Back to Index

Election countdown
Media Monitoring Project of Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Weekly Media Update 2005-05
Monday January 31^st – Sunday February 6^th 2005

THE unprofessional manner in which the government media have since handled the pre-election period was further demonstrated by the partisan way they reported approvingly on government and ZANU PF’s preparations for the March poll while being spiteful towards the opposition MDC or ignoring the party’s activities altogether.

For example, none of the 27 stories the government Press published on the topic depicted the MDC positively. Rather, eight of these stories – comprising news features and editorials – were negative portrayals of the opposition party.

The rest of the stories (70%) were either passive endorsements of official proclamations relating to government’s electoral preparations or campaign activities of the ruling party. Further, most of these stories simultaneously campaigned against the MDC.

For example, while 10 of the stories carried in the government papers unquestioningly welcomed President Mugabe’s March 31^st poll date announcement, they contained unflattering observations about the MDC’s decision to finally participate in the elections under "protest" against what it says are unfair electoral conditions. In fact, the Chronicle (4/2) narrowly presented the MDC’s ultimate decision to take part in the election with a "heavy heart" as a "U-turn". In addition, The Herald of the same day craftily obfuscated the opposition party’s concerns over the uneven electoral playing field by juxtaposing its poll participation announcement with a story claiming that South Africa approved of Zimbabwe’s electoral reforms.

But ZBH was worse. It censored the MDC’s decision the day it happened and buried the only two stories it carried on the matter deep in ZTV’s evening bulletins the following day. Radio Zimbabwe ignored the issue altogether.

Otherwise, 43% of the 40 reports the broadcaster carried on election related matters were on ZANU PF activities. Six (15%) were uncritical official announcements on the election date while two (5%) were on the confirmation by other, smaller parties, such as ZANU Ndonga to contest the election. The rest sought to give the impression that the country will hold a democratic election despite alleged efforts by Britain and the US to discredit the electoral process.

Consequently, the MDC’s concerns over the country’s electoral environment were never explored. Instead, the government Press, as exemplified by The Herald’s Nathaniel Manheru column (5/2) diverted attention from these matters by deriding the MDC as a Western puppet, saying the opposition party had actually been ordered by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to participate in the elections.

Only the private media tried to balance the issues by according space to the MDC and civic society’s concerns about the inequitable electoral structures in the 48 stories they carried on election-related political developments. Twenty-six appeared on private radio stations.

For example, while The Daily Mirror (three stories) and Zimbabwe Independent (one story) acknowledged the MDC’s apparent confusion over its position on the election, the private Press carried 13 stories (59%) highlighting the harsh electoral environment that still threatens the fairness of the polls.

The rest of the stories were official announcements on the election date, the MDC’s subsequent decision to participate in it and reports on the MDC’s activities.

In fact, the private Press’s professional presentation of the issues was illustrated by its sourcing pattern, which sought to balance opinions between those of the MDC and civic society, on one hand, and those of government and the ruling party, on the other, as shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1 Voice distribution in the private Press

This pattern differed from that in the government Press. Except for the six voices from the MDC and four from other political parties, the rest (77%) of the 44 voices quoted by the government papers were supportive of officialdom. Although the MDC was quoted six times in these papers, their voices were almost always ridiculed or emasculated through editorial intrusions as exemplified by The Herald (4/2).

The trend was similar on ZBH, whose sources were predominantly ZANU PF as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig 2 Voice distribution on ZBH

While the government media gave the impression that there were no other MDC events apart from its decision to participate in the elections, SW Radio Africa, in one of its three clear reports on the party’s activities, reported that the opposition had held campaign rallies in Gokwe, Zhombe and Kadoma.

It also reported that Security Minister Nicholas Goche had allegedly disrupted some of the party’s rallies in Mashonaland Central. However, the report only relied on the MDC and failed to seek comments from Goche or the police for balance. In fact, the failure by the station, and indeed Studio 7, to balance their election-related stories was reflected by the lack of ZANU PF sources in their stories.

For instance, in all their stories, the stations quoted alternative voices 10 times and the MDC eight times. Other opposition parties were quoted twice. None were ZANU PF.

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