Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe
Media Update # 2000/36
Monday 18
September to 24 September 2000
SUMMARY
· The Supreme Court's
historic ruling striking down the Zimbabwe
Broadcasting
Corporation's
stranglehold on the airwaves on the grounds that it was
unconstitutional,
received wide publicity. While the publicly owned
media
concentrated on
airing government's response, the private press
sourced
comment from media
workers and other sections of society.
· The media was unable to unravel
the mystery surrounding the bombing of
the
MDC offices. The claim by Home
Affairs Minister, John Nkomo, that the
bombing was "an inside job", and the
denial by the MDC, was reported
in all
the media. However, Information
Minister, Jonathan Moyo, dominated
government's comments and appeared to be
speaking on behalf of the
police
as well. In fact, the police have barely
been heard and have not
publicly
identified the "arms of war" allegedly
recovered from MDC premises.
News that
a policeman who allegedly belonged
to the MDC, had appeared in court
charged with the bombing only served to
deepen the puzzle and
intensified
conspiracy claims from government and
MDC.
· While Zimpapers' titles afforded prominent coverage of the
police
eviction of
"illegal land occupiers" throughout the week, The Daily
News missed
the story
altogether and ZBC only covered the police
activities superficially -
and carried
no footage of the evictions this
time around. The Daily News also
missed the
visit by Anglo-American's
Oppenheimer family to President Mugabe, and
none
of the media questioned
whether their requests constituted double
standards
or if their financial
clout facilitated the meeting.
1. BATTLE FOR THE
AIRWAVES
Before the Supreme Court ruling striking down ZBC's monopoly on
operating
broadcasting services in Zimbabwe, Information Minister, Jonathan
Moyo was
quoted
in the ZIMPAPERS' dailies (18/9) and the Manica Post
(22/9) repeating a
remark he
had made the previous week in The Sunday Mail
that the government is to
appoint an
advisory panel to review the legal
and broadcasting environment as a first
step to
opening up the country's
airwaves. Responding to the legal challenge
brought by
Capital Radio, Moyo
was reported as saying, ". it would be a dangerous
precedent to
have the
courts usurp the powers of the Government in such a sensitive
area".
The
Daily News (21/9) gave notice of the Supreme Court hearing
challenging
sections
in the Broadcasting Act that gives ZBC its
broadcasting monopoly..
The Financial Gazette (21/9) article, Govt to loosen
grip on airwaves?
quoted
journalists' representatives, human rights
organizations and media
analysts who
all dismissed Moyo's promises to free
the airwaves saying they didn't
believe
government was committed to such a
dispensation.
Those interviewed said the reform process, if it were to be
effective,
should be
spearheaded by a body appointed by Parliament and
answerable only to it
rather than
to an individual minister. Basildon
Peta, of the Zimbabwe Union of
Journalists, was
quoted as saying:
The
danger of having this process driven by a ministerial-appointed
body
is
that this will only help to ensure that beneficiaries of new
licences
after
liberalization are cronies of the ruling party or other stooges
who
will help
to indirectly entrench and perpetuate the ZBC monopoly
instead of
having
it broken apart.
The Manica Post comment welcomed
government's plans to free the airwaves
noting
that ". it comes late in
the political life of independent Zimbabwe". The
Chronicle
(18/9) comment
called for wider consultation towards a supervisory or
advisory
(media)
structure that has universal backing.
The Supreme Court ruling
declaring that Sections 27 and 28 of the
Broadcasting Act
were
unconstitutional, came at that time of the week (Friday 22/9) when
the
public
only have access to state controlled media information. ZBC reported
the
ruling that
evening (22/9), but only in conjunction with the comments
of Information
Minister
Johnathan Moyo, while The Herald's report the
following day(23/9), quoted
a
government spokesman welcoming the ruling
and echoing Moyo's remarks of
the
previous evening. The spokesman was
quoted as saying government would put
in
place new regulatory mechanisms
for operating broadcasting services in the
country
by the end of next week
and until then nobody could lawfully operate a
broadcasting
station.
Conspicuously absent from the state media reports were comments
from
media
organizations (including the ZBC), legal opinion and most of all,
comment
from
Capital Radio itself. The Standard (24/9) carried some alternative
views
in a follow-up
to the ruling, also welcoming the court's decision
but doubting the
commitment of
government to establish a truly independent
broadcasting regulatory
authority. The
Sunday Mail (24/9) carried a
question-and-answer story with the minister
in which he
insisted that his
media review plan was a fully consultative process.
Despite the fact
that
the story's headline was National Media and Advisory Panel's
obligations
spelt
out, these were never addressed and Moyo was never asked who its
members
were.
Instead, the minister defended his earlier statement that
the airwaves
were
democratized in 1980 and attacked those who had called
for an independent
authority
answerable to Parliament.
