Moyse goes on to say that the law exposed glaring contradictions in Moyo's information policy. He said the minister's strategy to put a ceiling on democratic debate was bound to be a fiasco. Analysts observed that the regulations betrayed government's resistance to democratization and heralded further repression.
With regard to print media the media in Zimbabwe, one can be of the view that it has to some extent been plural in recent months. Some years back, there were only two daily newspapers, two Sunday papers and one weekly newspaper. According to Module BAMS301 in 2002, the country had a diverse and plural press. The country currently has two dailies, three Sunday papers, seven weeklies and several magazines. Prior to this there were four dailies but then the Daily News and Daily News on Sunday owned by the Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe was closed pending results from the courts while the Daily Mirror was closed seemingly due to viability problems. The public press comprises The Herald, The Sunday Mail, The Chronicle, The Sunday News, The Manica Post, Kwayedza (vernacular), New Farmer Magazine and the recently launched Zimbabwean Travel. All these are owned by Zimbabwe Newspapers.
Meanwhile the private press comprises the recently closed Daily News and Daily News on Sunday, The Daily Mirror (also closed), The Sunday Mirror, The Independent, The Standard, The Financial Gazette, Business Tribune and The Weekend Tribune. Legally, newspapers run by Zimbabwe Newspapers are independent of the government and could also be called “independent press”. In practice the government, through the Minister of Information and Publicity, has controlled Zimpapers. The company has a long history and tradition of control by the government, which goes back to the days of Cecil John Rhodes.
A particular source of unease in Zimbabwe’s private media is the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and the recent shutting down of the country's only independent daily newspaper, The Daily News. According to Thomas Deve, MISA board member and former online editor of The Daily News, "The laws will infringe on the freedom of movement of all SADC journalists, as articulated in the SADC protocol on information, sports and culture". Of major concern is the fact that under AIPPA, for one to practice as a journalist one has to be licensed. What further worry journalists is that some government departments do not recognize the accreditation card. For instance, during local government elections at the end of August, accredited journalists could not get access to polling stations or information from officials, unless they had accreditation specifically allowing them to cover the elections.
While it has been argued that Zimbabwe’s AIPPA is meant to regulate the operations of the media and allow the free flow of information, the MISA delegation maintains that the Act is undemocratic, and places a number of onerous restrictions on the information that journalists, civil society and the public can access and report on. Severe punitive measures that could be taken in the event of any crime being committed by journalists are also imposed by the Act. Records and other information relating to politics and other issues of national governance are strictly out of bounds, according MISA.
The public media is generally pro-government in its coverage of issues as it is government controlled and in some instances government funded. The public media hardly contradicts government policy and ideology. In fact some critics have accused the public media for becoming the official organs of government and the ruling party. The support for government policies and programmes by the public media became more blatant during the run up to 2000 and 2002 elections. This period coincided with the government led land distribution exercise dubbed the "Third Chimurenga". The land redistribution programme received a lot of support from the public media, contrary to the local private press and the international media, which demonized it.
The fact that all newspapers under the Zimpapers stable are government owned means that they support government policies and programmes. A shift in political ideology by the government of the day is normally followed by a shift in ideology by government owned or controlled newspapers. This is only common as he who pays the piper dictates the tune. For example, during the early 80s the Zanu PF government preached unity, peace, reconciliation and development. The government also espoused the socialist doctrine. The public media discourse also reflected the same socialist ethos.
When the government embraced the neo-liberal ideology of Economic Structural Adjustment Programme (ESAP), the public media fully backed government and the discourses in the public media celebrated ESAP-mainly highlighting its perceived benefits. Recently the government moved to the left (ideologically) in what it called the "Third Chimurenga" (epitomized by the land redistribution programme and black economic empowerment). The public media – again - fully supported this stand. Hence, the public media can be regarded as ambivalent. The ownership of a media organization has traceable consequences on media content.
By and large the private sector has been guided by a neo-liberal ideology, where the press is viewed as playing a “watchdog or fourth estate” role. It is against this background that the private media has had an adversarial relationship with government. Some private media have always sought to expose the corrupt practices of government officials and others within the corridors of power. One can safely conclude that the private media-government relationship has been characterized by animosity. The private media is determined to make sure that all government policies are portrayed in negative terms.
While the private media might have done a good job in keeping the government on its toes by closely monitoring and reporting on its activities, its watchdog role has not been felt in the corporate sphere where the majority of underhand deals might be taking place. This is because in Zimbabwe, those in the corporate sector are the major advertisers and as they say you do not bite the hand that feeds you. This forces the private media to avoid rubbishing the private sector because doing so would result in private companies withdrawing advertising support. As a result a lot of corruption might be going on in the dark corners of the corporate world but is probably going on unreported. With the above view, one can safely conclude that however the media is plural there is to a great extent no guarantee that it may be diverse.
References
Bvuma,T (1998). Having it Both Ways: Dual Policy, An analysis and Evaluation of Zimbabwean Government Policy, 1980-1998. MPhil Thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.
Chiumbu, S.H. (1997). Democracy, Human Rights and the Media, IMK Report no23, Department of Media and Communication. University of Oslo, Norway.
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA).
Moyse, A (2003). Media Monitoring Project.
Newspapers Reports.
The Herald.
