Maravi

(NEWZIMBABWE) WikiLeaks might choke The Standard

WikiLeaks might choke The Standard
by Shakeman Mugari & Darlington Majonga
22/12/2010 00:00:00

AFTER enduring the embarrassment that came with revelations in the Sunday Times that she was having an extramarital affair with Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe governor Gideon Gono, Grace Mugabe must have been itching to make the media pay.

For reasons we will postulate later in this article, neither Grace nor Gono decided to sue for that infidelity story despite that it had glaring weaknesses on which they could have capitalised.

The story had made allegations that both Gono and Grace could have successfully claimed to have injured their reputation and integrity. Then The Standard newspaper, a fortnight ago, unwittingly granted Grace her wish to punish the media.

The paper regurgitated classified diplomatic cables – which are in essence US government e-mails – leaked to the whistleblower website Wikileaks alleging that Grace and other senior people in the Zimbabwe government had made super profits from smuggling diamonds.

Litigious Grace

She is a thief of diamonds, the paper said in a story that relied solely on the diplomatic cable filed by the former United States ambassador to Zimbabwe, James McGee.

McGee himself had relied on information allegedly gathered from Andrew Cranswick, the chief executive of African Consolidated Resources, a company that has been fighting for diamond mining rights in Zimbabwe for years.

Predictably, Grace pounced on the opportunity and filed a US$15 million lawsuit against the paper.

Since then, public opinion has portrayed The Standard as a victim of a litigious first lady desperate to keep her alleged illegal dealings under wraps.

Some have labelled the lawsuit an effort to muzzle the press. The debate continues.

Yet in all this brouhaha what has been missed is that The Standard might have “blindly” walked into a trap that Wikileaks unintentionally set for journalists when it released those US government cables.

The paper walked into a minefield and many newspapers might soon find themselves in the same precarious situation if they blindly lift those Wikileaks for publication.

It has always been dangerous for journalists to walk around with their pens “cocked” and eyes closed.

Whether one likes her or not, the sad reality in this case is that Grace could have a very strong argument and The Standard could be sued into poverty.

As journalists and Zimbabweans who have worked under the hostile media conditions in Zimbabwe, we are not celebrating that eventuality.

It must be mentioned from the onset that the real reason Grace could have a strong case is not because she is clean but rather that The Standard could have bungled the story. The result might turn out to be calamitous.

The Standard forgot that those leaked cables are not a statement of fact but an opinion of their writer, McGee.

Strong case

They were written to help the US government formulate its policy strategy in foreign affairs dealings with Zimbabwe.

They were an update to the US government on the Zimbabwean situation according to McGee. They were an assessment of a situation and not the situation itself. McGee did not put those damaging allegations to an ample test that is required for journalists before they publish stories. In any case, McGee had no obligation to do that because he was not writing them for publication.

He relied on one source who has since denied having mentioned Grace or any other name when he gave the information.

The Standard made the mistake of rushing to publish that information without verification.

They forgot that the cables were mere allegations that they, as a newspaper, had to seek to verify before going to print.

The paper mistook what was otherwise a plausible “tip-off” for a complete story ready for publication.

When the case goes to court the obligation will be on the newspaper to prove that those allegations are true and that they took pains to verify them.

In other words, The Standard now has to start doing what it should have done before publishing the story – which is verifying the cabled information.

To do that they will have to do the story in reverse – they wrote the story now they have to find evidence to corroborate it.

Mission impossible

But that might be a mission impossible. Rumours have always been abound that people close to President Robert Mugabe were involved in clandestine diamond dealings but what has stopped many Zimbabwean journalists from writing the story is the lack of evidence.

Now, The Standard has to find that elusive evidence to prove that rumour.

And because this is a court case the evidence will have to be more concrete than what a newspaper normally needs to write a story. The real drama however will be in the courts.

Because of the circumstances surrounding the cables and Wikileaks, The Standard will obviously have to scrounge around for witnesses. Only God knows where they will get anyone to corroborate those allegations.

They clearly can’t call McGee to testify that the allegations in the cables are true because the US government has already said the cables are stolen information and they want nothing to do with Wikileaks.

It’s therefore highly unlikely that a whole US diplomat will agree to give evidence on a confidential document he wrote for the State Department’s use only.

That takes one pillar off The Standard’s defence case which is already shaky even if we assume that, by some divine intervention, McGee will agree to testify.

It does not help The Standard’s case that Cranswick, the man McGee purports to be the source of the diamond smuggling allegations against Grace and others, has denied any connection. He has said the cables are a lie.

Cranswick is therefore not likely to testify and vouch for the truthfulness of allegations that he has already publicly labelled falsehoods.

The fact that he has also said he never met a US official to discuss the issue only makes The Standard’s case even more wobbly.

