An article in the Swazi Observer on Tuesday (6 November 2007) accused advertisers of being able to decide what is and what is not published in Swaziland newspapers.
The writer Mfankhona Mkambule accused some (unnamed) companies of having formed strategic partnerships with certain media outlets. Mkambule says that since the advertisers bring in the money, media outlets are afraid to upset them in case they take the money away.
‘In this way’, he writes, ‘the media does not expose their dirty linen. They tolerate it with a smile. In most cases, those who bribe the media with advertisements have skeletons in their closet. In order for the media to paint a good picture of the goings-on behind the scenes, it is imperative for them to dangle a carrot – and the hungry media would rather compromise journalistic ethics than letting it go.’
Mkambule gives no evidence to support his claims, but I have written before about what I think is the too-close relationship between the mobile phone company MTN and the newspapers (especially the Swazi Observer).
There is a bigger issue here than just whether one advertiser or another is keeping ‘dirty linen’ out of the newspapers.
The argument that is missed by Mkambule is that mass media can play a vital role in achieving development goals and contributing to social change but in reality there is little incentive for privately owned media groups to create development-type material if this threatens profits or works against the interests of business interests that the media might have,
Mass media that operates in a capitalist economy rely on advertising revenue for profit and the way advertisers chose where to spend their money amounts to a political discrimination; this is because advertisers are more interested in reaching people who have money to buy things.
The main influence on spending is income: the rich buy more of most things than the poor. So, the media are more interested in writing stories or producing radio and television programmes that would be attractive to people with money to spend, and attractive also to advertisers who wish to sell their goods and services to them.
Advertising provides the principal financial backing for commercial mass media across the world. Just about every commercial newspaper in the world gets more of its income from running adverts than from the price readers pay to buy the paper.
In order to make sure the money keeps rolling in from advertisers (and in the case of the Swaziland newspapers, this includes advertising from the government) the media tend to protect and promote the interests of the big companies and government departments that advertise.
This is why the media tend to support the general ruling economic and political interests in a country and suppress alternate views. This means that the media are more interested in profit making than in giving out public information.
A major problem with advertising-dominated media is that to achieve profitability media companies must maximize audiences and they therefore prefer to provide entertainment rather than ‘public interest’ material.
If you look at the survey I did of Swazi newspapers you can see how this works. In the Swazi Observer and the Times of Swaziland, the combined ‘sport’ and ‘entertainment and leisure’ categories (the most entertaining material in the newspapers) equal 44 percent of total space dedicated to editorial in the Observer and 40 percent in the Times.
The small size of the advertising market in Swaziland, combined with a substantial government share of total advertising expenditure, poses major problems for press proprietors, editors and journalists. Apart from the more obvious problems of repression and censorship, governments are able to sway editorial policy and news coverage, and indeed put out of existence newspapers which are seen as contradicting or questioning government policy, simply through the withdrawal of essential advertising revenue.
Although there is a partly free press in Swaziland, newspapers are heavily dependent on government advertising and this places the Press in a difficult financial position if it tries to protect the public against bad government. There is a fear that newspapers cannot ask uncomfortable questions for fear of losing advertising revenue and instead reproduce public relations material on behalf of the government. It is difficult to judge whether this is happening in Swaziland at the present time, but my observations of recent articles, especially in the Times of Swaziland, is that the newspaper is not concerned on this point.
In his article, Mkambule reminds us that the former Swaziland Prime Minister Sibusiso Dlamini threatened to withdraw advertising from one newspaper if it continued to publish negative things about the Government. ‘The bone of contention was that government could not financially support a media house that turned around to bite the hand that feeds it,’ Mkambule wrote.
Mkambule calls on the Minister of Public Service and Information S’gayoyo Magongo to hold an inquiry into the relationship of advertisers and the media they support. Quite what form this inquiry should take he does not say. But the truth is that in a market orientated capitalist society those with the money will always enjoy greater power than does who do not.
Thursday, 8 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.)
Monday, 5 November 2007
'WAH-WAH' ON THE INTERNET
One of the annoying things about living in Swaziland (and let’s face it there are many) is that it is not easy to get hold of films about the kingdom, even though they are easily available in other parts of the world.
I wrote last Wednedsay about the award winning documentary Without the King which is doing the rounds of the world’s film festivals. It is also available to buy on DVD. But when I emailed the production company that was offering the DVD for sale on the Internet they told me they didn’t ship to Swaziland.
In 2005, a film called Wah-Wah, which is a fictionalised account of the last days of British rule in Swaziland, came out. The film, directed by Richard E Grant, is the story of his childhood in Swaziland in the1960s.
Wah-Wah, which stars many British actors, has been seen all over the world, but since we don’t have a single cinema here in Swaziland it has not been easy to see in the country of the film’s birth.
This is really a long-winded way of reporting that Wah-Wah is now available to view to anyone with a computer and a decent Internet connection.
Some enterprising person has put the film up on the video share site You Tube. (We all need to turn a blind eye to the fact that this is illegal for copyright reasons). If you absolutely must see the film this way you can click here
I’ve already seen the film myself (from a DVD I borrowed from an English friend) and I found it pretty boring. It’s set in the 1960s and is about a group of snobbish British families who mostly work in highly paid jobs who exploit the local Swazis (although the film doesn’t make this clear).
The film was shot in Swaziland and there are some good views of the kingdom. The scenes of the day Swaziland received its independence are worth watching.
Because I’m a fair kind of person, I searched the Internet to find a really positive review of Wah-Wah to share with you.
I failed. But I did find this on a website called Urban Cinefile from Australia
This is a platinum plated cast: Gabriel Byrne is at his best as the decent but troubled, heartbroken alcoholic, while Miranda Richardson cuts loose as his self serving wife.
Emily Watson delivers a remarkable characterisation of Ruby, an American who is like a cat amongst the pigeons of England. Julie Walters and Celia Imre (she often plays Queen Elizabeth II look-alikes) are splendid as very different dames of the colony, and Julian Wadham grates just right as Charles, the stuck up oaf. But none of these are caricatures, which saves the film from a fate worse than death: boredom.
I admire how Grant's writing and direction take Africa for granted (pardon the pun) in the sense that we are spared longing long shots of landscapes and similar signs of awestruck filmmaking. He's telling a story about lives shattered, rebuilt and otherwise traversed, in a passage of time that impacts most heavily on the storyteller: puberty.
Ralph's rescue is partly engineered by an early romance which is neatly and tastefully built in, while the resolution is bitter sweet - enough to make it real, yet uplifting. It's is the real thing, no wah-wah about it.
I wrote last Wednedsay about the award winning documentary Without the King which is doing the rounds of the world’s film festivals. It is also available to buy on DVD. But when I emailed the production company that was offering the DVD for sale on the Internet they told me they didn’t ship to Swaziland.
In 2005, a film called Wah-Wah, which is a fictionalised account of the last days of British rule in Swaziland, came out. The film, directed by Richard E Grant, is the story of his childhood in Swaziland in the1960s.
Wah-Wah, which stars many British actors, has been seen all over the world, but since we don’t have a single cinema here in Swaziland it has not been easy to see in the country of the film’s birth.
This is really a long-winded way of reporting that Wah-Wah is now available to view to anyone with a computer and a decent Internet connection.
Some enterprising person has put the film up on the video share site You Tube. (We all need to turn a blind eye to the fact that this is illegal for copyright reasons). If you absolutely must see the film this way you can click here
I’ve already seen the film myself (from a DVD I borrowed from an English friend) and I found it pretty boring. It’s set in the 1960s and is about a group of snobbish British families who mostly work in highly paid jobs who exploit the local Swazis (although the film doesn’t make this clear).
The film was shot in Swaziland and there are some good views of the kingdom. The scenes of the day Swaziland received its independence are worth watching.
Because I’m a fair kind of person, I searched the Internet to find a really positive review of Wah-Wah to share with you.
I failed. But I did find this on a website called Urban Cinefile from Australia
This is a platinum plated cast: Gabriel Byrne is at his best as the decent but troubled, heartbroken alcoholic, while Miranda Richardson cuts loose as his self serving wife.
Emily Watson delivers a remarkable characterisation of Ruby, an American who is like a cat amongst the pigeons of England. Julie Walters and Celia Imre (she often plays Queen Elizabeth II look-alikes) are splendid as very different dames of the colony, and Julian Wadham grates just right as Charles, the stuck up oaf. But none of these are caricatures, which saves the film from a fate worse than death: boredom.
I admire how Grant's writing and direction take Africa for granted (pardon the pun) in the sense that we are spared longing long shots of landscapes and similar signs of awestruck filmmaking. He's telling a story about lives shattered, rebuilt and otherwise traversed, in a passage of time that impacts most heavily on the storyteller: puberty.
Ralph's rescue is partly engineered by an early romance which is neatly and tastefully built in, while the resolution is bitter sweet - enough to make it real, yet uplifting. It's is the real thing, no wah-wah about it.
Friday, 2 November 2007
REPORTERS HAVE SHORT MEMORIES
Reporters in Swaziland have very short memories.
Yesterday (1 November 2007) both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer reported comments made by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare Njabulo Mabuza who invited the media to help his ministry in its attempt to improve health services in Swaziland.
According to the Observer report, ‘Mabuza said it is only through the co-operation with the media that they can be able to improve the current status quo in the health facilities.’
The Times reported Mabuza wanted the media’s help to publicise initiatives to improve the social welfare of Swazi citizens that the Ministry had underway.
Neither newspaper told us what these ‘initiatives’ actually were.
One ‘initiative’ might be to tackle the problems at the Mbabane Government Hospital. But the media would have difficulty in telling their readers about this because only in June 2007 Minister Mabuza banned health workers from talking to the media (but somehow both the Times and the Observer reports yesterday forgot to remind readers of this).
The ban came after the newspapers ran reports highlighting the impact of a critical drug shortage.
Workers were forbidden to have any type of communication, including interviews and casual or ‘indiscreet’ conversations, whether at clubs, hotels, bars or private parties. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the country's key medical facility, whose problems have been highlighted in the press. These problems were considered by the press to be typical of the wider crisis afflicting the healthcare system.
On 23 June 2007, the Times of Swaziland experienced the effects of the Minister’s censorship order when its photographer, Albert Masango, was denied access to the hospital. Hospital security harassed and pulled Masango out of the premises and carried him out to the gate.
Amid Masango’s protestations, the security personnel stressed that, in accordance with a new ‘law’, permission had to be obtained from either the Minister or his Principal Secretary before the media would be allowed to cover anything inside the hospital.
An official at a health facility in the central town of Manzini was quoted by the IRIN news agency that the regulation barring health personnel from speaking with the media was not new. ‘In fact, it began three ministers ago, but it is now being enforced because of all the stories about deaths in government hospitals.’
Yesterday (1 November 2007) both the Times of Swaziland and the Swazi Observer reported comments made by the Minister of Health and Social Welfare Njabulo Mabuza who invited the media to help his ministry in its attempt to improve health services in Swaziland.
According to the Observer report, ‘Mabuza said it is only through the co-operation with the media that they can be able to improve the current status quo in the health facilities.’
The Times reported Mabuza wanted the media’s help to publicise initiatives to improve the social welfare of Swazi citizens that the Ministry had underway.
Neither newspaper told us what these ‘initiatives’ actually were.
One ‘initiative’ might be to tackle the problems at the Mbabane Government Hospital. But the media would have difficulty in telling their readers about this because only in June 2007 Minister Mabuza banned health workers from talking to the media (but somehow both the Times and the Observer reports yesterday forgot to remind readers of this).
The ban came after the newspapers ran reports highlighting the impact of a critical drug shortage.
Workers were forbidden to have any type of communication, including interviews and casual or ‘indiscreet’ conversations, whether at clubs, hotels, bars or private parties. Journalists were also barred from Mbabane Government Hospital, the country's key medical facility, whose problems have been highlighted in the press. These problems were considered by the press to be typical of the wider crisis afflicting the healthcare system.
On 23 June 2007, the Times of Swaziland experienced the effects of the Minister’s censorship order when its photographer, Albert Masango, was denied access to the hospital. Hospital security harassed and pulled Masango out of the premises and carried him out to the gate.
Amid Masango’s protestations, the security personnel stressed that, in accordance with a new ‘law’, permission had to be obtained from either the Minister or his Principal Secretary before the media would be allowed to cover anything inside the hospital.
An official at a health facility in the central town of Manzini was quoted by the IRIN news agency that the regulation barring health personnel from speaking with the media was not new. ‘In fact, it began three ministers ago, but it is now being enforced because of all the stories about deaths in government hospitals.’
MEDIA AND GOOD GOVERNANCE
Swaziland’s media do not contribute a great deal to the good governance of Swaziland.
This is the main conclusion of my academic research published last week.
The research sets out four research questions: (i) How pluralistic is media ownership? (ii) How independent are the media from government? How representative are the media of different opinions and how accessible are they to different sections of society, including poor and vulnerable groups and political parties? (iv) What are the capabilities of Swazi journalists and where might there be areas for development?
A review of the Swazi press concludes that on any objective standard the newspapers are found wanting but there are a number of mitigating factors. The country is not a democracy and journalists are harassed if they try to write and publish material that offends the king and his government. There is little that can be done about this so long as the king continues to hold absolute powers. The Swazi Constitution signed into law in 2006 does nothing to diminish these powers.
The international community should exert pressure on the kingdom to allow the media proper editorial freedom with legislation to protect and promote the public interest. The public interest should extend beyond the interest of powerful groups to include the poor, powerless and voiceless. It might be that in a kingdom such as Swaziland, the printed press is not the best vehicle to achieve this and instead radio should be extended by dismantling the state controlled SBIS and encouraging the creation of small, community-run stations that are better able to allow for the expression of a range of opinions of public concern.
The research is published in Global Media Journal – African Edition, a new academic journal published by Stellenbosch University. It is available online here.
This is the main conclusion of my academic research published last week.
The research sets out four research questions: (i) How pluralistic is media ownership? (ii) How independent are the media from government? How representative are the media of different opinions and how accessible are they to different sections of society, including poor and vulnerable groups and political parties? (iv) What are the capabilities of Swazi journalists and where might there be areas for development?
A review of the Swazi press concludes that on any objective standard the newspapers are found wanting but there are a number of mitigating factors. The country is not a democracy and journalists are harassed if they try to write and publish material that offends the king and his government. There is little that can be done about this so long as the king continues to hold absolute powers. The Swazi Constitution signed into law in 2006 does nothing to diminish these powers.
The international community should exert pressure on the kingdom to allow the media proper editorial freedom with legislation to protect and promote the public interest. The public interest should extend beyond the interest of powerful groups to include the poor, powerless and voiceless. It might be that in a kingdom such as Swaziland, the printed press is not the best vehicle to achieve this and instead radio should be extended by dismantling the state controlled SBIS and encouraging the creation of small, community-run stations that are better able to allow for the expression of a range of opinions of public concern.
The research is published in Global Media Journal – African Edition, a new academic journal published by Stellenbosch University. It is available online here.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
ACCURACY: DEAD MAN WALKS
There was a bumper crop of apologies for mistakes made published in the Times of Swaziland yesterday (31 October 2007)
In the worst of their mistakes they killed off former Minister of Public Works and Transport, Titus Mlangeni.
As Mark Twain once said, ‘Reports of my death have been exaggerated.’ It was in fact Mlangeni’s wife who had recently passed away.
In another apology the Times gave the wrong name for the recently deceased former Speaker of the House of Assembly. They called him Dlamini when he was in fact a Nsibande.
The ‘newspaper’ scored a hat trick of apologies with this correction, ‘It has been brought to our attention that the article under the heading ‘PM given a week to table report in Parliament’ was incorrect. The MPs voted on the issue and the motion was thrown out.’
I applaud the Times' honesty for apologising for these errors, but the mistakes should not have happened in the first place. All three are the most basic types of errors a reporter can make: getting a name wrong, getting the result of a vote wrong … and killing off a perfectly healthy man.
The result of all this must surely be that readers cannot trust what they see in the Times. How can we know that even the most basic of information published in the newspaper is accurate?
This isn’t the first time the Times has got it wrong and the Times is not the only newspaper to publish inaccurate stories. Who can forget the grovelling apology the Times Sunday had to make after it incorrectly reported 20,000 people died while being treated as patients at Mbabane Government Hospital in 2006?
Then there was the time the Swazi Observer had to apologise to the principal of Waterford Kamhlaba private school for reporting incorrectly that pupils had been hospitalised after taking illegal drugs.
Article one of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Ethics states that the duty of every journalist is to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend the truth. It goes on to state that a journalist should make adequate inquiries, do cross checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information.
Getting things right is important because readers must feel that they can trust their newspapers (or other news media). The main way they do this by having confidence that the reports and articles in the newspapers are accurate. Large numbers of people read and trust newspapers. The SNAJ Code of Ethics recognises that journalists have a duty not to mislead the public.
There have been many academic studies into the relationship between media accuracy and credibility. Put simply, the more errors there are in an article, the less credible is the news story. Errors not only diminished respect for the newspaper but also tarnish the media’s working relationships with the sources relied upon for information. If sources of news cannot trust the newspaper to get it right, they are unlikely to willingly work with that newspaper in the future.
Editors of newspapers should make sure that reporters check their facts and do not make mistakes. One newspaper, the Sunday Times in Johannesburg, has a checklist that reporters and editors are asked to complete for each report. The checklist covers a number of areas, including basic information such as the names and ages etc., of people included in the report. It also includes questions about fairness, such as whether all people parties involved in the story have been contacted.
The checklist can be seen here
In the worst of their mistakes they killed off former Minister of Public Works and Transport, Titus Mlangeni.
As Mark Twain once said, ‘Reports of my death have been exaggerated.’ It was in fact Mlangeni’s wife who had recently passed away.
In another apology the Times gave the wrong name for the recently deceased former Speaker of the House of Assembly. They called him Dlamini when he was in fact a Nsibande.
The ‘newspaper’ scored a hat trick of apologies with this correction, ‘It has been brought to our attention that the article under the heading ‘PM given a week to table report in Parliament’ was incorrect. The MPs voted on the issue and the motion was thrown out.’
I applaud the Times' honesty for apologising for these errors, but the mistakes should not have happened in the first place. All three are the most basic types of errors a reporter can make: getting a name wrong, getting the result of a vote wrong … and killing off a perfectly healthy man.
