25 Apr 2008: ISS Today: Reporting From Beit Bridge

25 April 2008: Reporting From Beit Bridge

 

Reporting on the present crisis in Zimbabwe is proving to be a huge challenge to journalists and news organizations worldwide.

 

Due to severe restrictions by the Zimbabwean government on foreign and local media in the country, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain accurate information of what is happening. That has resulted in the spreading of rumors, panic, speculation and biased reporting in some instances.

 

This is not helping to solve one of Africa’s most dire political impasses.

 

The crackdown on the media in Zimbabwe started several years ago  - some time before the beginning of the present political crisis. The former minister of information Jonathan Moyo, who has subsequently left Zanu PF and is now an independent MP, was initially responsible for enforcing the infamous media-laws. Moyo, a former academic, ruthlessly imposed censorship on the national broadcaster, radio and print media.

 

In September 2003 the Daily News – Zimbabwe’s only independent daily was banned, leaving readers only with the the independent weeklies and the increasingly propagandist The Herald.  The draconian Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIIPPA) was used to make sure Zimbabweans saw and heard only what the government wanted them to know.

 

Increasingly foreign journalists were restricted from visiting Zimbabwe, especially British and American journalists. Still, many foreign news organizations maintained a presence in the country and visiting journalists were occasionally allowed on reporting trips.

 

During the 2002 presidential elections and the subsequent parliamentary elections in 2005 accreditation was restricted, but many news organizations did manage to accredit, including those from Europe and the US.

 

This time round, though, it was a different story.

 

Before the 29 March elections government officials and ambassadors warmly invited the media to apply for accreditation saying the vote is going to be transparent and the media will be allowed in the country. (That is excluding the British Broadcasting Corporation, officially banned from reporting in Zimbabwe). One did get the impression media access to cover the elections might have been one of the issues agreed upon in the secret negotiations between Zanu PF and the opposition Movement for Democratic Change mediated by South Africa, though that has not been confirmed.

 

With high hopes many news organizations sent application letters to the Zimbabwean ministry of information and the Media and Information Commission (which technically should have ceased to exist prior to the elections). Many journalists flew to South Africa in order to prepare for their trip to Zimbabwe and to wait for accreditation. Most of them waited in vain. Journalists working for American, French, Japanese and also South African media were obliged to follow the elections from the television screens and their computers in Johannesburg.

 

Those who became desperate waiting, traveled to the borders of Zimbabwe with Zambia, Mozambique, and mostly to Beit Bridge in South Africa, eagerly awaiting something to happen. But what would they do there? Some humanitarian organizations have set up emergency plans on the borders in case of a dramatic increase in violence and an outflow of refugees similar to what happened in Kenya in early January 2008. Journalists hoped that here would at least be a story to report ! So far, not much has happened in terms of an increase of refugees.

 

Meanwhile a small handful of foreign journalists managed to sneak into the country from the borders, pretending to be ordinary travelers, but at their peril. Several of them were arrested and deported including New York Times journalist Barry Bearak  and British Freelance journalist Stephen Bevan, who were both released on 16 April. Another British journalist Jonathan Clayton was fined and deported on 17 April. Two South African television technicians Sipho Maseko and Abdulla Gaibee were also held in prison and only acquitted on 14 April for the same reasons – working without press accreditation.

 

The fate of local journalists in Zimbabwe is much more dire than that of their foreign counterparts. Their bravery and persistence – working under severe restrictions, but also amid economic collapse – must be saluted. Many of them have faced harassment, intimidation and even torture.

 

The Zimbabwean government might believe keeping the media out will prevent the outside world from sending negative propaganda about their country into the world, but thanks to these local journalists and to information technology, the events in Zimbabwe are getting out. Videos, photographs and text are being sent by reporters and even ordinary people from Zimbabwe to be viewed and read by audiences around the world. Some news organizations have invited non-journalists to send their stories of life in Zimbabwe and their viewpoint on the political crisis to be published on their websites. This is certainly not the ideal way to gather news and there is a danger that this kind of “reporting” will be biased or inaccurate, but the Zimbabwe government leaves the media with little choice.

 

It is clear that Zimbabweans inside the country do find ways of accessing information about what is going on and who is responsible for their hardships.

 

The results of the parliamentary elections – the only ones released so far – is perhaps an indication that the government underestimated people’s ability to find out what is happening, despite years of restricting the media.

 

Liesl Louw, ISS Associate Editor

Â