Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Reporting on Zimbabwe: lying with a straight face

Reporting on Zimbabwe: lying with a straight face
Philip Murombedzi
Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:07:00 +0000

ZIMBABWEAN journalists have become some of the best lie-slinging journalists on planet earth, especially those reporting for online publications. They parade as super-patriots, yet hundreds of them know that they print unsubstantiated lies.

Many of them, including even seasoned and 'reputable' ones, do not bother to check anything out. They just want a juicy story. They print knowingly false statements from sources they know are either false, made up, tainted, slanted, or just plain pitiful.

The law on internet publishing is still very vague and suing an online publication, especially one that is not registered as a print publication, is virtually impossible.

Because of this legal loophole, some publications actually intentionally, knowingly, with malice and forethought, print false and slanderous stories even though they know the stories are false in advance.

The anti-Mugabe tirade that started around 1997 and promoted by international media is now very much part and parcel of the Zimbabwean media.

It seems for any publication to be respected it has to present President Mugabe as a monster. Some of the journalists have resorted to using intemperate, vituperative and harshly censorious language against, not only President Mugabe, but anyone who "goes against the grain", that is tell the real Zimbabwean story.

Many online publications wage a war on anyone and everyone that either supports Zanu PF or is perceived as supporting Zanu PF. Whether they break the law or not, these publications continue to lie, use phony sources, steal images and violate copyrights.

One mendacious journalist last year had the nerve to write a story saying Zanu PF "militias" were being recruited to kill ALL MDC leaders and MPs. That story came to nought; but I am sure the politically bigoted liars who wrote that story got handsomely paid for the story.

These lying journos are supported by critics who have no clue about the state of the Zimbabwean nation, or the real Zimbabwean story.

I heard on one radio station (online) one of the worst economic commentators that Zimbabwe ever had lying outright. It has been my misfortune to hear such tripe. And that is saying a lot given the dreadful state of Zimbabwean journalism. He said the MDC had brought inflation down from, I think, 500 billion per cent to 5% in four months. Not only had the MDC not done that, but the comment smarked of failure to grasp the nature of the Zimbabwean problem and its sources.

Let's assume that the MDC had indeed done that, then that means the Zimbabwean economy was strangled by something other than economics. If it was indeed a consequence of mismanagement, how then could inflation be brought back in check so fast?

The fundamentals in the country still haven't changed. Zimbabwe still does not use its own currency. Finance Minister Biti still deposits civil servants' salaries in Zim dollars directly into their accounts, yet in broad daylight tells people the Zimbabwean dollar is dead and buried.

To many journalists, the economic problems faced by Zimbabwe, were caused by the "intransigence of the Zanu PF government" and President Mugabe had single-handedly destroyed the "bread basket of Southern Africa". How could he do that in 10 years?

In any case why did that "destruction" coincide with the formation of the MDC and the election of the New Labour Party in the UK? The history of Zimbabwe did not start in 1999-2000. Those who choose to nominate that date, or era as the only important era in Zimbabwean politics are either ignorant or downright malicious or both.

A well known politician once remarked: "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within." Zimbabwe has experienced remarkable "treason from within".

Cicero in 42 BC said: "An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known, and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor."

Some of our journalists have amusingly transmogrified into nascent human rights activists and defenders of Western policies, some of which are alien to our culture, customs, or way of living.

International journalists have also not been spared the honours.

Think of the journalist who for four consecutive days last month aired a fictional story started by National Healing Minister, Sekai Holland, the sister to freedom fighter and former minister and Zanu PF politburo member Richard Hove. For four days, prior to PM Tsvangirai's visit to the UK, the journalist lied that Zimbabwe was recruting 39,000 "militiamen" who would be "working inside the civil service and outside". They were being paid a wage of $100 (£62) a day to beat up MDC supporters, in the event of an election, the report said.

Not only was this report ridiculous, but it was downright malicious and many of us could not fathom the idea that the BBC believed it and aired it for FOUR days in a row.

The cash-strapped inclusive Government would be spending $3,900,000 a day on these alleged "militiamen". This amount is more than the daily expenditure on the whole Zimbabwean civil service.

Forget Bruce Willis. These journalists are the real stars of Die Hard, who'll lie, bully and sneer to get an exclusive … even if it earns them a punch in the gob sometimes.

Unfortunately, there are lots of well-meaning, idealistic young journalists who are being corrupted by these lying and reckless journalists.

It should be the rule of every newspaper and magazine, etc., that journalists should never write anything they are not prepared to defend.

Despite the need for journalists to use confidential sources, the profession -- and the rest of us are better off if sources know that they run the risk of being unmasked if their mendacity is egregious enough to become newsworthy in its own right.

I'd say that part of re-reporting ought to include a full explanation of exactly who was peddling the bentonite lie in the first place, and why they were doing it.

In the case of Zimbabwean and other journalists reporting on Zimbabwe, they refuse to identify their sources under any circumstances at all, even when it's clear that those sources deliberately lied to them. The oft used line, "We are not allowed to report from within Zimbabwe," is often the pathetic excuse, with no corresponding retraction.

I have spoken with numerous experts in "journalistic ethics," such as they are, and all of them -- journalists, Journalism Professors, and media critics alike -- agreed that while the obligation of source confidentiality is close to absolute, it does not extend to a source who deliberately exploits confidentiality to disseminate lies to the public. Under those circumstances, it's axiomatic in journalistic ethics that a reporter is not only permitted, but required, to disclose the identity of the source who purposely used the reporter to spread lies.

It is however understandable but not ethical that, in the case of Zimbabwe, a country at odds with many of the big media organisations employing this crop of journalists, such malicious stories make the headlines. But such stories, when proved incorrect, unfortunately tarnish the image of the journalist, especially if their protect their rotten source, if it ever existed.

These journalists should always remember that when they are used to spreading lies and discrediting their own countries and leaders, then conceal who it is who has helped them do such things, they are complicit in the problems that afflict our nation, are key enablers of them. Surely, this cannot be justified as an honourable career choice.

______________
Philip Murombedzi
philipmurombedzi@yahoo.com

Labels: BBC, COLOUR REVOLUTIONS, MEDIA, PROPAGANDA, SEKAI HOLLAND

posted by MrK @ 3:41 PM