One Melody Gwenyambira dropped a headline "I pulled his testicles, he pulled my breasts". As if that was not enough, another press wrote "Kapfupi in-laws with hoe". Suddenly this raises serious concerns whether this is the sort of stuff that should be thrown in to the public domain. Whether these are meant to be jokes, tired thinking or just downright offensive terminology, I wonder.
We all crave big headlines, accurate and great content made with due consideration of context. I am not talking of news-feeds that seem to make the right noises but leaving little impression. Nowadays writing bad stuff about people is how the media conducts itself. There exists a quiet, extraordinary tyranny that our reporters propose to exercise over people's private lives. This reporter is not alone as many others have developed this chronic disorder, seriously endangering the reputation of responsible journalism.
Recently Mai Charamba announced she is to have the last child and the response is to tell the lady to put down the lid? Did she brief us when she had her first child? For her own information. I have in mind how such information might be interpreted and its impact. Though no one thinks it's something really not for public interest.
A restriction on publishing such stories would be considered a monstrous idea, even though most people in Zimbabwe live with internalised restrictions anyway. This becomes an argument about morality and whether free speech should be chained, though it is a vital element of any democratic society.
Last decade Jonathan Moyo, a former Zimbabwe Information Minister, decided it was time to shake off sloppy media practice. He drafted and sent a directive named AIPPA, telling media houses and independent journalists to adopt his code of conduct to operate in the country or else broadcast from the sea.
The directive caused resentment any many in opposition called him draconian and his attitude patronising. They demanded greater clarity and exploded in anger. "How could he know what would or would not represent suitable media conduct?" asked an angry reporter during a protest that thronged Africa Unity Square. I whispered to one Mass Communications student, "tell him to ask Dr. Tafatoana Mahoso". At one point some protesters held up their middle fingers at Jonathan Moyo's face on placards - an insulting gesture in our culture. Guess what? Moyo had no imaginary craziness and we all at some point dream akin to Cecil Rhode's Cape to Cairo vision.
It was the same period that the use of internet mushroomed and of particular relevance were weblogs and online newspapers. I witnessed the birth of gozimbabwe, newzimbabwe, changezimbabwe, talkzimbabwe, swradioafrica, zwnews, zimbabweantimes...the list is endless. This meant that it was impossble for Jonathan Moyo to achieve his goals. He could not control the internet, where freedom of speech has no regulation and indeed arguably posed a much bigger problem. Internet publishing has become so fashionable because servers can be located anywhere in the world.
As a result, it has become the norm for a mainly Diaspora Zimbabwean journalist or bored web logger to wake up in the middle of the night to express skepticism of Zimbabwe's future and its citizens. And let alone earlier examples of indecent and unthoughtful writings about 'very' private life of individuals. The vitriol and inaccuracy of these works are infused with a nastiness and xenophobia that leaves me asking "is it about time that regulations are imposed on reporters in the Zimbabwe domain?" Whether the servers are located in Silicon Valley or Musabayana Street in Mbare, something has to be done. It has to be done soon.
Serious libels are published online daily about individuals. What is said is neither true, nor are they "fair comments'. Defamation does destroy one's reputation and those on the receiving end usually have no chance to defend themselves. The right to protect one's reputation and their right to free speech are equally important. One's reputation involves privacy that should not be invaded. Sometimes there is no genuine public interest involved, even "true" - there are some things that a public has no right to know and they have nothing to do with people's private lives at all. After all, no public interest is served by misrepresentation.
We have a serious problem where profit-hungry publishers compel their journalists to invade one's privacy and relay things that are ugly or disgusting. No wonder the phone hacking scandal has become talk if every corridor of power in the UK. Gossip and scandal is a norm that they take a real pleasure in publishing horrible things. This still raises suspicion on the issue of pleasing the public and fulfilling their interest forming a sort of permanent basis of income. The world has gone mad. Negative story is what they see of anybody as they seek to maximise their corporate interests ahead of moral priorities.
The press freedom is undeniably acceptable but should not be absolute. It is the acceptance for public rather than one's reputation. So the ethos had to specify limits. Something has to change whatever the platform. This will mark an end to this practice and resolve it once and for all.
Gwenyambira stories out. Kapfufi out. More success stories of land reform in. More stories or Tariro Masyiti (owner of a successful vineyard in Cape Town, we want to know how he ended up there and not at home) in. What of business? Most business lines are clearly acceptable. My favoured sections are politics and business. But too much of political party headlining cannot be accepted and so is overemphasis on Philip Chiyangwa's empire. Only if these reporters refrain from being full of malice and hate, then we can again shift the emphasis from the 'rightness' to the 'goodness' of free speech.
Media is at the forefront of demanding free speech but again commits the very faults they protest against. In many respects this media practice is unacceptable. The longer it continues untamed the more disturbing the signs that morality loss will spread across our spectrum. I always wonder whether Zimbabweans will ever learn from the Caribbean Diaspora. They always promote their countries in any space they get and they don't publish rubbish. It does not follow that there is no scandal or gossip in their yards. They know what is good for their health.
Zimbabwe's culture has always been conservative. For more than a century we have been in good order. We have learnt to consistently respectful to one another. Unlike Britain, Zimbabwe has not allowed magazines such as Nuts and Daily Sport; unlike South Africa, Zimbabwe has not allowed homosexuality; unlike many other countries across the globe it will remain a country defined by morality and closely guarded traditions.
So what is driving our journalists mad? This madness has gripped and paralysed our nation. There should by no excuse to write graffiti in the media. I will not me amazed that these same individuals who paint abuse on our country and its people are the very same people who would play truant and paint abuse in public toilets using feces during their childhood. It is this grossly irresponsible, sloppy representation of facts that I am worried about.
We can afford not to underline this threat by introducing reforms to our media. How about government intervention to propose for cyber and foreign publishing to incur the same regulations as others operating inside Zimbabwe assuming the authorities can ensure the compliance of those journalists reporting Zimbabwe news from non-Zimbabwe locations. Why shouldn't they comply if they are Zimbabwean citizens and crying for a Diaspora vote?
This idea might seem objectionable but like many in social choice and public policy problems involved in options, there are winners and losers: private rights ahead of public interest. This is in line with Italian economist Vilfred Pareto's concept of efficiency when he said that such situations occur in which everyone is no worse off and some are better off than before. Private information should no be a public good unless if it's Mai Charamba who wants to coerce us to know how fertile she still is.
I have a great deal of admiration for free speech and that of the 'responsible' press, for the important work it is doing in most and difficult circumstances. But they must make sure that in their publishing a balance is struck to enable those with objections to achieve justice and protect their reputation if they so wish. The press should not look back one day and ask "Why did we mislead people and purvey as facts statements which were not true? Why didn't we realise that there is no interest in being misinformed? And why didn't we live to our ethics and code of conduct?"
Good content is what makes us follow the press and stay with them. It is this same belief that gives us an identity within the online community as well as away from it: We remain Zimbabweans and above all, we all deserve the best. All of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment