2018 polls: Zim journalists navigating a minefield

News
I have deliberately changed the title of my submission from “Election Reporting Guidelines and Media Codes of Conduct” to a broader discussion on factors inhibiting journalistic practice during the elections, for at least two reasons.

I have deliberately changed the title of my submission from “Election Reporting Guidelines and Media Codes of Conduct” to a broader discussion on factors inhibiting journalistic practice during the elections, for at least two reasons. By Nigel Nyamutumbu

The first being that election reporting guidelines and media codes of conduct are generally prescriptive at law, sacrosanct in terms of the journalism profession and idealistic in terms of their value propositions and as such it is more useful to discuss why these are not being implemented.

Secondly, this submission seeks to stimulate discussion on what could feasibly be possible to address in so far as implementation of electoral guidelines and media conduct are concerned just two weeks before the elections, and in any dialogue that seeks solutions, it is prudent to establish and understand the problem.

Before discussing the challenges, let me give an overview of election reporting guidelines and media codes of conduct, which are at least three levels, legal, professional and international.

In the case of the legal framework for Zimbabwe, guidelines on media conduct in general are set in Section 61 of the constitution, which sets the reporting framework for state-owned media with a particular focus on fair coverage. The state-owned media is obligated to “be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications and to be impartial”.

More importantly in the context of the elections, the state media is obliged to “afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions”.

Other legal statutes that address media conduct during the elections include the Electoral Act and Statutory Instrument (SI) 33 of 2008, which both in intents and purpose emphasize the need for the media to provide fair and equal coverage to all contesting political parties in a manner that empowers citizens to make informed decisions.

Section 8 of the S133 prescribes that: “Broadcasters and print publishers shall ensure that during the election period, news and current affairs programmes or features relating to the election in question are presented in a balanced, fair, complete and accurate manner.”

“Broadcasters’ and print publishers’ presenters or reporters who are engaged during an election period in broadcasting programmes or publishing articles that present news and current affairs in connection with the election in question shall not — (a) express their personal views in such programmes or articles;’ (b) wear or exhibit symbols or colours or appear with clothes or insignia associated with any political party or other election contestant; (c) accept gifts, favours or special treatment by political parties or other persons interested in the election that compromise their professional integrity.”

The statute further makes reference to the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (Aippa) when outlining how journalists accredited under the Act to cover an election during an electoral period shall not do anything whether in the course of their duties or otherwise and whether by way of action, speech, attitude or manner, that may compromise their professional integrity.

A key component around media professionalism that the statute addresses pertains to the right of reply, wherein it stipulates that “every broadcaster and print publisher shall afford political parties and candidates the right of reply where a report aired or published under the editorial responsibility of the broadcaster or print publisher contains inaccurate information or unfair criticism based on a distortion of facts, and such right shall be given within 24 hours in a programme or column of similar weight and audience.”

The recently enacted amendments to the Electoral Act, as gazetted on May 28 2018 buttresses these provisions of S133 by compelling political parties and candidates to respect the role of news media, before, during and after the elections.

Moreover, political parties and candidates are compelled not to “prevent access by members of the news media to public political meetings, marches, demonstrations and rallies and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that journalists are not subjected to harassment, intimidation, threats or physical assault by any of their representatives or supporters.”

There are other legislation that regulate media conduct, which in a way set parameters for the media during the elections but will not be discussed in this submission, simply for the reason that at law, the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) takes over the regulation of the media during the electoral period.

Beyond the legal framework, journalists are also guided by professional standards that are entrenched within the industry in various forms, firstly at journalism school, then through editorial policies and charters of media organisations and by codes of conduct enforced by self-regulatory and professional bodies.

While it is unfortunate that the editorial policies of some media organisations in Zimbabwe are not readily available, most media houses are signatories to the Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe (VMCZ) code of conduct, which seeks to promote media professionalism in general and specifically sets guidelines in reporting elections.

Just like SI 33 of 2008, the VMCZ implores journalists and media practitioners to cover the elections in a “comprehensive, fair and balanced and make certain that all candidates, parties and election issues are given equitable and gender sensitive coverage.”

The code of conduct further states that “before reporting a damaging allegation made against a candidate or a political party, a media practitioner should obtain, wherever possible, a comment from the candidate or party against whom the allegation has been made especially where the allegation has been made by an opposing candidate or an opposing political party.”