The result of all this must surely be that readers cannot trust what they see in the Times. How can we know that even the most basic of information published in the newspaper is accurate?
This isn’t the first time the Times has got it wrong and the Times is not the only newspaper to publish inaccurate stories. Who can forget the grovelling apology the Times Sunday had to make after it incorrectly reported 20,000 people died while being treated as patients at Mbabane Government Hospital in 2006?
Then there was the time the Swazi Observer had to apologise to the principal of Waterford Kamhlaba private school for reporting incorrectly that pupils had been hospitalised after taking illegal drugs.
Article one of the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) Code of Ethics states that the duty of every journalist is to write and report, adhere to and faithfully defend the truth. It goes on to state that a journalist should make adequate inquiries, do cross checking of facts in order to provide the public with unbiased, accurate, balanced and comprehensive information.
Getting things right is important because readers must feel that they can trust their newspapers (or other news media). The main way they do this by having confidence that the reports and articles in the newspapers are accurate. Large numbers of people read and trust newspapers. The SNAJ Code of Ethics recognises that journalists have a duty not to mislead the public.
There have been many academic studies into the relationship between media accuracy and credibility. Put simply, the more errors there are in an article, the less credible is the news story. Errors not only diminished respect for the newspaper but also tarnish the media’s working relationships with the sources relied upon for information. If sources of news cannot trust the newspaper to get it right, they are unlikely to willingly work with that newspaper in the future.
Editors of newspapers should make sure that reporters check their facts and do not make mistakes. One newspaper, the Sunday Times in Johannesburg, has a checklist that reporters and editors are asked to complete for each report. The checklist covers a number of areas, including basic information such as the names and ages etc., of people included in the report. It also includes questions about fairness, such as whether all people parties involved in the story have been contacted.
The checklist can be seen here
Wednesday, 31 October 2007
SWAZILAND WITHOUT THE KING
There was a strange little news report tucked away on page ten of the Times of Swaziland yesterday (30 October 2007).
It concerned a documentary film called Without The King about King Mswati III that had won the jury prize at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival.
According to the report, the documentary ‘is described as a portrait of a nation in transition and poised to fight for a better life.’
Well, that’s one way to describe it. Readers of this blog with long memories may recall that the Hot Docs prize was awarded in April of this year (six months ago) so why the Times suddenly thinks now is the time to bring this momentous news to the public’s attention I don’t know.
The Times is also dishonest about the film’s contents. As I wrote previously the Hot Docs Festival described the documentary like this:
Swaziland is Africa's last absolute monarchy and a nation at a dangerous crossroads. The people demand democracy and an end to starvation, while the king insists on banning political parties. The people want relief from a 43 per cent AIDS/HIV infection rate, the world's highest, while the king prices a fleet of luxury limousines. Against this backdrop of blatant inequality, we meet the royal family: Princess Sikhanyiso, a teenage rapper and eldest child; Queen LaMbikiza, a headstrong outsider and first of 12 wives; and King Mswati III, a distant figure out of touch with his home and country. Unprecedented access to the royals and villagers witnesses startling parallel rebellions. Terrorism and civil unrest are on the rise in the impoverished townships, where rebels will not be assuaged by the king's hollow constitutional offering, while inside the palace, an unlikely source of change makes her own plans and discoveries. The camera captures the birth of a nation's revolution, a struggle to reconcile First and Third World orders and a princess' burgeoning self-awareness in this most inspiring exposé.
The Times reports that King Mswati III’s Private Secretary Sam Mkhombe ‘preferred not to comment on the film when called on Friday.’
You can see a two-minute trailer for the film on You Tube here
It concerned a documentary film called Without The King about King Mswati III that had won the jury prize at the Hot Docs Canadian International Documentary Festival.
According to the report, the documentary ‘is described as a portrait of a nation in transition and poised to fight for a better life.’
Well, that’s one way to describe it. Readers of this blog with long memories may recall that the Hot Docs prize was awarded in April of this year (six months ago) so why the Times suddenly thinks now is the time to bring this momentous news to the public’s attention I don’t know.
The Times is also dishonest about the film’s contents. As I wrote previously the Hot Docs Festival described the documentary like this:
Swaziland is Africa's last absolute monarchy and a nation at a dangerous crossroads. The people demand democracy and an end to starvation, while the king insists on banning political parties. The people want relief from a 43 per cent AIDS/HIV infection rate, the world's highest, while the king prices a fleet of luxury limousines. Against this backdrop of blatant inequality, we meet the royal family: Princess Sikhanyiso, a teenage rapper and eldest child; Queen LaMbikiza, a headstrong outsider and first of 12 wives; and King Mswati III, a distant figure out of touch with his home and country. Unprecedented access to the royals and villagers witnesses startling parallel rebellions. Terrorism and civil unrest are on the rise in the impoverished townships, where rebels will not be assuaged by the king's hollow constitutional offering, while inside the palace, an unlikely source of change makes her own plans and discoveries. The camera captures the birth of a nation's revolution, a struggle to reconcile First and Third World orders and a princess' burgeoning self-awareness in this most inspiring exposé.
The Times reports that King Mswati III’s Private Secretary Sam Mkhombe ‘preferred not to comment on the film when called on Friday.’
You can see a two-minute trailer for the film on You Tube here
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
PUTTING STRIKE BAN INTO CONTEXT
I have criticised the Swazi news media for their inability to put events into context. When yet another kombi crashes because its brakes fail, no reporter thinks to ask questions about the poor maintenance of public service vehicles.
So here I offer you a case study on how it can be done. This report is from the Mail and Guardian newspaper, in South Africa.
It is headlined ‘Swaziland’s constitutional crisis’ and it takes as its starting point a court decision in Swaziland last week to ban a strike by civil servants.
This decision was widely reported in the Swazi media but what they all failed to do was to tell their readers the significance of the decision.
The Mail and Guardian report reminds readers of the International Monetary Fund’s demands that Swaziland reduces the number of jobs in the civil service. The report then talks about how the court decision is ‘the latest government clampdown on civil society’ and details some of the others that have happened recently.
The report then details how the Swazi police have been mobilised to stop trade unionists meeting.
Activists are interviewed and one puts the present court decision in a historical context.
The other side of the case is then put by a senior Swazi attorney.
The report is reproduced below. You can find it online here
The Swazi government struck another blow to the labour movement this week when it won a court order to halt a national public-servants’ strike scheduled for Wednesday.
The strike was intended to demonstrate support for public-sector unions, which are in negotiations with government over work conditions in the sector and the contentious issue of retrenchments.
The Swazi government is bowing to International Monetary Fund (IMF) demands to reduce public sector expenditure, which the lending organisation insists is too high.
Musa Hhlope, an activist with the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO), said the 20 000-strong public service could be reduced by 10% to 20% and this would deal a severe blow to the population. He also expressed concern that “the cuts will come at the bottom of the tree”.
This week’s court order against the strike is the latest government clampdown on civil society. Last week the security forces broke up a meeting convened by the Royal Swazi Police Service, a newly formed union for police officers, which the government refuses to register.
The SCCCO said: “These actions by the police at the instigation of government and other structures are trampling underfoot the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
These rights are enshrined not only in the constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland, but also in the international treaties on human rights that the government has ratified.”
The leader of the Royal Swazi Police Service, Buhle Dlamini, who registered the union at the end of last year, was sacked about three months ago for forming the trade union.
He told the Mail & Guardian that he was man-handled by the police when they broke up the meeting. “I was throttled by a senior police officer,” he said. “This is the second time they have blocked a planned meeting.”
Vincent Ncongwane, the secretary general of the Swaziland Federation of Labour, also criticised the rough way in which police dispersed the gathering. He argued there was no threat that the meeting, which took place on church premises, would have become unruly.
Another activist, who refused to be identified, said that the crackdowns were underpinned by a 1973 royal decree requiring police permission for meetings that might be deemed to be of a political nature, but that this violated the spirit of the constitution. “There is a freedom of assembly [in the new constitution] unless there is fear that peace and order might be breached,” the activist said.
Dlamini also questioned why it had taken six months for the court to deliver a judgement on the union’s urgent application challenging the government order preventing its registration. “It doesn’t matter what the king says, what matters is what the constitution says,” Dlamini said.
Hlophe speculated that the delay was “indicative of either conspiracy or incompetence, neither of which is exactly desirable in a judiciary”. He said: “There are certain judges who have shown extreme moral courage and probity in the face of almost overwhelming political and cultural pressure from the government, but it is by no means all of them.”
However, a senior Swazi attorney, who preferred to remain anonymous, defended the courts: “The courts are pretty independent. They will not shirk from hearing any matter. Perhaps the delay has been caused by an administrative error.” He said that, as a rule, “political cases are not normally taken as urgent”.
Such crackdowns have become increasingly frequent in Swaziland. An international youth meeting, with participants from the Southern African Youth Movement, Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands, that was scheduled for October 10 was cancelled when the government learned that Jan Sithole, the secretary general of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions, was to address the group.
Hlophe said the government made it clear to the organisers of the meeting that if it was to go ahead they had to apologise for not inviting government officials, allow police officers to monitor and record the proceedings and drop Sithole as a guest speaker.
Government spokesperson Percy Simelane dismissed this as a lie and an attempt by some within civil society to “blacklist” the government.
