Back to Index
This article participates on the following special index pages:
Senate Elections Results & Index of articles
MDC
split and the Senatorial poll
Media
Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Weekly Media Update 2005-41
Monday
October 24th – Sunday October 30th 2005
WITH less than
a month before the Senate election, the media still contained precious
little information on the mechanics of conducting the poll. Instead,
they remained distracted for the fourth consecutive week by the
split in the opposition MDC arising from differences on whether
or not to contest the election.
The media carried
103 stories on the rift within the MDC, 38 of which appeared in
government papers and 28 in the private Press, while ZBH aired 22
reports (ZTV 11, Power FM six, Radio Zimbabwe five) and Studio 7
broadcast the remaining 15.
But like their
coverage in previous weeks, the official media dodged making a fair
and informed analysis of the root causes of the fractures within
the opposition. They continued to capitalise on the development,
using it as a platform to further discredit the MDC’s anti-poll
faction – led by party leader Morgan Tsvangirai – as dishonourable,
undemocratic and in the minority.
They reinforced
this by amplifying claims by Tsvangirai’s rivals that the opposition
leader had "wilfully" violated the MDC constitution
by unilaterally overruling the party’s National Executive Council
(NEC)’s decision to participate.
The government
media’s calculated bias was summed up by The Herald’s misleading
headline (25/10), MDC endorses poll, which misrepresented
the nomination of MDC candidates in 26 constituencies as signifying
the party’s approval of the elections. The story even expanded on
this distortion by selectively interpreting the fielding of the
candidates by the "pro-participation lobby",
led by the party’s secretary-general, Welshman Ncube, as evidence
that the group had "prevailed" over Tsvangirai.
But they evaded
addressing the circumstances and criteria in which the pro-election
group had selected the candidates, the constitutionality of their
nomination, or the identity of the MDC officials who sanctioned
their selection. It was little wonder therefore that the paper did
not bother to follow up claims by Tsvangirai’s spokesman, William
Bango, that the nominated MDC contestants had not "followed"
the party’s "traditional candidate selection procedures".
Instead, the
official media continued to present the candidates’ nomination as
the harbinger of Tsvangirai’s downfall. It even suggested that the
number of the MDC candidates could have been higher were it not
for "allegations of intimidation and violence against
those who sought to lodge their papers with the nomination courts"
in Mashonaland East, Central and Manicaland. Not a single case was
given as evidence.
Despite this,
however, the government Press carried six editorials and opinion
pieces predicting Tsvangirai’s demise.
ZBH adopted
a more generally anti-MDC stance in its coverage of the divisions
in the party, restraining itself from specifically targeting Tsvangirai.
This was illustrated by ZTV (24/10, 8pm) whose reporter, Dorothy
Mavolwane, simplistically portrayed the party as the only ones against
the poll. Said Mavolwane: "While Zimbabweans across the
social and political spectrum agree on the importance of having
a bicameral legislative system, the…MDC has failed to field candidates
in some provinces due to internal squabbles."
However, the
observations contradicted earlier revelations by ZTV’s Media
Watch programme (17/10), which portrayed members of the public
as grossly ignorant about the Senate and its benefits.
The government
media’s celebration of the MDC’s political gaffes, was also illustrated
by their unquestioning coverage of allegations by Job Sikhala, MDC
MP for St Mary’s, that the split was not about the Senate but a
result of the scramble for funds the party had received from Ghana,
Nigeria and Taiwan.
These media
peddled and magnified the allegation as fact, including weaving
conspiracies around it, while the government papers also used the
claim as another weapon with which to malign Tsvangirai.
Without attempting
to establish the truth of Sikhala’s claims, the government dailies
(26/10) quoted Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa saying government
would institute an investigation into the matter under the Political
Parties Finances Act because "Zimbabwe could not establish
a stable democratic dispensation if foreigners continue meddling
in its internal affairs…"
Although ZBH
initially failed to report the funding allegation, it also peddled
the matter as fact. ZTV (25/10, 8pm) even distorted the issue by
claiming that the "dirty money" was for
the purpose of "thwarting" the Senatorial
elections. Pro-government analysts such as Tafataona Mahoso as well
as at least 22 members of the public were accessed to malign the
MDC over the allegation.