In addition to this professional tenet of journalism, the code also emphasise the need for the media to exercise caution when reporting opinion polls and to as far as possible cover the views of political parties and candidates in their own words rather than as they are described as.

All these professional standards are echoed and obtained in regional and international statutes including the Southern Africa Development Community (Sadc) guidelines on reporting elections, the African Union Charter on Human and People’s Rights (ACHPR) and in various United Nations guidelines.

Both state and non-state actors have invested in the training and retraining of journalists and the media on the legal framework, professional standards and international guidelines that seek to strengthen the media’s democratic role in covering elections.

Now, with all these progressive statutes and professional standards, this submission posits that there are at least five factors inhibiting Zimbabwean journalists during the elections.

The factors include interference, particularly of political nature, the policy and legal framework, capacity and sustainability issues fuelling corruption in the media sector, threats on journalists’ safety and disinformation influenced by an upsurge of fake news resulting from an increased uptake and usage of social media by the mainstream media.

Zimbabwe’s media has largely been described as polarised.

This polarisation has in most cases been attributed to the illegal control of the state-owned media by the ruling party, Zanu PF, and the general dominance of dissenting voices in the private media.

This has resulted in the media being considered to be brazenly biased and partisan in their coverage of elections.

The obtaining state of affairs is, however, not of the making of the media.

By and large, the state and the ruling party — assuming there is a distinction at all — have captured the publicly-owned media and this has stifled the practice of journalism.

This rather unfortunate trend has in some instances been extended to the private media, though not so much institutionally, but through proxies and targeted journalists.

Linked to interference has been the legal and policy environment that does not allow for media diversity, especially in the broadcasting sector.

There is evident lack of political will to align media laws with the constitution and this has made the exercise of journalistic freedoms to expression and access to information unattainable.

This status quo has impacted on the media’s democratic role in covering the elections as the ownership of the media, particularly in the broadcast sector has remained in a few hands connected to the politically elite.

Zimbabwe is arguably the only country in the Southern African region without community radio stations.

Another factor inhibiting the exercise of journalism in covering the elections has been related to the lack of a sustainable media.

Like most sectors in Zimbabwe, the media has been adversely affected by the country’s economic challenges that have also adversely affected the practise of journalism.

Most media houses are inadequately resourced to comprehensively cover the elections and while most media professional and support organisations have invested in building the capacity of the media, including supporting investigative journalism and gender sensitive reporting, media organisations have been ill equipped to cover elections.

There is also the factor of journalists’ safety that has impacted the practise of journalism during the elections.

Journalists have been threatened, victimised and harassed in the course of their work and this has impacted comprehensive coverage of political parties, state agencies and the general electoral process.

It was rather unfortunate that journalists were included as part of the police investigations of the explosion at a Bulawayo rally, a trend that has potential of negatively affecting the exercise of journalism in covering the elections.

Lastly but by no means least, the practise of journalism has been adversely affected by the upsurge in the circulation of fake news and disinformation predominately within the social media, where most stories in the mainstream media either emanate from internet platforms, with no or little verification or most stories are to dismiss what will be circulating.

The agenda setting role of the media is thus subsumed in the disinformation or fake news circulating on social media than on comprehensively covering the electoral process.

With only a few weeks before the Zimbabwean citizens decide on who should lead them for the next five years, it is prudent that the media demonstrates that it can function without being influenced editorially by the ruling elite.

Media organisations ought to come up with strategies on how they are going to cover these elections in a fair and comprehensive manner, going beyond the fake news and disinformation prevalent in the social media.

Safety interventions for journalists should be sustained while measures should be put in place to ensure that political parties and candidates do not fuel corruption within the media.

Only then can the media be seen to be complying with the guidelines on elections and with the codes of conduct, which in all intents and purpose provide a lawful and professional framework for the media to play a democratic role in the holding of elections and beyond.

l Nigel Nyamutumbu is a media development practitioner, currently serving as the programmes manager for the Media Alliance of Zimbabwe (MAZ). He can be contacted on [email protected] or Whatsapp +263772 501 557. He made this presentation at a media and political parties meeting organised by the VMCZ.