The story - and
the minister - was back in the limelight that evening, on
all ZBC's
8pm
bulletins emphasizing Moyo's opinion that it would be illegal for
anybody
to launch an
independent broadcasting station, contrary to the
Supreme Court's specific
statement
saying that this could now happen since
no laws existed governing
independent
broadcasting. Television carried
footage of Moyo saying:
.Particular order by the Supreme Court does indeed
say that the
applicant
Capitol Radio are entitled to broadcast .... But
it's one thing to say
you are entitled
to something and another actually
to have that something. They can but
they may
not. You are entitled to
have a passport but you cannot give yourself
one. You are
entitled to vote
but you cannot register yourself and vote.The fact of
mere
entitlement
does not mean that they can therefore start broadcasting,
they or
anyone
else for that matter. In terms of the existing laws, which the
courts
have
not ruled [against[] . . . no one can broadcast just like that.
It
will be unlawful.
You will have to, for example, lease a license from
ZBC. If you don't
it will be
unlawful. You still have, in terms of new
communications law, to get a
license to
operate a radio
station.
.This really is a challenge we were ready to deal with. We
had
indicated as
government that we were re-examining the entire
environment of media
whether
electronic, or advertising or print media for
that matter, in order to
bring it to where
we are but also need to look at
limits on ownership, it is not
desirable to have one
person owning a
broadcasting station or controlling it even if that
person is
a
Zimbabwean, we need to put limits on foreign control.we need to
ensure
that
there is an environment to require broadcasters who ever they
are, to
broadcast
news in a fair way.we need to ensure that broadcasters
respect
standards and
values, but above all we need to ensure that
broadcasting industry
promotes,
articulate and celebrates the character
and identity of Zimbabwean
culture.
.It is our intention to have these
regulations put in place by end of this
week.
The reporter failed to
obtain any legal opinion to comment upon Moyo's
alarming
assertions. Nor
did he ask the minister what "new communications law" he
was
referring to,
or why anybody would still have to "lease a licence from
ZBC".
ZBC's
reports also failed to provide anything but the barest detail about
the
court ruling and
did not mention the court's remarks.
Radio 2/4 did
not report the court ruling on the day it happened, only
recording the
|
event in its bulletins the following morning.
2. MDC BOMBING
FOLLOW UP
The media - and the nation - struggled to keep up with the
convoluted
events
surrounding the investigation into the grenade blast at
the MDC's offices,
in the week
under review.
ZBC broke the news that
Home Affairs Minister, John Nkomo, had told
Parliament the
bombing was an
"inside job" and that the police had recovered a variety of
arms
and
ammunition. Television simply carried this news as a
parliamentary
statement on its
8pm bulletin (19/9). Radio 1/3 (20/9)
quoted Minister John Nkomo
commending the
police for a job well done and
MDC's Welshman Ncube saying the police were
holding
a pellet gun and a
Motorola 2 way radio. The Herald and The Daily News
both led with
the
story; The Daily News stressing the MDC denial, while The Herald
carried it
as a
separate story within the lead. All the dailies quoted an MDC
statement
dismissing
Nkomo's claim as ".a clear attempt by the government
and the ruling party
to
maliciously and falsely concoct baseless
allegations against the MDC..."
Zimpapers' titles quoted Nkomo as
saying:
"Further information revealed that consignments of arms of war
comprising
grenades,
pistols, rifles and tear-smoke were cached" at MDC
offices and the homes
of some of
its officials. Only The Daily News (20/9)
however, quoted MDC leader
Morgan
Tsvangirai saying:
"The searches for
arms of war.were done in full view of both local and
international
journalists, MDC lawyers and other individuals. These
searches
yielded
nothing and the police know this very well."
Television only carried
Tsvangirai's denial on its 6pm and 8pm bulletins
that evening
simply
saying the MDC had no motive to bomb its own offices and that the
party was
a
victim of political violence. He was also quoted as threatening
mass
action to force the
government to respect the rule of law.
In
order to "balance" Tsvangirai's exposure, ZBC then presented ZANU
PF's
Didymus
Mutasa denying the MDC allegations and claiming that his
party had
co-existed with
other opposition parties for 30 years "and it
has never stooped so low as
to use such
tactics against its opponents". He
was not asked to comment about
government's
treatment of ZAPU. Neither he,
nor Moyo, who was also quoted, were
questioned in
any way by ZBC.
The
Herald regurgitated Moyo and Mutasa's comments the next day, in a
story
which
also carried Tsvangirai's denial. In response to that denial, Moyo
was
reported as
saying that the police must be left to complete their
investigations
without political
interference.
"It was not a question
of what Mr. Tsvangirai says at a Press
conference, but
what, at the end of
the day, would be decided by a competent court of
law,"
The Herald
reported Moyo as saying.