Although at
the end of the week The Herald (28/10) carried Ghana’s
rebuttal of the funding allegation, it was buried deep inside Sikhala’s
own retraction, which the paper however dismissed as driven by his
party’s attempts to "stave off police investigations".
ZBH totally ignored Ghana’s denial.
The partisan
nature in which ZBH covered the subject was reflected in its over
dependence on ruling party voices as shown in Fig 1. All alternative
voices merely echoed the government’s position on the senate poll
and so were most of the opinions sourced from the ordinary members
of the public.
Fig 1 Voice
distribution on ZBH
MDC
|
ZANU
PF
|
Alternative
|
Ordinary
People
|
2
|
10
|
6
|
22
|
Although the
government Press sought comment from both MDC factions, it drowned
Tsvangirai’s position in lengthy comments from the pro-participation
faction. The voice distribution in the official Press is shown in
Fig 2.
Fig 2 Sourcing
pattern of the government Press
MDC
|
Zanu
PF
|
Govt
|
Alternative
|
Lawyer
|
Police
|
Foreign
|
Electoral
bodies
|
42
|
8
|
5
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
6
|
3
|
Notably, all
legal experts were quoted questioning Tsvangirai’s leadership.
But while the
government media seemed to relish reporting on the imperfections
(real or imagined) in the MDC, it did not apply the same principles
when reporting on ZANU PF or the electoral authorities’ preparations
for the Senate.
For example,
all of ZBH’s 12 campaign stories on ZANU PF were presented approvingly,
while all the 14 stories it carried on administrative issues hardly
lent transparency to the setting in which the authorities planned
to conduct the polls. Most of the stories were bland official updates
on the nomination of candidates by the nomination courts.
The five stories
that the government papers published on the administration of the
election were styled the same way. So were the three ZANU PF campaign
stories they carried.
The private
media hardly carried any useful electoral material either. Besides
a Studio 7 story (29/10) in which it quoted Electoral Institute
of Southern Africa’s Dennis Kadima highlighting the irrelevance
of a Senate in Zimbabwe, the rest of the six stories the private
media carried merely regurgitated official pronouncements on the
electoral preparations.
However, these
media did maintain professional coverage of the MDC split. They
continued to give a balanced picture of the cracks by fairly projecting
the positions of both factions in the 43 stories they carried on
the matter, 28 of which were carried by the private papers and 15
by Studio 7. Besides, the private Press carried 10 opinion pieces
that usefully examined the crisis threatening the party.
Unlike the government
media’s doomsday projections for the MDC, SW Radio Africa (26/10),
The Financial Gazette and Studio 7 (27/10) reported that
concerted efforts were being made by the feuding parties to patch
up their differences and avert the party’s collapse. In fact, Studio
7 and the Zimbabwe Independent (28/10) reported that a meeting
of the party’s top six aimed at reaching a compromise ended in a
stalemate, although they agreed to stop issuing conflicting statements
on the feud.
The government
Press (28/10) also covered the meeting’s proceedings.
Studio 7 (25/10)
also reported Tsvangirai’s group dismissing the nomination of candidates
by its rival faction as unprocedural because they were not "endorsed"
by the National Executive Council (NEC) as required under the opposition
party’s constitution. However, this was dismissed by the pro-election
group, which maintained those nominated represented the party and
would be funded from party coffers.
The station
quoted Welshman Ncube defending the manner in which his group registered
the candidates saying this was because the party’s formal route
to select the contestants had been made "impossible"
following Tsvangirai’s disregard of the NEC’s endorsement of the
polls. The Gazette also reported the Tsvangirai faction as
querying the authenticity of the MDC candidates saying some of them
"were not party members".
The private
media’s critical and balanced coverage of the MDC divisions as exemplified
by the private papers was mirrored in their sourcing patterns. See
Fig 3.
Fig. 3 Voice
distribution in the private Press
MDC
|
Zanu-PF
|
Zanu
(Ndonga)
|
Police
|
Alternative
|
Ordinary
people
|
Electoral
bodies
|
Foreign
|
23
|
4
|
1
|
1
|
16
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
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
|