Discussing The Pros & Cons of Media Control

Published by FreeAfrica on May 3, 2004

Most media organisations in Africa owe allegiance to either government or to private sector concerns. Thus these institutions control and in some cases own the media. Media ownership and control play a great role in determining what the media disseminate as news. In most cases the publicly owned media are controlled for the public by the government. The latter does not legally own the media but helps in running them through boards of trustees. Privately owned media can be owned by individuals or a group of individuals who pool resources together and start a media concern. Therefore these factors determine the content of the media.

The owners, government, social institutions, financiers and advertisers can institute control of the media. Once these organs start to control the media, it is a given that the content thereof is controlled. The impact can either be negative or positive depending on the aims, ideology and goals of the owners and also on the audiences` expectations.

In Zimbabwe there are public owned (but government controlled) and privately owned media. These two greatly vary in terms of reportage. The public media, it is argued by some scholars, are meant for development purposes in society. They subscribe to the theory of development that was popularized by McQuail (1987:119) who argues that the conditions of third world countries “are different from the developed countries” hence the need for development media. “Therefore the government has a right to intervene in the media, restrict media operations, censor the media and take direct control of it,” (Ibid.. 121). This proves true especially in the Zimbabwean, Zambian and South African situations before and in some cases soon after the attainment of independence.

Media control and ownership are just some of the “complex factors that impinge on media and democracy,” (Lee and Thomas 2001:2). Thus whether privately or publicly owned (and state controlled), the media would not be autonomous hence the slant of news coverage would be determined by those who own and control them.

The public media are viewed as pro-government. This is due to the fact that the government, in some cases, funds the public media. Therefore the public media, if anything, rarely opposes or questions government policies or ideologies even in the most clear cases like, for example, the land reform programme which undoubtedly was good as an idea but the implementation left a lot to be desired. The state media did not question the government’s intelligence or lack of it in the way the programme was implemented. Manhando-Makore (2001:14) argues that when the media are controlled by the state they cease to be independent. They are then “regarded as the mouthpieces of the government [and] can never be respected sources of information but will be seen as propaganda vehicle[s]”. Thus the Zimbabwean “official media” like the ZBC, The Herald, The Chronicle, The Sunday News and The Sunday Mail have decidedly positioned themselves as the defenders of the government. Whatever the reason, this exposes them as victims of government control and their content tows the government line of thought. This has impacted negatively on the sales of these newspaper and loss of readership or decline of audiences to the competitors. For example Southern Africa Media Directory (1999) points that The Daily News had a circulation of 100000 compared to the Herald’s 87, 647. The latter before the constitution referendum had a circulation of 119,000. Thus the impact of control is far reaching economically and in the trust the readers will have on that particular media type.

The content of the Zimpapers newspapers does not contradict the ideology and policy of the government or ruling party of the day. The issues of the land, economy, politics and others are covered to the satisfaction of the ruling elite. When they contradict authority they are viewed as rebels.

Geoffrey Nyarota, when he was the editor of the Chronicle exposed a motor vehicle selling scandal and he lost his job for his “impudence and lack of patriotism” (Nyahunzwi 2001). Although he was vindicated and the Ministers involved were prosecuted, fired and another committed suicide, it goes to show that government does not want some information made public, however right. Thus journalists will tend to tow the line making sure that the news they gather are in the line of what the rulers like and not attract their wrath. In such cases the media content is reduced to the official opening of some buildings or the building of bridges and nothing more with regards to exposing the abuse of power, violation of people`s rights and all other forms of government misrule and excesses.

The media will therefore become decisively selective on news coverage. For example The Times of Swaziland editor Mr. Bheki Makhubu was in 1999 arrested and charge with criminal defamation and, worse still lost his job. This was because of a story about the king’s (liphovela)- new wife- and it was to the effect that the “girl the king chose at the Reed Dance was a high school drop-out, a truant and generally naughty girl…was kicked out of two high schools in two years,”(Mogekwu 2001:19). This exposes how, through fear and intimidation the government can control the media-both private and public. Journalists will effectively become reluctant to make investigations on issues of public and national interest. They not only fear the government but also of being dumped by the management and job losses.

Another example of how the government would try and control media content is the “foiled coup” story by Ray Choto and the late Mark Chavunduka of The Standard. The army arrested these two and even the head of state defended the army’s undemocratic behaviuor. This in a way instills fear on the media across the board and leads to censorship and sunshine journalism.

