Back to Index

Government’s disinformation campaign
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Media Weekly Update 2004-24
Monday June 14^th – Sunday June 20^th 2004

THE government media provided more evidence of its compulsive disinformation campaign to discredit government’s perceived enemies when the Chronicle refused to correct what were reported to be severe distortions in its coverage of some of the deliberations at the recently held Southern African Editors Forum (SAEF) meeting. In its initial report (10/6), the paper’s editor, Stephen Ndlovu, claimed that one of the guest speakers at the meeting, Gugulethu Moyo, had proposed war as a solution to the Zimbabwean crisis. However, Moyo denied ever making such statements and described the story as "either fictitious or inaccurate" (The Standard 13/6).

Her denial was reinforced during the week by an SAEF statement published in the Zimbabwe Independent (18/6) and The Standard (20/6). It castigated Ndlovu for distorting the truth and conducting himself in a manner "unworthy of a journalist and editor".

Said the regional editors’ body: "The articles appearing in the Chronicle… are part of a blatant disinformation campaign which runs counter to any hint at truth or professionalism".

But despite this, the Chronicle (17/6) insisted that its report was factual.

In its lead article ironically headlined, Press freedom under threat, the paper alleged that the sponsor for the editors’ meeting, the Institute for Democracy in Southern Africa (IDASA), had exerted "immense pressure" on SAEF "to discredit an article exposing the double standards and insincerity of…Moyo", adding that "like a dog pandering to its master at the expense of media freedom, … SAEF communications co-ordinator…immediately sent e-mails rebutting Chronicle revelations." The paper then repeated its allegations against Moyo adding that, "the Chronicle sticks to its story".

As in previous cases where the government media has been accused of grossly unprofessional conduct, the Media and Information Commission was conspicuous by its silence, once again suggesting that the harsh criminal penalties contained in the repressive Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) are only intended for the privately owned media.

More worrying however is news of the government’s intention to extend these unacceptably harsh penalties for what amounts to trivial administrative regulatory offences. According to The Herald, (19/6) government intends to amend section 83 of the Act – which prohibits unaccredited journalists from practising – so as to provide a penalty provision, which is currently absent. Said the paper: "Persons who contravene this section will be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years or both."

MMPZ condemns this offensive provision that clearly gives the MIC the unconstitutional authority to deny a journalist his right to work, and this fresh attempt to criminalize and incarcerate "unlicensed" journalists.

The government was also reported to be planning to amend section 40 of the Act, which stipulates that some members of the MIC should be nominated by both associations of journalists and media houses. But since an association of "media houses does not yet exist", reported the paper, "the Bill proposes that nominations should be received from either or both of such types of associations". The paper did not question the underlying implications of such changes, news of which were buried on page 11.

Visit the MMPZ fact sheet

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP