Back to Index

International relations
Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe (MMPZ)
Extracted from Weekly Media Update 2007-38
Monday September 24th - Sunday September 30th 2007
October 04, 2007

This week the government media reduced proceedings at the 62nd United Nations General Assembly in the US into political mudslinging between President Robert Mugabe and US President George Bush. As a result, there was barely information regarding the agenda of the meeting, the deliberations that took place and any resolutions passed. Similarly, there were no useful follow-ups on the exact causes of the differences in world opinion over President Mugabe's possible attendance of the EU-Africa summit in Portugal later this year. These professional shortcomings were reflected in the 88 reports the official media carried on the topic. Of these, 47 appeared on ZBC and 41 in the government papers.

The government media did not provide a sober examination of US President George Bush's critical remarks on poor governance in Zimbabwe during his UN opening speech or coherently reconcile it with President Mugabe's acidic response at the same meeting.

The Herald and Chronicle (26/9) and ZTV (26/9, 8pm) even blacked out the US President's speech, in which he allegedly said Zimbabweans were suffering under "a tyrannical regime" resulting in millions of them fleeing the country. They only covered it in the context of government's responses to it.

The two official dailies, for example, quoted Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu accusing Bush of "abusing" the UN platform to peddle "lies on Zimbabwe as part of a neo-colonial campaign to demonise the . . . country over its land reform programme".

ZBC also failed to give informed coverage of the speech. Rather, its reporter, Judith Makwanya, seemed to only take delight in the possible response of Mugabe, saying: "A lot of fireworks are expected in (Mugabe's speech) following the provocation by George Bush . . . " (ZTV 26/9, 8pm). Notably, the context and relevance of the US president's observations was ignored. It was hardly surprising therefore that Mugabe's eventual response to Bush was given positive prominence, with The Herald and Chronicle (28/9) even reproducing the full text of the speech. Moreover, the government papers also amplified the speech in praise editorials such as 'President: Beacon of hope for the oppressed' (The Herald 29/9) and 'Bush should heed President's advice' and 'UN assembly: Zim story told' (The Sunday Mail 30/9).

Spot FM (29/9, 8am) presented Mugabe's attack on Bush as having received widespread as reflected by the way Malawian President, Bingu waMutharika and his Zambian counterpart, Levy Mwanawasa "shook his hands" after the address. The government media's preoccupation with presenting Mugabe as having triumphed over his 'detractors' resulted in them failing to give a holistic picture of what transpired between him and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on the sidelines of the meeting.

ZTV (28/9, 8pm) just reported that Mugabe had "warned" Ki-moon "not to allow the West to abuse his office". No comments were sought from the UN.

Similarly, there was no examination of the principles governing the EU-Africa summit regarding President's Mugabe attendance; the exact reasons behind British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's boycott threats if Mugabe was invited or the wisdom of his decision. As a result, none of the government media sought official clarifications from the British authorities on what Brown meant when he claimed Mugabe's presence at the Lisbon Summit would turn the meeting into a circus and "divert attention from important issues", (The Herald and Chronicle 26/9).

Earlier, The Herald (25/9) speculated that Brown was "fearful" of the "sitting arrangements and handshakes" with Mugabe at the summit. In addition, the editorial also considered the British premier's boycott threats as "premised on land reform", saying the British government was "failing to come to terms with the irreversible . . . programme". Similarly, ZTV (27/9, 8pm) used the boycott threat to vindicate official claims that Britain was "involving other countries in its diplomatic row" with Zimbabwe. The government media's narrow presentation of the subject was mirrored by its sparse use of alternative voices to examine government pronouncements (Figs 1 and 2). Notably, most of the comments from the foreign diplomats were reported in the context of offering solidarity to the country.

Fig. 1: Voice Distribution on ZBC

Fig. 2: Voice distribution in the government Press

Although the private media fairly reported on Bush and Mugabe's speeches, they failed to give a holistic picture of proceedings at the UN summit. However, contrary to government assertions, Studio 7 (27/9) reported that Ki-Moon had actually tasked President Mugabe over the Zimbabwe crisis and "rejected his contention that UN assistance was not necessary" because the matter was "in the hands of SADC".

The private media made attempts to critically assess the prudence of Brown's decision to boycott the EU-Africa summit.

For example, The Zimbabwe Times (27/9), carried an opinion piece from Geoff Nyarota, which criticised Brown's threats to boycott the summit. Nyarota argued, among other issues, that the British Prime Minister's stance had the effect of reducing the summit to a "bilateral issue" between his country and its former colony. Citing a recent International Crisis Group report on Zimbabwe, Nyarota contended that such actions gave Mugabe "legitimacy to claim that he is a victim of neo-colonial ambitions". The reports were part of the 34 reports the private media (private electronic media [19] and private Press [15]) carried on the subject. Figs 3 and 4 show voice distribution in the private media.

Fig. 3: Voice distribution in the private electronic media

Fig. 4: Voice distribution in the private Press

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