So when the case opens The Standard will walk into court to fight probably the biggest libel case in the world without both the source of the information and the author of the document they used to write the story.

Predicament

In fact, Cranswick’s denials actually strengthen Grace’s case and she might call him to testify against the paper. Yet The Standard’s predicament gets bleaker when you analyse the way the story itself was written.

The paper will have to prove that it took pains to verify the allegations in the cable. They have to show that they investigated the validity and accuracy of the information they rushed to publish.

But their story does not show that the reporter did any work other than regurgitate what was contained in the cable. There is zilch evidence that they really tried to prove the allegations.

It gets worse.

The story does not even show that the paper tried to give Grace the right of reply as is required in journalism. It doesn’t even attempt to hide behind the routine excuse “efforts to get a comment were not successful at the time of going to press”.

Grace, by the way, has a fulltime spokesperson. Come the hearing day, The Standard might have neither witnesses nor sources to corroborate their story.

Neither will they have proof that they tried to verify the allegations or at least give Grace a chance to respond (this evidence should be in the story and not in the editor’s head).

If The Standard’s defence case has any leg to stand on then that leg is a crippled one that might not be able to support them for long in their battle against “the mother of all lawsuits”.

There are those arguing that the newspaper merely wrote what Wikileaks had already published and therefore it is not liable. Such kindergarten arguments will not carry the day in a court of law.

They are for bar-talk where they can impress people who would have imbibed “one too many”. Sober minds, especially in a court of law, will trash them.

The fact that the cables had already been leaked does not exempt a newspaper of the duty to verify the allegations contained therein.

Obligation

Remember a newspaper or any other medium can be sued for a story lifted from another publication. The Standard still had an obligation to probe those allegations before publishing.

Even if Cranswick admits that he made those allegations The Standard will still have to prove that they are true.

Yet those are not the only reasons why The Standard is in a tight spot in this case.

The merits of Grace’s case aside, there is also the fact that the High Court bench is generally pliable and too friendly to the government.

Most of the judges on that bench are actually too grateful for the funds and farms they got during the so-called land reform.

Imagine then, The Standard walking into a Zimbabwean court to face one of those meek judges with such a weak case. God forbid!

It is true that Grace’s reputation is not worth the US$15 million tag she has placed on it and that she is unlikely to get that much.

The amount demanded sounds more like an effort towards self-enrichment than redress.

So why did Grace pounce on a case that alleged her to be a thief of diamonds and not the one alleging she is adulterous?

At face value it doesn’t make sense that Grace could be angrier at being called a thief than being labelled an adulterous wife of the president.

It would seem senseless that she could pass an opportunity to get US$15 million from a rich UK paper and then try her luck with The Standard, a Zimbabwe paper so poor it can’t even pay a living wage to its reporters.

Collateral damage

The answer lies in the fact that the adultery case, which would have been heard in the UK, would have left her reputation in tatters. It had too much collateral damage.

How would she have answered the following questions from those media lawyers in the UK: Mrs Mugabe, have you ever committed adultery in your life?

When you first slept with your current husband (President Mugabe), were you still married to your first husband? And was your current husband still married to his wife?

Did you divorce your first husband first before you started an affair with your current husband?

You only need to Google the date of birth of one prominent teenager in Zimbabwe and the date of a certain high-profile wedding in the 1990s to see how tricky those questions would have been for Grace.

The UK papers would have made capital out of that case. Which paper would not have wanted to write about the wife of a despised African leader coming to London to defend allegations that she had an affair with one of her husband’s most trusted friends and banker?

Add that to the fact that UK judges cannot be influenced and are generally progressively in favour of the media and you see why she decided not to pursue the case even though she might have really wanted.

In the Wikileaks case Grace would not need to worry about those questions or the judge who will take the case.

Compliant judges

Even if the selection of the judge is random chances are very high that it will inevitably end up in the hands of one of those compliant judges.

Grace will just have to sit in court and watch the editor sink one nail after the other into the paper.

It is sad that when all is done, the story of whether Grace is really a diamond smuggler or not will still not have been written.

She might walk out of court with victory and a little pocket money not because she would have proven that she is not a diamond smuggler but because The Standard editors and reporters decided to walk around with their pens “cocked” and their eyes and minds closed.

Julian Assange’s gift to the media in the form of leaked US government cables might not be risk-free after all.

The cables might choke The Standard even though they were supposed to be a boon for the media. We wish The Standard all the best and hopefully we all as journalists learn from this sad episode.

*Mugari and Majonga are Zimbabwean journalists working in southern Africa.

Labels: ANDREW CRANSWICK, DEFAMATION, JAMES MCGEE, WIKILEAKS

posted by MrK @ 8:39 PM