He maintained the government did nothing to prevent the meeting from being held.
He argued that when there was a meeting with participants from abroad the “cabinet has to know” and “no one in government knew of this”. He declined to comment on the police union case as it was “sub judice” and “only the courts can decide” on such an issue. Simelane did, however, explain why the meeting had been disrupted in the first place.
He said the conveners of the meeting had not followed procedure. “There are certain times that you have to inform the police for security reasons.” The fact that those gathered were police officers was immaterial as “you never know what might happen”.
So here I offer you a case study on how it can be done. This report is from the Mail and Guardian newspaper, in South Africa.
It is headlined ‘Swaziland’s constitutional crisis’ and it takes as its starting point a court decision in Swaziland last week to ban a strike by civil servants.
This decision was widely reported in the Swazi media but what they all failed to do was to tell their readers the significance of the decision.
The Mail and Guardian report reminds readers of the International Monetary Fund’s demands that Swaziland reduces the number of jobs in the civil service. The report then talks about how the court decision is ‘the latest government clampdown on civil society’ and details some of the others that have happened recently.
The report then details how the Swazi police have been mobilised to stop trade unionists meeting.
Activists are interviewed and one puts the present court decision in a historical context.
The other side of the case is then put by a senior Swazi attorney.
The report is reproduced below. You can find it online here
The Swazi government struck another blow to the labour movement this week when it won a court order to halt a national public-servants’ strike scheduled for Wednesday.
The strike was intended to demonstrate support for public-sector unions, which are in negotiations with government over work conditions in the sector and the contentious issue of retrenchments.
The Swazi government is bowing to International Monetary Fund (IMF) demands to reduce public sector expenditure, which the lending organisation insists is too high.
Musa Hhlope, an activist with the Swaziland Coalition of Concerned Civic Organisations (SCCCO), said the 20 000-strong public service could be reduced by 10% to 20% and this would deal a severe blow to the population. He also expressed concern that “the cuts will come at the bottom of the tree”.
This week’s court order against the strike is the latest government clampdown on civil society. Last week the security forces broke up a meeting convened by the Royal Swazi Police Service, a newly formed union for police officers, which the government refuses to register.
The SCCCO said: “These actions by the police at the instigation of government and other structures are trampling underfoot the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.
These rights are enshrined not only in the constitution of the Kingdom of Swaziland, but also in the international treaties on human rights that the government has ratified.”
The leader of the Royal Swazi Police Service, Buhle Dlamini, who registered the union at the end of last year, was sacked about three months ago for forming the trade union.
He told the Mail & Guardian that he was man-handled by the police when they broke up the meeting. “I was throttled by a senior police officer,” he said. “This is the second time they have blocked a planned meeting.”
Vincent Ncongwane, the secretary general of the Swaziland Federation of Labour, also criticised the rough way in which police dispersed the gathering. He argued there was no threat that the meeting, which took place on church premises, would have become unruly.
Another activist, who refused to be identified, said that the crackdowns were underpinned by a 1973 royal decree requiring police permission for meetings that might be deemed to be of a political nature, but that this violated the spirit of the constitution. “There is a freedom of assembly [in the new constitution] unless there is fear that peace and order might be breached,” the activist said.
Dlamini also questioned why it had taken six months for the court to deliver a judgement on the union’s urgent application challenging the government order preventing its registration. “It doesn’t matter what the king says, what matters is what the constitution says,” Dlamini said.
Hlophe speculated that the delay was “indicative of either conspiracy or incompetence, neither of which is exactly desirable in a judiciary”. He said: “There are certain judges who have shown extreme moral courage and probity in the face of almost overwhelming political and cultural pressure from the government, but it is by no means all of them.”
However, a senior Swazi attorney, who preferred to remain anonymous, defended the courts: “The courts are pretty independent. They will not shirk from hearing any matter. Perhaps the delay has been caused by an administrative error.” He said that, as a rule, “political cases are not normally taken as urgent”.
Such crackdowns have become increasingly frequent in Swaziland. An international youth meeting, with participants from the Southern African Youth Movement, Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands, that was scheduled for October 10 was cancelled when the government learned that Jan Sithole, the secretary general of the Swaziland Federation of Trade Unions, was to address the group.
Hlophe said the government made it clear to the organisers of the meeting that if it was to go ahead they had to apologise for not inviting government officials, allow police officers to monitor and record the proceedings and drop Sithole as a guest speaker.
Government spokesperson Percy Simelane dismissed this as a lie and an attempt by some within civil society to “blacklist” the government.
He maintained the government did nothing to prevent the meeting from being held.
He argued that when there was a meeting with participants from abroad the “cabinet has to know” and “no one in government knew of this”. He declined to comment on the police union case as it was “sub judice” and “only the courts can decide” on such an issue. Simelane did, however, explain why the meeting had been disrupted in the first place.
He said the conveners of the meeting had not followed procedure. “There are certain times that you have to inform the police for security reasons.” The fact that those gathered were police officers was immaterial as “you never know what might happen”.
Monday, 29 October 2007
CRIME SCARE AT THE ‘OBSERVER’
Have the good folk at the Swazi Observer taken leave of their senses?If the adverts (see above) they have been running about crime lately are anything to go by the barricades are about to go up at the newspaper’s offices and guns are being distributed to all staff.
An exaggeration? Maybe. But not as exaggerated as the adverts.
The adverts in the Observer want us to believe that ‘Violent criminals have taken over our homes, families and businesses with impunity.’ Really? And where is the evidence for this? Police statistics on crime suggest that all criminal activity remains more or less steady with neither large increases nor large decreases in crime in Swaziland.
But that doesn’t matter to the Observer which implores, ‘Join us to crackdown on all sorts of criminal activity and those who shelter thugs.’
It then asks readers to write in ‘to tell us your story of crime and how you survived.’ Then it wants to know, ‘Should police shoot to kill?’
The advert appeared on 16 October 2007 and promised to publish responses from readers the following Friday. On that day there was only one reader’s letter and even that was unsigned.
Not much of a response to a major campaign to crackdown on criminals.
Undeterred the following Monday they tried again. This time there were five SMS messages and two letters. None of these had the full name of the senders, so we can’t be sure that they are genuine.
One SMS was completely bonkers, ‘Police please kill everyone from aspiring, attempting, suspect, allegedly, conflicts of armed robbery.’ I have copied out the SMS in full. I don’t understand it. Do you?
Is this the best the Observer can do in its campaign? Well, actually yes. The following day they put the advert in again and promised more readers’ responses the next Friday (26 October 2007). But came the day, there were none. It couldn’t have been that they were left out because there wasn’t enough space. News must have been slow that day. In the same day’s edition a whole page was given over to the Observer’s new office in Manzini and another page went to a bakery that is selling ‘healthy’ bread.
Why haven’t people responded to the sensationalism of the Observer? There must be at least two parts to the answer. The first is that readers are far more sensible than the Observer gives them credit for. The second is (I suspect) very few people read the paper and those that do, don’t take it at all seriously.
The journalists at the Observer might like to have a look at Article 18 of the Swaziland National Association of Journalist’s Code of Ethics. It talks about sensationalism and headlines. ‘Newspaper headlines shall be fully warranted by contents of the articles they announce.’ To this we might add ‘adverts for newspaper campaigns should be fully warranted by the facts’.
Friday, 26 October 2007
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION FIGHT
The Times of Swaziland is fighting the kingdom’s government to find out how much it cost the taxpayer to send the Prime Minister on an all expenses trip to the Bahamas.
The Prime Minister went on a trip to receive an award. But before he left nobody, not even the PM himself, knew what the award was for.
So, off the PM went with his wife for a luxury holiday. Well, we assume it was a luxury, no-expenses-spared, trip because he is the PM after all. But the problem is, as the Times explained in an editorial on Tuesday (23 October 2007), we cannot be told how much the trip cost because this information is ‘classified’.
This is not the only setback the Times has had in its pursuit of information on behalf of its readers.
The Times editorial explains, ‘For months now we have been trying, without success, to get the list of winners for government tenders.
‘The tender board has always been very cooperative in doing the hard part, that of providing us with the tender openings, inclusive of prices. But when it comes to giving us only one company name, suddenly everybody is too engaged to attend to us.
‘Why? Why would the board want us to believe that this is a highly-guarded secret?’
The answer is obvious, of course. Swaziland is not a democracy and those in ruling positions can do what they like. That’s why the PM goes half way across the world to the Bahamas to collect an award he knew nothing about. And he does this at the Swazi taxpayers’ expense because he knows he can get away with it.
It’s the same with the tenders. We know that corruption is rife in Swaziland and it is estimated that it is costing ordinary honest Swazi people E40 million (about 6 million US dollars) each and every month.
So will we ever be able to find out what the Swazi Government is spending the Swazi people’s money on?
Earlier this year Parliament issued a draft bill on freedom of information. The first objective of this bill is to ‘Encourage a culture of openness, transparency and accountability in public bodies by providing for access to information held by these bodies in order to enable every citizen to fully exercise and protect their constitutional right of freedom of expression.’
If such a bill was in place now and people in government respected the bill, the Times could get its information and all of us would be able to find out a lot more about where the money government is entrusted with by the Swazi people is going.
