goes on to say, ‘The overall role of the SBIS is to assist the Government of Swaziland meet her priorities under the National Development Strategy (NDS), and in particular towards the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic, poverty alleviation and employment generation.’
To test whether the radio station was living up to its own mission, I did a survey of the English Service of Radio Swaziland for the week Monday to Friday starting on Monday 29 October 2007. I took the 6 am bulleting (which is repeated word for word at 7 am) and I counted the first six items of the bulletin. Usually there are no more than six items in the entire bulletin which lasts for 10 minutes.
There is only one voice heard on Radio Swaziland news – that of the news reader. No journalists report from the scene of an event and there are no voices of people who have made the news.
The reading ability of the news readers is generally poor. They have difficulty reading the English language aloud and it is very common for them to take two or three attempts at pronouncing some words.
In my survey there were 30 reports in total. Of these only nine were about Swaziland. On three days (Monday, Tuesday and Thursday) there was only one news report each day from Swaziland.
The most popular source of news was from South Africa (13 items). Otherwise, during the week there was one report from each of the following countries: Democratic Republic of Congo, Zambia, Sudan, Spain, Russia and Taiwan. Two news reports had no obvious national source.
Of the nine reports from Swaziland, six were speeches or statements from government ministers (including the prime minister), one was about the Swazi Royal Family and two were about private businesses.
Of the six statements from ministers only two concerned the workings of government (a report of impending legislation against sexual abuse of women and children and a report on road reconstruction).
On the evidence of this week’s listening Radio Swaziland cannot be said to be fulfilling its role to ‘responsible for disseminating news and information aimed at educating, informing and entertaining the Swazi nation effectively and impartially for the purposes of development and social welfare through radio broadcasts and publications.’
This is because only nine of the 30 reports were about Swaziland and on three days only one report came from the kingdom. These figures alone show that the radio station doesn’t even place Swaziland at the top of its news agenda (there are more reports from neighbouring South Africa).
When it does report on Swaziland it only reports the ‘official’ voices of government, royalty or business. This may be Radio Swaziland’s response to its remit of ‘disseminating news and information’, but if it is it is a very one-sided interpretation.
Nowhere in any bulletin did we hear the voices of ordinary people. Nor, is there any opposition views aired to the government position. This is dangerously close to government propaganda rather than ‘impartial’ news and information.
SBIS needs to reflect carefully about its mission and look at ways that its service can improve and truly offer news that helps development and social welfare.
(Radio Swaziland also airs news bulletins in the evening. I’ll write about those another time.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)