The Daily News (21/9) carried Tsvangirai's comments,
quoting him as
saying:
"What is clear in this whole drama is that the
ruling party and
government
created a pretext to search and obtain all
information they wanted
about the
MDC finances, membership details, party
policies and strategies for
the
presidential election."
In a rare
comment from the police, the same story also reported a
police
spokesman
saying the force "had arrested suspects in connection
with the alleged
find at the MDC
offices".
A report the next day in The
Zimbabwe Independent (22/9) stated that
police had
arrested a policeman in
connection with the bombing but had released him
after it was
discovered
he was also a state security agency informer who had
infiltrated the
MDC,
according to the paper's sources.
This added a whole new dimension to
the drama. Tsvangirai held another
press briefing
during which he
identified a policeman, Zacharia Nkomo, and accused him of
infiltrating the
MDC and being behind the attack on his party's offices.
ZBC swooped
on
this story, announcing that the MDC leader had admitted his
organization had
been
infiltrated by people who wanted to destroy it from within. It
gave
Tsvangirai 40 seconds
of its 8pm bulletin (22/9), but immediately
followed this up with 140
seconds of Moyo
(again) accusing the MDC of
seeking to turn a criminal matter into a
"political game".
Saturday's
edition of The Herald (23/9) carried Tsvangirai's
claim.and
Moyo's
response at length. Here particularly, Moyo appeared to
be speaking on
behalf of the
police, especially when he was talking about
"further evidence" and
"suspects
assisting police with their
investigations".
Moyo was quoted saying ".the Government noted with contempt
the desperate
attempt by MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai to turn a criminal
matter into a
political
game". Zimpapers' Sunday titles reported that ". a
member of the MDC,
Lazarus
Nkomo, . appeared in court in connection with
the bombing of the MDC
offices last
week". The papers said Nkomo appeared
on allegations of terrorism,
sabotage and
illegal possession of offensive
weapons. The article stated that another
suspect,
Chikowero alias Socks
Ncube, was still at large. The Sunday Mail also
carried a
mysterious
little front-page article Policeman turned mole fired from
force quoting
the
police denying that the officer's dismissal was linked to the raid at
the
MDC offices
last week, although ". it is strongly believed that the
two are linked".
The officer was
not identified, adding more confusion to
the saga.
The voice of the police was significantly missing in the
coverage
throughout the week.
Instead, the public media merely relied on
ministerial pronouncements,
while the
private press fared little better.
As a result, the public have been
thoroughly confused
by the conflicting
information emanating from the conspiracy and
counter-conspiracy
theories
reported extensively in the media. But then transparency is not
among
the
"armoury" of government or the state controlled media.
3.
LAND, LAW AND ORDER
ZIMPAPERS dailies widely reported the eviction of illegal
land occupiers,
while The
Daily News missed the development altogether and
ZBC only reported some of
the
incidents without providing any
footage.
The Herald (September 19 & 20) reported the eviction of land
occupiers
from various
farms. Significantly, it referred to them as
"illegal settlers" (20/9), a
description used by
Home Affairs Minister
Nkomo when The Herald (21/9) quoted him saying
".Government will intensify
the eviction of illegal settlers from
commercial farms until
all people
who occupied such properties after the launch of the
fast-track
resettlement
programme are removed".
So, is this selective
justice now government policy when dealing with
these people?
The media
has never asked - and the government certainly isn't telling.
The same
publication reported that 29 people were injured in clashes
between
farm
labourers and occupiers at Stoneridge Farm.
The Daily News (21/9)
reported that war veterans had terrorized and
assaulted farmers
and
workers in the Featherstone area near Chivhu, while ZIMPAPERS
dailies,
reporting the same event the following day, said that four farmers
had
been arrested for
allegedly inciting violence.
A police officer
quoted in The Herald (22/9) said a court order was
required
before
evictions could be effected. Following up its initial story, The
Daily
News (22/9)
reported that riot police had moved onto the Chivhu
farms and evicted war
veterans who
had harassed the farmers and their
workers. Although the title of the
story implied that
this was an eviction
by the police, the story itself stated that the
police had moved in
to
stop the harassment of the farmers and farm workers.
The Herald (23/9)
comment welcomed the arrest of the farmers, stating, ".
the arrest
of the
four white commercial farmers .should send a strong,
unambiguous
message
to all that lawlessness will not be tolerated in this
country".
The Sunday News (24/9) quoted Midlands Governor saying war veterans
who
unilaterally resettle themselves would be arrested.
The Herald
(19/9) story, Anglo-American, Oppenheimers offer 40 000ha for
resettlement
quoted the Oppeiheimer family expressing concern at the
conduct of
the
fast track land reform programme
Of concern again is that we also
noticed that 70 percent of
agro-industrial
estates, which were not
supposed to be acquired, were gazetted
The article quoted Minister of
Agriculture, Joseph Made admitting that
most of the
farms comprising
Anglo-American's vast sugar estates were listed in
error.