But, like the Swaziland Constitution (which allows freedom of assembly but bans political parties or public meetings unless the local chief agrees) even if the Freedom of Information bill becomes law, the ruling elite will simply ignore it and the ordinary Swazi can go whistle for the information.
The Prime Minister went on a trip to receive an award. But before he left nobody, not even the PM himself, knew what the award was for.
So, off the PM went with his wife for a luxury holiday. Well, we assume it was a luxury, no-expenses-spared, trip because he is the PM after all. But the problem is, as the Times explained in an editorial on Tuesday (23 October 2007), we cannot be told how much the trip cost because this information is ‘classified’.
This is not the only setback the Times has had in its pursuit of information on behalf of its readers.
The Times editorial explains, ‘For months now we have been trying, without success, to get the list of winners for government tenders.
‘The tender board has always been very cooperative in doing the hard part, that of providing us with the tender openings, inclusive of prices. But when it comes to giving us only one company name, suddenly everybody is too engaged to attend to us.
‘Why? Why would the board want us to believe that this is a highly-guarded secret?’
The answer is obvious, of course. Swaziland is not a democracy and those in ruling positions can do what they like. That’s why the PM goes half way across the world to the Bahamas to collect an award he knew nothing about. And he does this at the Swazi taxpayers’ expense because he knows he can get away with it.
It’s the same with the tenders. We know that corruption is rife in Swaziland and it is estimated that it is costing ordinary honest Swazi people E40 million (about 6 million US dollars) each and every month.
So will we ever be able to find out what the Swazi Government is spending the Swazi people’s money on?
Earlier this year Parliament issued a draft bill on freedom of information. The first objective of this bill is to ‘Encourage a culture of openness, transparency and accountability in public bodies by providing for access to information held by these bodies in order to enable every citizen to fully exercise and protect their constitutional right of freedom of expression.’
If such a bill was in place now and people in government respected the bill, the Times could get its information and all of us would be able to find out a lot more about where the money government is entrusted with by the Swazi people is going.
But, like the Swaziland Constitution (which allows freedom of assembly but bans political parties or public meetings unless the local chief agrees) even if the Freedom of Information bill becomes law, the ruling elite will simply ignore it and the ordinary Swazi can go whistle for the information.
Thursday, 25 October 2007
WILL CONSTITUTION PROTECT ‘TIMES’?
Is the Times of Swaziland looking for a fight with the House of Assembly?
Hot on the heels of the acquittal on contempt of Parliament charges laid on the Times Sunday editor, comes another rip roaring comment column.
This time it is Vusi Sibisi, writing in the Times on Tuesday (23 October 2007).
He was reacting to the acquittal of Mbongeni Mbingo, who had written a column in his newspaper criticizing the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Prince Guduza.
Here’s what Sibisi had to say on the matter, ‘The posture once again raises the question of the wisdom of electing a prince to lead the House of Assembly, given that he is a member of the ruling family. These are all the reasons – coupled with the fact that they are not elected but appointed to Parliament – why a member of the royal family should never have been elected to lead the House of Assembly.’
Sibisi also calls members of the house of assembly ‘sycophants’, ‘nauseatingly eager to please the powers that be’ and ‘knee bending’.
This isn’t too different from the words used by Mbongeni Mbingo in his own article. He said, ‘Prince Guduza must be ashamed of himself’, and called MPs ‘foolish’. Mbingo also said the prince ‘is confirming people’s feelings that because of his royalty status, he is therefore to safeguard that interest and not that of the people.’
Mbingo was taken before a House of Assembly Select Committee on a charge of contempt. He was acquitted by the committee because, the committee said, he was expressing a personal opinion and he was protected by the Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression.
Although the committee felt obliged to set Mbingo free, it did put the boot into the media more generally by recommending that all journalists who report on Parliament should be accredited (presumably by Parliament itself) and calling for the anti-democratic Media Council Bill to be resurrected.
We must wait and see if Sibisi’s article attracts the attention of a House of Assembly Select Committee. If journalists truly are protected by the Constitution, we should expect a deafening silence on the matter.
Hot on the heels of the acquittal on contempt of Parliament charges laid on the Times Sunday editor, comes another rip roaring comment column.
This time it is Vusi Sibisi, writing in the Times on Tuesday (23 October 2007).
He was reacting to the acquittal of Mbongeni Mbingo, who had written a column in his newspaper criticizing the Speaker of the House of Assembly, Prince Guduza.
Here’s what Sibisi had to say on the matter, ‘The posture once again raises the question of the wisdom of electing a prince to lead the House of Assembly, given that he is a member of the ruling family. These are all the reasons – coupled with the fact that they are not elected but appointed to Parliament – why a member of the royal family should never have been elected to lead the House of Assembly.’
Sibisi also calls members of the house of assembly ‘sycophants’, ‘nauseatingly eager to please the powers that be’ and ‘knee bending’.
This isn’t too different from the words used by Mbongeni Mbingo in his own article. He said, ‘Prince Guduza must be ashamed of himself’, and called MPs ‘foolish’. Mbingo also said the prince ‘is confirming people’s feelings that because of his royalty status, he is therefore to safeguard that interest and not that of the people.’
Mbingo was taken before a House of Assembly Select Committee on a charge of contempt. He was acquitted by the committee because, the committee said, he was expressing a personal opinion and he was protected by the Constitution which guarantees freedom of expression.
Although the committee felt obliged to set Mbingo free, it did put the boot into the media more generally by recommending that all journalists who report on Parliament should be accredited (presumably by Parliament itself) and calling for the anti-democratic Media Council Bill to be resurrected.
We must wait and see if Sibisi’s article attracts the attention of a House of Assembly Select Committee. If journalists truly are protected by the Constitution, we should expect a deafening silence on the matter.
Wednesday, 24 October 2007
'STARVING' SWAZIS EAT WEEDS
Many people in Swaziland are so hungry that they have to eat weeds to survive.
This is another news report you won’t have read in the Swazi media.
As I wrote before if you really want to know what is going on in the kingdom of Swaziland don’t bother with the local media.
The following news report was released by the IRIN and sent across the world. You can read the full report here
This is another news report you won’t have read in the Swazi media.
As I wrote before if you really want to know what is going on in the kingdom of Swaziland don’t bother with the local media.
The following news report was released by the IRIN and sent across the world. You can read the full report here
While aid agencies and the Swazi government scramble to keep a major catastrophe at bay, the mounting food crisis means more and more Swazis can only cope by drastically scaling down food intake and scouring the fields for edible weeds.
About 40 percent of Swaziland's one million people are facing acute food and water shortages. For most, coping with the food scarcity means cutting back on depleted consumption, already endangering the health of thousands according to Comparisons of Coping Mechanisms 2006/2007, a recently released joint annual study by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP).
‘Over 50 percent of adults are eating less. Over 60 percent are limiting or reducing meal portions. Over 30 percent of the population is skipping meals entirely,’ the report said. ‘Those not eating for an entire day or consuming a green [wild] crop, grew - over 30 percent of Swazis are consuming more than the usual amount of wild foods.’
Samantha Simelane, a widow with two daughters, is one of them, ‘The children cry that their bellies are hurting them; I feel so sorry for them," she said. "I am famished myself, so I feel weak most times, but I tell my children if we eat what little we have instead of stretching it out, we will surely starve at some point.’
Tuesday, 23 October 2007
REPORTERS, PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES
I often wonder whether journalists in Swaziland ever read the newspapers that they write for.
They don’t seem to have any understanding of what’s going on around them.
There was a perfect example of what I mean in yesterday’s Times of Swaziland (22 October 2007).
In a report headlined ‘Preserving culture key to political stability’ the Times reported the Swaziland Prime Minister Absalom Themba Dlamini saying that ‘the peace and tranquillity the country was enjoying’ was as a result of Swazi culture.
What ‘peace’ and what ‘tranquillity’?
The Times went on to report the Prime Minister saying that Swaziland had been able to solve some of its social problems by invoking cultural practices.
I’m not surprised that the Prime Minister said such nonsense about peace and tranquillity, because he is meant to be the leader of the country and to admit that the kingdom is on its knees (to quote Derek von Wissell) would be to admit to his own and his government’s failure.
But why does the Times let him get away with it?
Take a look at the headlines on other pages of the same edition of the Times and see if this seems like a kingdom in peace and tranquillity.
‘Taxi driver robbed, tied to tree’: Page 2.
‘Bodies pile up at Hlathikhula Hospital’: Page 3.
‘Fight divides family’: Page 4
‘Angry residents want Prince Tikhntele out’: Page 5
‘Zionist stabs church member to death’: Page 5.
‘Solider who whipped sons arrested’: Page 7.
‘Stray lunatics sleep in private wards’: Page 8.
‘Retrenchments hurt savings societies’: Page 10.
‘Three taxi men arrested for poaching at Mkhaya’: Page 12.
‘Two arrested after shooting at Asian’s gate’: Page 13.
‘Asians were assaulted, robbed four suits’: Page 13.
‘Parents warned: Violent homes breeding violent children’: Page 23.
‘Drugs will crush your dreams, St Mark’s pupils warned’: Page 23.
‘Unemployment rate makes Swazis leave for SA’: Page 23.
‘E900 000 dagga destroyed at Herefords’: Page 26.
Maybe the most telling headline of all was this one that was on a comment piece by MP Mfomfo Nkhambule in which he criticised the Prime Minister who had said the way to deal with the HIV AIDS crisis was to pray to God.
