Back to Index

Media coverage of President Mugabe's health: Ethical journalism sacrificed for sensational rewards
The Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe
April 24, 2012

MMPZ notes with concern the grave journalistic misconduct that characterised the recent renewed media speculation about the health of President Mugabe in the wake of his two-week absence, ostensibly in Singapore to oversee university postgraduate study arrangements for his daughter, Bona.

The credibility of the domestic media took a serious knock over Easter when a report in a London-based online news agency, The Zimbabwe Mail (10/4), presumptuously reported the 88-year-old President was "battling for his life" in an unnamed Singapore hospital. The agency, apparently owned by a locally registered company, the Zimbabwe News and Media (PVT) Ltd, cited an unnamed ZANU PF "insider" as saying Mugabe was "undergoing intensive treatment in Singapore" and that some members of his family had flown by private chartered plane from Harare on the evening of Easter Saturday (April 7th) to be with him.

Not a shred of corroborative evidence was provided to support these claims.

Apart from the brief referencing of the claims to the unnamed ZANU PF official, the agency did not make any attempt to check the accuracy of its story with additional, independent sources, a basic journalistic prerequisite aimed at preventing the publication of untrustworthy information. It was especially important in this case, given the gravity of the 'news' about Mugabe's health and the natural public interest in his welfare.

Instead, the report: Mugabe battling for life in Singapore, Cabinet meetings suspended, merely used its unfounded allegations as a platform to regurgitate speculation about Mugabe's "failing health", its alleged disruption of government operations and its projected effect on ZANU PF's and the country's "political landscape".

This speculative fairy tale constitutes a serious case of professional journalistic misconduct and damages the reputation of the media profession. It also provides ammunition to those looking for excuses to control media activity by demanding additionally repressive laws that gag free expression under the guise of controlling "irresponsible journalism".

However, it should be stated that laws already exist that provide more than adequate redress to those whose reputations may have been harmed by false and inaccurate reporting. It would be an offence against the principle of freedom of expression if more pre-emptive legislation is added to those laws that already exist that suffocate media activity in Zimbabwe.

The Zimbabwe Mail's coverage of Mugabe's alleged ill health also raises fresh questions about the credibility of new information technologies and new media communications systems. Although online news agencies help to ensure that more information is available to more people than ever before, it is imperative that they - like the traditional news media - also uphold professional journalistic standards in their reporting.

The fallout from The Zimbabwe Mail story holds important implications for online publications, as public trust in these websites is undermined when these media deliver erroneous and unreliable information.

It is, perhaps, to the organization's credit that it has at least issued a public apology and apparently fired the website's editor over its alarmist report, which was, of course, seized upon by other media locally and internationally.

Locally, news outlets like Radio VOP, SW Radio Africa and The Daily News also didn't do their reputations any good by rushing to produce their own versions of the story based on the Zimbabwe Mail's report and others in the international media, and although they carried denials from ZANU PF officials, their coverage mostly reinforced, rather than clarified, the ill-health hearsay.

For example, The Daily News' story What happens if Mugabe dies (14/4) fuelled public concern by characterising the speculation on Mugabe's ill health as "more plausible than usual" without providing any supporting evidence for this claim.

Earlier, SW Radio Africa (10/4) insisted that in spite of ZANU-PF's denials, it was "clear the 88-year-old is receiving some form of treatment in Singapore . . . comes back into the country looking 'energetic' until the next relapse" again without providing evidence for its claim. It speculated: "It's also clear something 'serious' made him miss two Cabinet meetings and another one for his party."

However, the station did note that the lack of "accurate information" about the President's health contributed to the "rumours and speculation". But this didn't stop SW Radio Africa (10/4) and The Daily News (11/4) from using Mugabe's "deathbed" story as a basis to speculate about a post-Mugabe era.

Such hasty "copycat" reporting obviously carries its own inherent dangers of repeating the inaccuracies and falsehoods of the initial report, but does not exonerate these media from the responsibility of attempting to establish the truth of the situation before rushing into print or to broadcast the "news".

However, the story has also provided a graphic illustration of the culture of secrecy that shrouds most government activity these days, including and especially regarding Mugabe's health status.

In any participatory democracy the people have a right to be fully informed about the policies and activities of their government in order to judge its performance, plan for the future and to call its officials to account. But this transparency is singularly missing from the governance practices of most government departments.

Thus the legendary veil of secrecy around the issue of Mugabe's health has made it extremely difficult for the media to accurately inform their audiences about the truth regarding the health of Zimbabwe's most senior public official.

While there is a need to balance the private and public lives of government officials, holders of public office, including Mugabe, have an obligation to be open about private interests that relate to their public duties and to be accountable to the public where these interests have a direct bearing on the country. Failure to disclose these interests fuels public speculation and rumour-mongering that is naturally reflected in the media.

This is the inevitable consequence of secretive government management systems, and government officials like Media, Information and Publicity Minister Webster Shamu, who was widely quoted in the state-controlled Herald and Chronicle (13/2) criticizing the local media for "pandering to the . . . imperialists" and pushing a "regime change" agenda, only have themselves to blame for failing to inform the nation adequately - and honestly - about the activities of the President and his health.

Nor is it surprising in such a restrictive media environment that we should witness equally "irresponsible journalism" emanating from The Sunday Mail (15/4) suggesting - without any substantiation - that the story about Mugabe's ill health was a creation of the MDC-T. Of course, this is not journalism at all, but an extension of the propaganda promoted by the likes of Shamu and his ZANU PF colleagues who control these state media outlets.

It is to the credit of other private media institutions that they were more measured in their response to the story about Mugabe's ill health.

For example, the Zimbabwe Independent (13/4) Editor's Memo acknowledged websites as important sources of information, but described sensational rumours and reports on Mugabe's illness as a sign of unethical journalism, lack of accountability and professionalism by the Zimbabwe Mail, saying such reports damaged the reputation of the profession. The paper also urged Mugabe's advisors and spokesmen to talk to the media to avoid fuelling speculation and damaging ripple effects. "Instead of always waiting to react to reports about Mugabe's health, it would be useful for them to clarify this issue once and for all".

NewsDay (13/4) expressed similar sentiments and interpreted the latest development as the "downside of closing the media space for governments trying to keep a lid on information filtering out".

Indeed, it is the responsibility of the government to be more forthcoming about the activities of its officials - especially the President, and especially in view of his advanced age. But the "mind-your-own-business" attitude of government is no excuse for any news media organization to abandon its professional duty to expose the truth with factual evidence.

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