Censorship lives on, in Africa 

Gone are the days when news stories had to be vetted by colonial-era authorities. But, as delegates have said at the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa) Conference on Censorship, Media and Freedom of Expression in Southern Africa, today anyone can write anything they wish, but the article may the last for the writer and his or her media house.

There is a wavering line between censorship and government actions abetted by laws that produce the same effect.

"Six journalists in The Gambia were convicted of writing articles critical of President Yahya Jammah, who went on state television to threaten independent journalists while mocking what he called 'the so-called freedom of the press'," Rashweat Mukundu, of Misa Zimbabwe, told the conference in Mbabane, Swaziland.
Continues Below ?

"The next day the journalists were given a presidential pardon. This is how governments work against a free press these days."

Mukundu said the scene in Zimbabwe remained "bleak when it comes to media freedom of expression".

Although the government of national unity had brought about some changes, notably in allowing foreign correspondents to report again from Zimbabwe, "the pressure is still on the press - there are repressive laws and intimidation of journalists" and reporters continued to be beaten up.

Henry Kabwe, chairman of Misa in Zambia, said of his country: "We have also seen an increase in attacks on journalists. Last month we presented a petition to the president complaining about... physical harassment (of journalists by) guards of the ruling party.

"For instance, if government officials are going to a meeting, party guards beat reporters from the Post newspaper, which is very critical of the government. The police may be there, but they do not interfere."

'There is no such thing as self-censorship'
The media today were cowed by oppressive laws and fear, the conference heard.

"Censorship is no longer as blatant as 'you must bring your stories to the ministry of information to censor'. It is accomplished by using laws and inculcating an atmosphere of intimidation," Misa regional director Kaitira Kandjii said.

Michael Motsa of Misa Swaziland added: "A minister calls a reporter and says, 'Can you tell me why we shouldn't close down your newspaper because of this story?' The next time, the reporter will think twice about filing such a story." Censorship was practised "informally" in state-owned or state-aligned media, Kandjii said.

"In South Africa, a very senior official at the SABC compiled a list of people who must not be interviewed, and I am sure this was distributed informally to reporters.

"In Botswana, critical voices are not allowed to be heard in the state-controlled media. Reporters at Botswana TV also receive word informally that they must not cover certain individuals."

In Swaziland, the fear of retribution against their families kept reporters in check.

"On paper we have the freedom to communicate anything, but cultural constraints to press freedom are powerful - values inculcated from birth, such as if you disrespect those around the king, you are breaking social rules and you deserve to be punished," said University of Swaziland professor of journalism Maxwell Mthembu.

"A culture of fear permeates the Swazi media. It is a fear that if you write ill about the country, particularly if it involves the country's elders, you don't know what is going to happen to you the next day, or to your family in the chiefdoms or your wife at work (particularly if she is a civil servant)."

In a speech read to the conference, Swaziland's information minister, Nelisiwe Shogwe, acknowledged there was censorship in his country, but said it was all the media's fault.

Shogwe said reporters were bribed by business people and politicians to bury critical stories while newsroom policy was influenced by advertisers.

The Swazi delegates said the minister had not mentioned government intimidation of the media or the 32 laws on Swaziland's statute books stifling freedom of the press.

A Mozambican delegate said there were growing numbers of company-sponsored journalism awards in his country, dozens of which offered prizes of up to $50 000 (R380 000). But the sponsors expected winning journalists to "show restraint" when reporting on their activities.

In Zimbabwe, Lutundu said, "we are in a situation where the economy is just starting to pick up, but advertisers are very few and those who do (advertise) have influence over what is printed about them."

Misa's Angolan chairman, Paulos Santa Maria, said: "We say we have one of the most free presses, but the state media houses that are supposed to be the voices of the people and be government watchdogs don't do that job. Those with critical voices are not interviewed.

"On the other (hand), the (privately owned) media may write something critical on one day, but the very next day they are writing 'We didn't mean to imply...'"

Motsa said that in Swaziland the media censored themselves when covering the monarchy, traditional authorities, culture, media owners and advertisers.

Another delegate sought to set the record straight, however.

"There is no such thing as self-censorship," she said.

"When reporters respond to intimidation and are cowed into silence, that's not self-censorship, that's bare-knuckles censorship practised against them.

"The censorship comes in the form of threats from government officials and influential people and businesses. This has nothing to do with reporters taking bribes. That isn't censorship. That's corruption. But when a reporter abandons a story because he fears getting beaten up, being jailed or his family being thrown off their land by a chief responding to traditional authorities, that is pure censorship." - Independent Foreign Service.

- September 24, 2009 by James Hall

.................

Source: www.iol.co.za/index.php (Accessed on 24.09.2009)