‘The Titanic is sinking. Those in authority have run out of ideas’: Page 33.
They don’t seem to have any understanding of what’s going on around them.
There was a perfect example of what I mean in yesterday’s Times of Swaziland (22 October 2007).
In a report headlined ‘Preserving culture key to political stability’ the Times reported the Swaziland Prime Minister Absalom Themba Dlamini saying that ‘the peace and tranquillity the country was enjoying’ was as a result of Swazi culture.
What ‘peace’ and what ‘tranquillity’?
The Times went on to report the Prime Minister saying that Swaziland had been able to solve some of its social problems by invoking cultural practices.
I’m not surprised that the Prime Minister said such nonsense about peace and tranquillity, because he is meant to be the leader of the country and to admit that the kingdom is on its knees (to quote Derek von Wissell) would be to admit to his own and his government’s failure.
But why does the Times let him get away with it?
Take a look at the headlines on other pages of the same edition of the Times and see if this seems like a kingdom in peace and tranquillity.
‘Taxi driver robbed, tied to tree’: Page 2.
‘Bodies pile up at Hlathikhula Hospital’: Page 3.
‘Fight divides family’: Page 4
‘Angry residents want Prince Tikhntele out’: Page 5
‘Zionist stabs church member to death’: Page 5.
‘Solider who whipped sons arrested’: Page 7.
‘Stray lunatics sleep in private wards’: Page 8.
‘Retrenchments hurt savings societies’: Page 10.
‘Three taxi men arrested for poaching at Mkhaya’: Page 12.
‘Two arrested after shooting at Asian’s gate’: Page 13.
‘Asians were assaulted, robbed four suits’: Page 13.
‘Parents warned: Violent homes breeding violent children’: Page 23.
‘Drugs will crush your dreams, St Mark’s pupils warned’: Page 23.
‘Unemployment rate makes Swazis leave for SA’: Page 23.
‘E900 000 dagga destroyed at Herefords’: Page 26.
Maybe the most telling headline of all was this one that was on a comment piece by MP Mfomfo Nkhambule in which he criticised the Prime Minister who had said the way to deal with the HIV AIDS crisis was to pray to God.
‘The Titanic is sinking. Those in authority have run out of ideas’: Page 33.
Monday, 22 October 2007
READ ALL ABOUT KING MSWATI III
In Swaziland it is almost impossible to turn on the television news or listen in to a radio bulletin without hearing some ‘news’ about King Mswati III.
I stopped listening to the English language service of Radio Swaziland a long time ago because it seemed to me that every news bulletin was headed by the announcer saying, ‘His Majesty King Mswati III’. This was then followed by a report on some mundane event in the day of the king’s life. As often as not it was about some official function or other he had attended. Or some foreign dignitary who was on a trip to Swaziland had paid a courtesy call on the king.
The newspapers are not much better in this regard. It was once said that it was the policy of the Swazi Observer to run a story about the king on the front page every day, no matter what. The Observer doesn’t do that now but it does publish more pictures of the king than any other newspaper in Swaziland.
There is often no ‘news’ value in the report. Every time the king flies out of the kingdom (and he does it a lot) we get at least a page of pictures of people lined up at the airport to send him on his way. Then when he returns we get it all over again.
I was reminded of this coverage this week when quite by accident I stumbled across an entire website devoted to King Mswati III.
I can’t tell you much about it because the author of the site is the shy type and hasn’t given any details about him or herself. The site is mainly a collection of news articles about the king. Although the site has only been up since the end of September 2007, there are already more than fifty (50) items on it.
So, if you can’t get enough of the king from the Swazi media go visit ‘King Mswati here
I stopped listening to the English language service of Radio Swaziland a long time ago because it seemed to me that every news bulletin was headed by the announcer saying, ‘His Majesty King Mswati III’. This was then followed by a report on some mundane event in the day of the king’s life. As often as not it was about some official function or other he had attended. Or some foreign dignitary who was on a trip to Swaziland had paid a courtesy call on the king.
The newspapers are not much better in this regard. It was once said that it was the policy of the Swazi Observer to run a story about the king on the front page every day, no matter what. The Observer doesn’t do that now but it does publish more pictures of the king than any other newspaper in Swaziland.
There is often no ‘news’ value in the report. Every time the king flies out of the kingdom (and he does it a lot) we get at least a page of pictures of people lined up at the airport to send him on his way. Then when he returns we get it all over again.
I was reminded of this coverage this week when quite by accident I stumbled across an entire website devoted to King Mswati III.
I can’t tell you much about it because the author of the site is the shy type and hasn’t given any details about him or herself. The site is mainly a collection of news articles about the king. Although the site has only been up since the end of September 2007, there are already more than fifty (50) items on it.
So, if you can’t get enough of the king from the Swazi media go visit ‘King Mswati here
Friday, 19 October 2007
SWAZILAND IN GOVERNANCE DENIAL
Why is the Swaziland Government Press Secretary Percy Simelane in denial about the Mo Ibrahim Foundation and its recent report that Swaziland falls below Zimbabwe in an analysis of good governance in sub-Saharan Africa?
And why is the Times of Swaziland allowing him to get away with claiming that Mo Ibrahim is some kind of fly by night organisation that doesn’t do its homework.
For those new to this story, Simelane was reported in the Times yesterday (18 October 2007) saying the Mo Ibrahim Foundation ‘never conducted a study of the country’.
The Times goes on to report, ‘Simelane said their investigations had revealed that the foundation had never conducted a single study on the country but merely depended upon information supplied to it by various individuals.’
Then, in what I can only describe as a racial slur, the Times reports the Press Secretary saying, ‘We also discovered that the person behind the organisation (Mo Ibrahim) is a Sudanese national.’
These are the facts that the Times wants to ignore. Mo Ibrahim is a world respected foundation whose supporters include Nelson Mandela; Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General; President Bill Clinton, former US President and José Barroso, president, European Commission among others.
So, I’m afraid Simelane has got it horribly wrong. It would have taken the Times of Swaziland five minutes to check to see whether he was telling the truth about how Mo Ibrahim did its research (that’s how long it took me).
Mo Ibrahim breaks down its research into countries into five categories. They are Safety and Security; Rule of Law, Transparency and Corruption; Participation and Human Rights; Sustainable Economic Development and Human Development.
To give you an example of how thorough the foundation is, Mo Ibrahim then breaks down the ‘human development’ category into three sub-sections: national poverty results, health outcomes, and educational opportunity.
Let me illustrate how one part of ‘human development’, the analysis of health outcomes, is done. Eleven sources of information are used, as follows:
1. Life expectancy at birth, expressed in years, collected by the WDI, based on various sources, including census reports and data from national statistical offices and the UN Population Division’s World Population Prospects.
2. Infant mortality per 1000 live births, based on WDI estimates of data from the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and World Bank sources.
3. Maternal mortality per 100,000 live births. Data are from the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Indicators, which draws on data from WHO and UNICEF.
4. Undernourishment (percentage of the population whose food intake is below the minimum dietary energy requirements), as determined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and compiled in the WDI.
5. Percentage of children (aged 12-23 months) immunized against measles, according to the WHO and UNICEF, as reported in the WDI.
6. Percentage of children (aged 12-23 months) immunized against diptheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus (DPT), according to the WHO and UNICEF, as reported in the WDI.
7. Percentage of people (aged 15-49 years) living with HIV, from the MDG Indicators.
8. Estimated number of new TB cases (incidence) per 100,000 people, from the WHO’s Global Tuberculosis Control Report, as reported in the WDI.
9. Access to qualified physicians: density of physicians per 1000 people, from the WHO.
10. Access to trained nurses: density of nurses per 1000 people, from the WHO.
11. Percentage of the population with access to potable water, from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation.
Remember that these 11 sources of information make up one third of one fifth of the overall analysis of Swaziland. It is difficult to see how more thorough the foundation could be in collecting its information.
Simelane and the Times can rubbish the Mo Ibrahim Foundation all they want. But suggesting the foundation is dishonest simply won’t wash. Simelane and the Times are the dishonest ones.
Governance in Swaziland is appalling. It’s a fact and unless we all recognise this and mobilise to fight it nothing will change.
The Times reports Simelane saying that ‘the government was still going to issue a comprehensive statement in response to the “findings” attributed to the organisation.’
Let’s hope that next time this ‘comprehensive’ statement contains some truth. The statement from Simelane as published in the Times does not.
And why is the Times of Swaziland allowing him to get away with claiming that Mo Ibrahim is some kind of fly by night organisation that doesn’t do its homework.
For those new to this story, Simelane was reported in the Times yesterday (18 October 2007) saying the Mo Ibrahim Foundation ‘never conducted a study of the country’.
The Times goes on to report, ‘Simelane said their investigations had revealed that the foundation had never conducted a single study on the country but merely depended upon information supplied to it by various individuals.’
Then, in what I can only describe as a racial slur, the Times reports the Press Secretary saying, ‘We also discovered that the person behind the organisation (Mo Ibrahim) is a Sudanese national.’
These are the facts that the Times wants to ignore. Mo Ibrahim is a world respected foundation whose supporters include Nelson Mandela; Kofi Annan, former United Nations Secretary-General; President Bill Clinton, former US President and José Barroso, president, European Commission among others.
