Back to Index

International Relations
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Weekly Media Update 2004-43
Monday October 25th - Sunday October 31st 2004

THE deportation of the visiting delegates from the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), who were in the country on a fact-finding mission, further exposed the government media’s role as docile conduits of government propaganda bent on stifling public access to fair and accurate reporting.

Their coverage of events only reflected a crudely bigoted attack on the integrity of the COSATU delegation, which they accused of being fronts for Britain’s imperialist machinations.

No attempt was made to discuss the legitimacy of their deportation or to fairly examine the validity of the authorities’ excuse for kicking them out of the country.

Instead, the official media submissively provided the authorities greater latitude to extensively criminalize the COSATU visit by giving the impression that the delegation had violated an International Labour Organisation (ILO) protocol governing such visits. This procedure, they claimed, empowered the South African and Zimbabwean governments to organise dialogue between their respective labour organisations on issues pertaining to labour-related matters.

But no clear details of the ILO declaration were given. For example, the government media did not clarify whether the protocol barred the two from interacting freely with any civic or political groupings of their choice.

In fact, so partisan were the government media on the matter that they suffocated the fact that government had defied a High Court order barring them from deporting the delegation.

As a result, those who rely on these media were left with the impression that the deportation of the unionists was legal.

Only the private media offered a sober perspective of the saga, which they condemned as yet another example of government’s disregard for the rule of law.

Studio 7 and SW Radio Africa (25/10), for instance, provided a background to the COSATU team’s visit. SW Radio Africa noted that the trip was meant "to get an actual picture of the situation on the ground… with the intention of contributing to the settlement of the economic and labour crisis" in Zimbabwe.

The government media evaded such debates, preferring to bombard their audiences with officials’ misrepresentations and the denigration of the SA unionists as exemplified by all six stories ZBC devoted to the issue.

For example, ZTV, Power FM and Radio Zimbabwe (26/10, 8pm), The Herald and Chronicle (27/10) abdicated their professional obligation to report on facts by creating the impression that the SA unionists were not genuine.

They simply used a statement by the Department of Information falsely claiming that the 12-member team from the SA labour body were actually "dubious individuals claiming association with COSATU" and that their fact-finding mission in Zimbabwe was "an integral part of Britain’s disguised manoeuvres to meddle in the internal affairs of Zimbabwe".

The statement, reproduced by these media without analysis, also claimed that the team’s visit was therefore "a treacherously calculated assault on the country’s national laws" and a "direct and most frontal challenge to the sovereignty …of Zimbabwe".

Local, regional and international civic and political organisations cited by Studio 7 (26/10), SW Radio Africa (26, 27 & 28/10) and The Zimbabwe Independent (29/10) disagreed.

They reported widespread condemnation of government’s ill-treatment of the delegation.

For example, one of South Africa’s ruling ANC’s tripartite partners, the South African Communist Party, was reportedly "outraged and angered" by the deportation and told SW Radio Africa (27/10) that this showed that "the [Zimbabwean] government will go to any length to de-legitimise any criticism".

COSATU leader Patrick Craven also commented on Studio 7 (26/10): "It is not normal in a democratic society… for trade unions… and civil society organizations to be barred or told who they can or cannot meet."

The government censored these observations with The Herald (27/10), Power FM (27/10, 8pm and 28/10 8pm), ZTV (28/10, 8pm) and Radio Zimbabwe (29/10, 8pm) citing authorities contending that COSATU "bulldozed their way" into the country.

In fact, these media’s determination to depict the COSATU visit as illegal was also illustrated by the way they ignored reporting on the court order barring the deportation of the delegation.

While The Daily Mirror (28/10) reported news of the order, it quoted Justice Minister Patrick

Chinamasa denying that government had defied it since it was served when the "COSATU delegation had already been deported".

Home Affairs Minister Kembo Mohadi echoed this claim in The Financial Gazette (28/10) but trivialised the matter: "One thing which should be clear is that I did not deport them. I refused them entry". Foreign Affairs Minister Stan Mudenge also told Power FM (28/20) that government had merely "invited them (COSATU) out".

But The Daily Mirror quoted the delegation’s lawyer Alec Muchadehama rebutting government’s claims. He said he had served the order on an immigration official named Moyo who was with five other officials.

Said Muchadehama: "All of them refused to take the order, but we served Moyo through the accepted means of throwing it to his feet".

However, The Herald (28/10) selectively quoted the SA government and the now obscure opposition Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) to project the impression that even South Africa supported the deportation.

It quoted the PAC hailing government "for not allowing COSATU to become the barking dog of reactionary forces…aimed at the destabilisation of the national sovereignty of the people of Zimbabwe".

The next day (29/10) the paper handily used South Africa’s statement accepting that "Zimbabwe is an independent, sovereign state that had an inalienable right" to enforce its immigration laws "as it may deem appropriate" to give government’s actions a seal of approval.

But Studio 7 (27/10), The Financial Gazette (28/10) and The Zimbabwe Independent painted a different picture. Both Studio 7 and The Financial Gazette reported SA Defence Minister and ANC chairman Mosiuoa Lekota as saying the incident was "embarrassing" and that his government took "the view that the matter could have been handled in a better way".

The government media ignored these comments.

In fact, The Herald (29/10) then contradicted its earlier portrayal of cordial relations between SA and Zimbabwe by attacking President Mbeki for meeting opposition MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai.

This followed a meeting between the two men as part of the opposition’s drive to lobby regional leaders to exert pressure on Zimbabwe to fully implement the SADC protocols on the conduct of elections.

The paper insinuated that Mbeki was being used by the West in handling the Zimbabwean crisis but masked the identities of almost all the "political analysts and diplomatic sources" it heavily relied on to question Mbeki’s honesty in brokering a settlement.

But the saga then took an unusual turn when The Saturday Herald (30/10) carried a story quoting the Department of Information – which controls The Herald’s editorial content  attacking the newspaper for questioning Mbeki’s integrity. There was no explanation for this sudden change in the government newspaper’s stance. And readers would have been even more confused if they also read Lowani Ndlovu’s column in The Sunday Mail the next day who criticised "Professor Moyo’s statement" reprimanding The Herald as "ill-advised".

Only those who were "lucky" enough to catch sight of the ZANU PF weekly publication, The Voice (31/10) would have gained some insight into this mysterious mix of contradictions. The party paper carried an enlightening story reporting that an "incensed" President Mugabe had dismissed The Herald’s criticism of Mbeki as a "concoction" designed "to instigate hostility between Zimbabwe and South Africa", and that he would summon Moyo’s Department of Information to explain the issue.

Meanwhile, government’s obsession of portraying Britain as incessantly interfering with Zimbabwe’s affairs was allowed free rein in ZTV’s report of a meeting between the new British Ambassador, Dr Rod Pullen, and Lands Minister Joseph Made (26/10, 6pm & 8pm)

Made was heroically showcased denying "allegations" that "the land reform programme was chaotic… and discriminatory" and told Pullen that "no amount of pressure by… Western countries to reverse the agrarian reform will succeed".

However, ZTV neither accorded Pullen an adequate opportunity to be heard nor conveyed what he had said to Made to elicit such a response.

Instead, it ran a long-winded, biased anthology of relations between the two countries, portraying Britain as the aggressor and meddler in the country’s politics emanating from its desire to topple "Mugabe and a democratically elected government".

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