Zimpapers'
dailies failed to ask the minister how this had
happened.
The Daily News (19/9) missed the Oppenheimer family's visit to
President
Mugabe,
when the story was first reported in the state owned
media. It only picked
up the story
three days later as a follow-up in a
report which stated that the family
had offered 18
000 ha of land and a
$10 million loan to the government for the
resettlement
programme.
Notably, there was no attempt by the paper to examine if
this
new
development was likely to compromise government's land
policy.
The Zimbabwe Independent followed up the story by revealing that
the
Oppenheimer
family had suggested setting up a trust called the
Shangani Empowerment
Trust (SET)
that would benefit the people of Insiza
through the establishment of a
resettlement
programme on the 40 000 acre
Debshan Estate. The paper pointed out that
this was
contrary to the
perception that had been created in the state owned media
that the
family
had offered the land to the government to stop the acquisition of
its
properties
around the country. Thus, the paper took the position that the
Oppenheimer
family was
in fact committed to land reform and was actually
enhancing it. There was
however, no
critical analysis of how this would
work. None of the media made much of
the fact that
the Oppenheimers'
apparent overtures came as a result of the fact that
vast tracts of
their
properties, including 70% of Hippo Valley Sugar Estates had been
listed
for
resettlement.
The electronic media also failed to analyze the
implications of flaws in
the fast track
resettlement programme that
emerged in the stories they reported,
including the visit
by the
Oppenheimers, seeking to reverse government's plans to seize much
of
their
land-holding.
The Oppenheimer visit highlighted a more subtle flaw
in the land reform
programme,
which the electronic media probably noticed
but did not follow-up;
government's
apparently selective application of
its own policy.
For example, the President has repeatedly highlighted the
imbalances in
land
ownership as the primary reason for land resettlement
and sought to seize
land
belonging to white farmers without paying
compensation because of the way
their
Anglo-Saxon ancestors had acquired
the land in the early part of the
century.
The Oppenheimer family, the ZBC
revealed (September 19, television 8pm and
Radio
| 1pm) controlled 960 000
hectares of land in Zimbabwe including 50 000
hectares of
land in
Matabeleland.
According to Nick Oppenheimer, Anglo-American owned a world
class
operation in
Matabeleland that contributed significantly to the
economy of Zimbabwe and
the region
and that they had decided to meet
government to negotiate a way that would
allow
them to continue to manage
the business. In the same report Minister Made
said
government would
consider the proposal and would agree on it if it
conformed
to
government's land policy. On radio (September 19/9 1pm) it was
reported
that Anglo-
American had given 40 000ha (about five percent of
what they control) to
the
government for resettlement and $10 million to
be given to resettled
people. ZBC did
not ask whether any similar
considerations has been afforded local
commercial
farmers who also think
that they have made a significant contribution to
the economy.
The
broadcasting station did not question the government about the
double
standards
this implied.
The Oppenheimer story was quietly
dropped on radio's 6pm and 8pm
bulletins.
The electronic media only
highlighted a small fraction of the goings-on in
land
settlements. Both
radio and television reported that six people had
appeared in court
for
burning down farm workers houses on Iain Kay's farm. The report
(19/9,
television
8pm and Radio 1/3 1pm and 8pm) unlike previous reports
of violence on the
farms gave
a clear description of the incident in that
people had arrived at the farm
and demanded
land and then proceeded to
burn down farm workers houses after being
denied land.
Only Radio 1/3
reported that the government had gazetted a Land Amendment
Bill
2000 which
sought to improve procedures in compulsory acquisition of land.
The
report
aired on 23/9 morning bulletins had no source and provided no
further
details about the
amendments.
War veterans and homeless people
who had occupied Hopley Farm (Radio 2/4
8pm)
and Stoneridge farm (20/9
television 6pm) were reported to have refused to
move from
there even
after police had destroyed their structures. The report did not
seek
further
comment from the police as to how they would proceed in light of
this
declaration. In
the same bulletin on television and on Radio 1/3 8pm
bulletins the police
defended
their eviction of illegal settlers from
farms in Kadoma.
Harare City Council Commission was reported on September 21,
Radio 2/4's
morning
bulletins saying it would continue to destroy illegal
structures.
There was further confusion to the eviction process when Hunzvi
said that
President
Mugabe had promised him that there would be no more
evictions of war
veterans.
Hunzvi is reported to have alleged that orders
to evict settlers was not
coming from the
President's office and that it
was not clear who was sending the police to
evict
settlers. (21/9 8pm
television and Radio 1/3) The comment went begging for
clarification from the
President's office itself and from the police. As
with government's
policy
over evictions (and other issues), there was no transparency in the
ZBC
report.
Ends
For more information about the Project, previous issues
of the MMPZ
reports and
alerts, please visit our website at