So, I’m afraid Simelane has got it horribly wrong. It would have taken the Times of Swaziland five minutes to check to see whether he was telling the truth about how Mo Ibrahim did its research (that’s how long it took me).
Mo Ibrahim breaks down its research into countries into five categories. They are Safety and Security; Rule of Law, Transparency and Corruption; Participation and Human Rights; Sustainable Economic Development and Human Development.
To give you an example of how thorough the foundation is, Mo Ibrahim then breaks down the ‘human development’ category into three sub-sections: national poverty results, health outcomes, and educational opportunity.
Let me illustrate how one part of ‘human development’, the analysis of health outcomes, is done. Eleven sources of information are used, as follows:
1. Life expectancy at birth, expressed in years, collected by the WDI, based on various sources, including census reports and data from national statistical offices and the UN Population Division’s World Population Prospects.
2. Infant mortality per 1000 live births, based on WDI estimates of data from the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and World Bank sources.
3. Maternal mortality per 100,000 live births. Data are from the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Indicators, which draws on data from WHO and UNICEF.
4. Undernourishment (percentage of the population whose food intake is below the minimum dietary energy requirements), as determined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and compiled in the WDI.
5. Percentage of children (aged 12-23 months) immunized against measles, according to the WHO and UNICEF, as reported in the WDI.
6. Percentage of children (aged 12-23 months) immunized against diptheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and tetanus (DPT), according to the WHO and UNICEF, as reported in the WDI.
7. Percentage of people (aged 15-49 years) living with HIV, from the MDG Indicators.
8. Estimated number of new TB cases (incidence) per 100,000 people, from the WHO’s Global Tuberculosis Control Report, as reported in the WDI.
9. Access to qualified physicians: density of physicians per 1000 people, from the WHO.
10. Access to trained nurses: density of nurses per 1000 people, from the WHO.
11. Percentage of the population with access to potable water, from the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation.
Remember that these 11 sources of information make up one third of one fifth of the overall analysis of Swaziland. It is difficult to see how more thorough the foundation could be in collecting its information.
Simelane and the Times can rubbish the Mo Ibrahim Foundation all they want. But suggesting the foundation is dishonest simply won’t wash. Simelane and the Times are the dishonest ones.
Governance in Swaziland is appalling. It’s a fact and unless we all recognise this and mobilise to fight it nothing will change.
The Times reports Simelane saying that ‘the government was still going to issue a comprehensive statement in response to the “findings” attributed to the organisation.’
Let’s hope that next time this ‘comprehensive’ statement contains some truth. The statement from Simelane as published in the Times does not.
Thursday, 18 October 2007
RAW DEAL FOR SWAZI CHILDREN
Children get a raw deal in the Swazi Press, where in some cases the reporting of children does not uphold the rights of vulnerable children and the reporting of victimised children further victimises those children.
My own recently published research on this subject identifies large shortcomings in the way Swazi newspapers report on children. This is happening even though journalists themselves have agreed a code of conduct in the ethical reporting of children.
Within Swaziland the main journalists’ organisation the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) created a code of ethics for journalists in the kingdom to follow. This code includes Article 16, specifically dealing with the reporting of children.
My research found ten items over an eight week period that appeared to have breached Article 16. Here to give a flavour of the articles is one of them.
You can find a summary of this research in the latest edition Issue 10 (September to December 2007) of Khulumani, the newsletter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter.
The Khulumani article is based on a full research report called Suffer The Children – Reporting of Minors by the Swazi Press. I published in Lwati: A Journal of Contemporary Research (Swaziland), Vol 4, June 2007. For subscription details for the journal, contact its editor Dr Francis Mogu at lwatijo@yahoo.com
My own recently published research on this subject identifies large shortcomings in the way Swazi newspapers report on children. This is happening even though journalists themselves have agreed a code of conduct in the ethical reporting of children.
Within Swaziland the main journalists’ organisation the Swaziland National Association of Journalists (SNAJ) created a code of ethics for journalists in the kingdom to follow. This code includes Article 16, specifically dealing with the reporting of children.
My research found ten items over an eight week period that appeared to have breached Article 16. Here to give a flavour of the articles is one of them.
One newspaper reports that a 14-year-old girl is selling herself for sex to get pocket money because her mother will not provide her with pants. She is not identified by name (her mother is described as a maid and the location in which she works is given). The girl, who by any standards must be considered to be in a vulnerable position, is interviewed by the paper (it is not stated but it seems as if she was not interviewed with an adult present). The words used to describe the girl sexualise her. ‘Dressed in her black stockings complemented with an above the knee mini skirt, the girl stood out from the rest of her friends as someone who has been “enlightened” about life more than anything’.
You can find a summary of this research in the latest edition Issue 10 (September to December 2007) of Khulumani, the newsletter of the Media Institute of Southern Africa, Swaziland chapter.
The Khulumani article is based on a full research report called Suffer The Children – Reporting of Minors by the Swazi Press. I published in Lwati: A Journal of Contemporary Research (Swaziland), Vol 4, June 2007. For subscription details for the journal, contact its editor Dr Francis Mogu at lwatijo@yahoo.com
Wednesday, 17 October 2007
SWAZI REPORTERS CAN'T EXPLAIN
A workshop held recently in Matsapha gave us some interesting insights into the abilities of Swaziland’s journalists. It also raised a question about whether the kingdom’s newspapers were really concerned with informing people about what is going on around them or simply in making profits for their owners.
The Weekend Observer (13 October 2007) reported its own news editor Ackel Zwane telling the workshop, ‘journalists, whatever their persuasions, always toed the line of the media house owners, whom in most cases, were pursuing profits so they could honour the payroll among other reasons.’
Zwane was speaking at a workshop about how the media reported on climate change in Swaziland.
According to the Weekend Observer, participants at the workshop, who were mostly people who worked in the environmental sector, wanted to know why the Swaziland press and electronic media persistently pursued sleazy and sensational stories. They felt that the Swazi media did not properly cover environmental issues.
In his response Zwane (unintentionally, I suspect) revealed a major weakness of Swazi journalists: they don’t know how to act on their own initiative.
The Weekend Observer reports him saying, ‘But I must say that the “green people” [environmental activists] should know that we cannot be their ambassadors. If they give us press releases that are packed with environmentally friendly terms, we will not be able to decipher them for the man in the street.
‘We are trained to write and not explain the unexplainable.’
In that last statement, (‘We are trained to write and not explain the unexplainable.’) Zwane reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the journalist. Explaining things to people is EXACTLY what journalists should do. I suspect what Zwane is really saying is that he and the people he works with at the newspaper are not able to explain things because they themselves do not understand them. To which a reader is entitled to say, ‘get me a journalist who can.’
If journalists don’t know something, they should find out. Knowing how to find things out and using initiative is as important to journalists as being able to write down and report accurately the words someone has spoken.
Zwane in his response to the workshop also gave a valuable insight into how newspaper journalists in Swaziland actually work.
The Weekend Observer reported him saying that local journalists had to cover almost anything in a bid to meet a quota of a certain number of stories each month that was imposed upon them by media owners. This meant they could not ‘afford the luxury to specialise’ in certain topics, such as the environment.
The point Zwane makes about owners’ attitudes to newspapers in Swaziland is one that deserves a workshop of its own.
We know that in theory at least newspapers should inform people about what is going on around them, explain the significance of the events to them, and give readers the space to debate matters of interest and importance to them. What Zwane seems to be telling us is that none of this matters as long as the owners make profits. Now is the time for the owners to come forward and explain their point of view to us.
The Weekend Observer (13 October 2007) reported its own news editor Ackel Zwane telling the workshop, ‘journalists, whatever their persuasions, always toed the line of the media house owners, whom in most cases, were pursuing profits so they could honour the payroll among other reasons.’
Zwane was speaking at a workshop about how the media reported on climate change in Swaziland.
According to the Weekend Observer, participants at the workshop, who were mostly people who worked in the environmental sector, wanted to know why the Swaziland press and electronic media persistently pursued sleazy and sensational stories. They felt that the Swazi media did not properly cover environmental issues.
In his response Zwane (unintentionally, I suspect) revealed a major weakness of Swazi journalists: they don’t know how to act on their own initiative.
The Weekend Observer reports him saying, ‘But I must say that the “green people” [environmental activists] should know that we cannot be their ambassadors. If they give us press releases that are packed with environmentally friendly terms, we will not be able to decipher them for the man in the street.
‘We are trained to write and not explain the unexplainable.’
In that last statement, (‘We are trained to write and not explain the unexplainable.’) Zwane reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the journalist. Explaining things to people is EXACTLY what journalists should do. I suspect what Zwane is really saying is that he and the people he works with at the newspaper are not able to explain things because they themselves do not understand them. To which a reader is entitled to say, ‘get me a journalist who can.’
If journalists don’t know something, they should find out. Knowing how to find things out and using initiative is as important to journalists as being able to write down and report accurately the words someone has spoken.
Zwane in his response to the workshop also gave a valuable insight into how newspaper journalists in Swaziland actually work.
The Weekend Observer reported him saying that local journalists had to cover almost anything in a bid to meet a quota of a certain number of stories each month that was imposed upon them by media owners. This meant they could not ‘afford the luxury to specialise’ in certain topics, such as the environment.