Private ownership and control of the media also plays a great deal in determining what kind of news should see the daylight. In Zimbabwe the private media has not shown a great deal of control by the owners. This is not say that it does not exist. One of the vibrant newspaper in the history of Zimbabwe so far is the Daily News. It has been described as offering a “balanced and fair coverage,” of news especially on the pre and post election period (Manhando-Makore 2001:16). The private pres subscribes to the Libertarian/free press theory that has such tenets as non-governmental control and ownership of the press, no licensing of the media, non-censorship of the media and non-arrest of journalists for being critical to the status quo and rulers. This theory posits that the media are the watchdog of other estates of the state and against corruption, and abuse of power and that there should be plurality and diversity in the media that allows free competition of facts and ideas in the market place (McQuail 1987:115). Most private media in Africa were foreign owned especially soon after independence and in the case of the daily News it had foreign ownership until 2002. Foreign ownership is looked with suspicion. In most cases owners want the media to cover sensational news. Thus they are geared towards profit making and not nation building. Those private commercial interests drive them and all they do at the end of the day is to look at the profits and the declaration of dividends rather than the people’s interests. The impact of this is that the media will cover issues that are more of entertainment as a way of attracting readers especially the youth and advertisers.

The African private media-government relationship has been characterized by animosity. The former try and portray government policies in a negative way. For example the Daily News, the Standard and The Independent are notorious for labeling the government’s land reform as chaotic, illegal and an abuse of human rights and also they have criticized the New Economic Recovery Programme as doomed to fail and a pie in the sky. To some extent this can be true. The private media however are praised for keeping a check on the government. Some private media in Zimbabwe take a middle of the road approach. These are the Mirror and the Tribune. This has led to suggestions that they are funded by the government to counter the other anti-government publications. These are however pro-establishment and have been accused of publishing “thinly disguised political puff-pieces on behalf of the establishment-which they package and present as patriotic news” (Muleya 2002). Precisely.

Media laws are also determinants of what the content of the media is. Where press freedom is enshrined in the constitution then the media have a free role of disseminating whatever they deem as news fit for public consumption. The South African, Botswana and Namibian constitutions provide for freedoms of the press and in addition to freedom of expression. In some countries like Swaziland, Angola and Zimbabwe an arsenal of laws have been enacted to muzzle the media. The Zimbabwean scenario refers in this case. Through AIPPA, BSA, POSA and other laws like the official secrets and the defense act, the Zimbabwean government has shown its willingness to control the media regardless whether some of the sections of the Acts are constitutional. This refers to AIPPA and POSA, which, like their colonial predecessors, have not only been declared unconstitutional by the courts of law, but the “most calculated and determined assault on our liberties” (Zvobgo in The Standard 2003). The government has gone to an extent of seeking to licence the media through a government appointed commission, which even the court has declared illegal, to licence the media organisations and journalists. Those that are seen as anti-government will not publish or “better still will broadcast from the sea,” (Moyo 2003). Laws will lead to “self-censorship of the media,” (Dominick 1990). This way news that exposes leaders` shortcomings will be swept under the carpet. The impact is that the public would not know what the people they put into power are doing and why.

In Lesotho there are privately owned broadcasters, like the Roman Catholic Church that owns and controls four stations. The effects have been far reaching. The station broadcasts gospel programmes and nothing with regards to political, social and economical issues. This kind of ownership requires gospel programming and caters for a selected audience.

Advertiser and commercial interests play a role in controlling the media content. Where the media offer sensational stories; the public gets interested and subsequently the advertisers get interested. Thus the media are a vehicle on which the advertisers use to get to the consumers. In most cases news that is carried by these media is entertainment in nature and inclination. Thus it satisfies advertiser interest and the American media has bee accused of creating an entertained and uninformed society. This is due to the fact that advertisers will pull out once media start producing serious and not entertainment oriented news. Therefore news and educational programming will not have enough time and surely an entertained, uninformed and ignorant society will be created as a result of advertiser or commercial control of the media.

As argued above media ownership and control are some of the complex determinants of media content.

Note: To obtain a detailed bibliography of the research study that was carried out by the author of the above article please contact FreeAfrica via our Contacts or Feedback pages.

Also, feel free to make your own comments and/or contributions on new topics of interest, or in response to the above article.

Written by: Sheppard Mpofu, University Student, Zimbabwe.
Email: sheppard@exclusivemail.co.za

Go to the top