The point Zwane makes about owners’ attitudes to newspapers in Swaziland is one that deserves a workshop of its own.
We know that in theory at least newspapers should inform people about what is going on around them, explain the significance of the events to them, and give readers the space to debate matters of interest and importance to them. What Zwane seems to be telling us is that none of this matters as long as the owners make profits. Now is the time for the owners to come forward and explain their point of view to us.
Tuesday, 16 October 2007
FOREIGN MEDIA GIVE FULL PICTURE
I have found during the three years I have lived in Swaziland that if I want to really know what’s going on in the kingdom, I should not bother with the Swazi media.
I find you get a much clearer and truer picture of what’s happening here from the foreign press and international agencies.
This is sometimes because Swaziland is not a democracy and some information is deliberately withheld from the people (think of the reports about King Mswati III’s huge wealth that appeared in August 2007 in overseas’ media but never saw the light of day in Swaziland as an example).
Another reason why we get a raw deal from the Swaziland media is because they aren’t very good.
I was reminded of this again last week when I saw a report about the drought we are suffering in the kingdom. The Swazi media has been carrying lots of reports about the kingdom’s capital Mbabane going on water rationing and very occasionally there is something about how people in rural areas are suffering. But none of the news media have identified the very real prospect of economic collapse in the kingdom caused by the drought.
It has taken the foreign media to alert us to the possibility that overseas’ investors will pull out of Swaziland if the water supplies do not improve.
The international agency, IRIN, reported a Swaziland Parliamentary Select Committee that met in September 2007 being warned by several businesses that if the government failed to deliver on the promise of adequate water to run their operations, they would pull out of the country.
This information was freely available to journalists, but I have seen no reference to it in the Swazi media.
A report of the Select Committee said that in Nhlangano, provincial capital of the southern Shiselweni Region, Asian-owned garment factories employ over 5,000 Swazi whereas five years ago there was not a single manufacturing job in the area.
IRIN reported the Select Committee saying, ‘Unless an alternative water supply is sourced from the Mkhondvo River [which bends across the southern third of the country], as promised many years ago [factory owners] said they would have no alternative but to relocate to Lesotho, where there is a huge supply of water.’
One industrialist told the Select Committee that government gave little thought to providing for the water, electricity and waste-disposal needs of industry. ‘They just built the factory shells and roads, and invited us to move in,’ the IRIN report said.
The consequences of the drought could bring Swaziland’s already failing economy tumbling to its knees and this information was freely available to the Swazi media. Why then did the story not appear?
I think that there are three possible explanations. The first is that the Swazi media did see the report but chose not to report it, since government incompetence is being blamed for the crisis. The second possible explanation is that reporters missed the story because they were busy doing something else (fretting over the Miss Swaziland beauty contest if the acres of news pages devoted to that subject is anything to go by.)
The third explanation? They did see the report but didn’t understand its significance.
Participants at a recent workshop that looked at how the media covered environmental issues concluded that the Swaziland media was only interested in sleazy and sensational stories. When you look at what the newspapers choose to cover and when they miss a story as important as this one, it is hard not to agree with them.
I find you get a much clearer and truer picture of what’s happening here from the foreign press and international agencies.
This is sometimes because Swaziland is not a democracy and some information is deliberately withheld from the people (think of the reports about King Mswati III’s huge wealth that appeared in August 2007 in overseas’ media but never saw the light of day in Swaziland as an example).
Another reason why we get a raw deal from the Swaziland media is because they aren’t very good.
I was reminded of this again last week when I saw a report about the drought we are suffering in the kingdom. The Swazi media has been carrying lots of reports about the kingdom’s capital Mbabane going on water rationing and very occasionally there is something about how people in rural areas are suffering. But none of the news media have identified the very real prospect of economic collapse in the kingdom caused by the drought.
It has taken the foreign media to alert us to the possibility that overseas’ investors will pull out of Swaziland if the water supplies do not improve.
The international agency, IRIN, reported a Swaziland Parliamentary Select Committee that met in September 2007 being warned by several businesses that if the government failed to deliver on the promise of adequate water to run their operations, they would pull out of the country.
This information was freely available to journalists, but I have seen no reference to it in the Swazi media.
A report of the Select Committee said that in Nhlangano, provincial capital of the southern Shiselweni Region, Asian-owned garment factories employ over 5,000 Swazi whereas five years ago there was not a single manufacturing job in the area.
IRIN reported the Select Committee saying, ‘Unless an alternative water supply is sourced from the Mkhondvo River [which bends across the southern third of the country], as promised many years ago [factory owners] said they would have no alternative but to relocate to Lesotho, where there is a huge supply of water.’
One industrialist told the Select Committee that government gave little thought to providing for the water, electricity and waste-disposal needs of industry. ‘They just built the factory shells and roads, and invited us to move in,’ the IRIN report said.
The consequences of the drought could bring Swaziland’s already failing economy tumbling to its knees and this information was freely available to the Swazi media. Why then did the story not appear?
I think that there are three possible explanations. The first is that the Swazi media did see the report but chose not to report it, since government incompetence is being blamed for the crisis. The second possible explanation is that reporters missed the story because they were busy doing something else (fretting over the Miss Swaziland beauty contest if the acres of news pages devoted to that subject is anything to go by.)
The third explanation? They did see the report but didn’t understand its significance.
Participants at a recent workshop that looked at how the media covered environmental issues concluded that the Swaziland media was only interested in sleazy and sensational stories. When you look at what the newspapers choose to cover and when they miss a story as important as this one, it is hard not to agree with them.
Monday, 15 October 2007
SWAZI CONSTITUTION IS USELESS
From time to time a report appears in the newspapers that proves beyond doubt that Swaziland is not a democracy and that the new Constitution isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.
One such report appeared in both the Weekend Observer and the Swazi News this week (13 October 2007).
The report stated that the High Court had granted chief Tikhontele Dlamini of Lomshiyo area an order stopping his headman from holding a community meeting. The chief told the High Court that he was the only one with the right to call meetings, as chief of the area, and if anyone else called meetings it would undermine his powers and rights as chief.
The High Court granted the order banning the meeting even though the Swaziland Constitution (section 24) allows any person the ‘freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons)’.
So there you have it: anyone can hold and express an opinion – but only if their chief agrees with it.
I was disappointed with both newspapers that ran the court report because neither of them saw the wider implication of the decision. Both newspapers simply wrote the news story as a report of an event that had taken place in court without putting it into a wider context.
This is the usual way of reporting in Swaziland. To reporters anything that happens in the kingdom happens in isolation. In their world one event is not connected to any other. To give a simple example: hardly a day goes by without there being reports in the papers about traffic accidents. Often (but not always) these accidents include kombis or buses. Sometimes the newspapers go so far as to identify the causes of the accidents as bad driving or poor maintenance of vehicles used to carry the public.
The fact that there are a number of such stories about traffic accidents caused by poorly maintained vehicles tells us that there is a much bigger news story here that goes beyond simply recording the event of a traffic accident.
I would say that there is a very serious issue about road safety in Swaziland that isn’t being reported. Here are a few questions journalists could ask: why are the vehicles badly maintained?, how many unsafe vehicles are there on our roads in any one day?; why don’t transport operators themselves seem to be interested in safety?, how much money is being made by operators willing to run kombis and buses that are death traps?
Although the job of journalists is to write facts and tell readers what is going on it is also their job to explain to people why things happen. In the case of the High Court judgement the journalist got the first part right but failed badly on the second.
One such report appeared in both the Weekend Observer and the Swazi News this week (13 October 2007).
The report stated that the High Court had granted chief Tikhontele Dlamini of Lomshiyo area an order stopping his headman from holding a community meeting. The chief told the High Court that he was the only one with the right to call meetings, as chief of the area, and if anyone else called meetings it would undermine his powers and rights as chief.
The High Court granted the order banning the meeting even though the Swaziland Constitution (section 24) allows any person the ‘freedom to communicate ideas and information without interference (whether the communication be to the public generally or to any person or class of persons)’.
So there you have it: anyone can hold and express an opinion – but only if their chief agrees with it.
I was disappointed with both newspapers that ran the court report because neither of them saw the wider implication of the decision. Both newspapers simply wrote the news story as a report of an event that had taken place in court without putting it into a wider context.
This is the usual way of reporting in Swaziland. To reporters anything that happens in the kingdom happens in isolation. In their world one event is not connected to any other. To give a simple example: hardly a day goes by without there being reports in the papers about traffic accidents. Often (but not always) these accidents include kombis or buses. Sometimes the newspapers go so far as to identify the causes of the accidents as bad driving or poor maintenance of vehicles used to carry the public.
The fact that there are a number of such stories about traffic accidents caused by poorly maintained vehicles tells us that there is a much bigger news story here that goes beyond simply recording the event of a traffic accident.
I would say that there is a very serious issue about road safety in Swaziland that isn’t being reported. Here are a few questions journalists could ask: why are the vehicles badly maintained?, how many unsafe vehicles are there on our roads in any one day?; why don’t transport operators themselves seem to be interested in safety?, how much money is being made by operators willing to run kombis and buses that are death traps?
Although the job of journalists is to write facts and tell readers what is going on it is also their job to explain to people why things happen. In the case of the High Court judgement the journalist got the first part right but failed badly on the second.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)