African Free Press - Windhoek Declaration 25th Anniversary

Transcription

AfrIcAN
ANNIVERSAR Y
#WHK25
May 2016
free PreSS
Your free paper for freedom of the press
Getting away
with murder...
page 19
No justice
without the
right to know
Media are
running helter
skelter...
page 24 & 25
Consistent with article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the establishment, maintenance and fostering of an
independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development
and maintenance of democracy in a nation, and for economic
development.
By an independent press, we mean a press independent from
governmental, political or economic control or from control of materials
and infrastructure essential for the production and dissemination of
newspapers, magazines and periodicals.
By a pluralistic press, we mean the end of monopolies of any kind and
the existence of the greatest possible number of newspapers, magazines
and periodicals reflecting the widest possible range of opinion within
the community.
Windhoek Declaration on Promoting an Independent
and Pluralistic African Press – 3 May 1991
Your free paper for press freedom
page 6
2
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
The long walk from resolutions to reality
Pansy Tlakula reminds us that the rights to freedom of
expression and access to information belong to all people,
not only to journalists. And that it takes perseverance to
entrench them.
2016 is a significant year on the African Continent. It marks the 30th
anniversary of the coming into force of the African Charter on Human
and Peoples’ Rights and the 25th anniversary of the Windhoek Declaration. The African Union (AU) has also declared 2016 as the Year
for Human Rights with particular emphasis on the rights of women.
As we celebrate these milestones, it is important to reflect on our
achievements as well as the outstanding challenges in the realisation
of human rights in general and the rights to freedom of expression and
access to information in particular.
Both the African Charter and the Windhoek Declaration provide us
with a sound normative framework for the effective realisation of
freedom of expression and information as well as press freedom. The
Charter grants every individual the right to receive information and
the right to express and disseminate his or her opinion within the law.
The main thrust of the Declaration is to promote independent and
pluralistic media. It reaffirms freedom of expression and information
as fundamental contributions to the fulfilment of human aspiration
and, more importantly, recognises that there cannot be a successful
participatory democracy without a fully independent press.
The norms and principles spelled out in both the Charter and the Declaration were reconfirmed and given more concrete shape in a number of documents adopted by AU organs. The African Commission
on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) adopted the Declaration of
Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa in 2002, in collaboration with civil society organisations led by Article 19. The Declaration
was meant to expand the scope of the right to freedom of expression
and access to information in the African Charter. In 2004 the mechanism of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression in Africa
was established to monitor its implementation. The mandate of the
Special Rapporteur was expanded a few years later to include access
to information.
The Declaration of Principles has over the years acquired persuasive
legal effect. It is used extensively on the African continent and elsewhere, and its principles have become the cornerstone for the effective promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression
and access to information. Principle IV of the Declaration asserts simply and unequivocally: “Public bodies hold information not for themselves but as custodians of the public good and everyone has a right to
access this information”.
This powerful statement debunks the often-held notion that the right
to information is a right for journalists. The right to information is
for all of us. The right to information plays a vital role in the realisation of other rights and in fostering democracy, good governance,
transparency and accountability. It is a prerequisite to the enjoyment
of economic and social rights. Without information, ordinary people
cannot access government services. Without information citizens
cannot exercise their right to vote. The overwhelming culture of secrecy, which is embedded in governments across the globe and which
breeds an atmosphere of distrust between the state and its citizens,
can only be addressed through the proactive disclosure of information. Open government can only be achieved through the adoption
and implementation of access to information laws.
Declarations, of course, however powerful, take time to translate into
action. So far, very few countries on the continent have adopted laws
that facilitate the enjoyment of the right to information. To assist African states with the drafting of national legislation, in 2013 the ACHPR,
through its Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access
to Information, adopted the Model Law on Access to Information. The
Model Law, drafted with the help of African experts, reinforces the
principle that the right to information is a right for everyone. It provides that the right to information is guaranteed to everyone within
the state and is not only a right of citizens. It requires proactive disclosure of information by public bodies and relevant private bodies
that are owned, controlled or financed through public funds, or which
perform a public function or service. This is in recognition of the current realities in most countries on our continent where services that
are supposed to be provided by the government, such as water and
electricity, are increasingly being privatised.
ESCO General Conference declared 28 September the International
Day for Universal Access to Information. African civil society organisations, through the adoption of the African Platform on Access to
Information Declaration at the first Pan African Conference on Access
to Information in 2011, played a crucial role in this major initiative.
We must lobby the AU to endorse this declaration at its summit in June
this year. This will be a fitting commemoration of 2016 as the Year for
Human Rights.
Freedom of expression, like the right to information, is a cross-cutting
right, necessary for the enjoyment of all other human rights. The right
to freely express one’s views and opinions and to seek, receive and
impart information and ideas in society is inextricably linked to the
ability of individuals to play a role in strengthening democracy and
the rule of law. The free exercise of the right to freedom of expression,
including freedom of the media, shines the spotlight on corruption,
poor administration and service delivery, and mismanagement of
public funds. Unfortunately in most countries, there exist a number
of laws that unreasonably limit the right to freedom of expression, and
journalists who use this right are still forced to flee their countries,
and are murdered, harassed, arrested and intimidated.
The African Commission has over the years adopted a number of country and thematic resolutions regarding freedom of expression in general and press freedom in particular. It has not remained silent over
grave violations of these rights. For example, in 2010 the Commission
adopted the Resolution on the Deteriorating Situation of Freedom of
Expression and Access to Information in Africa. It appealed to state
parties to investigate allegations of violations of the right to freedom
of expression and access to information, particularly in relation to the
death of detained journalists, and to bring perpetrators to justice.
Currently, 17 countries have adopted access to information laws. They
include Angola, Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Guinea, Liberia, Mozambique, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
South Sudan, Sudan, Tunisia, Uganda and Zimbabwe. This constitutes a mere third of African countries. Moreover, the compliance of
national laws with regional and international standards in countries
such as Angola, Ethiopia and Zimbabwe remains a challenge. In addition, most countries that have adopted these laws struggle with implementation.
In order to encourage more countries to adopt access to information laws, the Special Rapporteur has undertaken advocacy visits to
Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles and Senegal. A similar
visit has been paid to Nigeria to give impetus to on-going initiatives
to accelerate the implementation of the Freedom of Information law
adopted in 2011. There is a need to bring Regional Economic Communities on board. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur has held
consultations with the secretariats of SADC, EAC and ECOWAS to encourage more countries to adopt access to information laws. A visit
was also paid to the Pan African Parliament, culminating in the PAP
adopting the Midrand Declaration on Press Freedom in Africa on 15
May 2013, which includes a call “on AU Member States to use the ACHPR Model Law on Access to Information in adopting or reviewing access to information laws”.
In its 2011 Resolution on the Safety of Journalists and Media Practitioners in Africa, the Commission unequivocally condemned the declining safety and security situation of journalists in Africa and called
on state parties to fulfil their obligation to prevent and investigate all
crimes committed against journalists, and to bring perpetrators to
justice. The Commission has also adopted a number of country resolutions condemning violence against journalists. These include a resolution on freedom of expression and elections (2013) in Zimbabwe; a
resolution on the attacks against journalists and media practitioners
in Somalia and a resolution on freedom of expression in the Kingdom
of Swaziland.
Of course, resolutions are not enough. In commemorating the 25th
Anniversary of the Windhoek Declaration, all of us as free expression
and freedom of information activists should double our efforts to ensure that the right to freedom of expression and information becomes
a living reality for all the people of Africa. We should use this milestone to recommit ourselves to living the ideals of the African Charter,
which provides in its preamble that “freedom, equality, justice and
dignity are essential objectives for the achievement of the legitimate
aspirations of the African Peoples.” This will be a fitting tribute to all
those who sacrificed their lives to keep us informed.
Pansy Tlakula is the Chairperson of the African Commission on Human
and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) and its Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Expression and Access to Information.
While we acknowledge the fact that a lot still needs to be done, we
have to celebrate our achievements. On 17 November 2015, the UN-
Dear reader...
In 1991 journalists from all over Africa gathered in the Namibian capital to draft and adopt a ground-breaking document: the Windhoek
Declaration on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African
Press.
In this publication, 40 researchers, journalists, artists and media users review progress made over the past quarter century and ask: Do we
really have reason to celebrate?
Yes, we have, say our authors. The Declaration has had an impact far
beyond expectations 25 years ago. The media landscape in Africa has
changed dramatically: independent media are flourishing all over the
continent; some restrictive laws have been changed; journalists are
able to work in a more professional manner.
No, we do not, say our authors. Restrictive media laws from the colonial era are still in place in many countries, state media continue
to have the say, women’s voices and perspectives are still grossly under-represented, and journalists (and bloggers and whistle-blowers)
are still harassed, imprisoned and killed.
And then there are numerous new challenges as well. How can traditional media stay relevant in the digital age – and why should they?
Is the internet a two-faced monster or a revolutionary breakthrough?
How can it be used for new forms of newsgathering and distribution?
How can we ensure that all citizens have access to information?
This publication tries to address all these topics and more. We want to
encourage readers and viewers (offline and online) to get involved in
the struggle for the right to freedom of expression. Journalists cannot
win this struggle on their own and the rights of free expression and
access to information belong to all citizens.
We, the editors, want to thank the Media Institute of Southern Africa
(MISA) for taking the lead in producing this paper and DW Akademie
for supporting it.
Happy reading,
Jeanette Minnie and Hendrik Bussiek
Co-editors
View the digital version of this paper at
www.WHK25.misa.org
#WHK25
3
African media law: Time to throw off
the colonial shackles
Justine Limpitlaw outlines legal challenges to a free media in
Africa, including colonial-era laws that restrict free thought
and expression.
The heady promise of the early 1990s in Africa! It seemed like every
country on the continent was re-examining its political landscape
and promising democratic reform.
The 1991 Windhoek Declaration placed a free and independent African media squarely on the map and indeed this seemed to be happening.
Country after country held free and fair, democratic, multi-party elections, often the first in decades. In South Africa and Namibia, they
were the first ever.
Country after country enacted new constitutions guaranteeing, at
last, basic human rights for their citizens, including freedom of expression and in many cases freedom of the press.
A quarter of a century is a good time to take stock. How far have we
come? How far still to go to fulfil the promise not only of the Windhoek Declaration but also of the constitutional reform processes that
seemed to accompany it?
To take stock, it makes sense to identify certain key challenges facing
the media in a number of different African countries and see how we
are doing on these.
All countries have to protect their citizens’ rights to dignity and reputation. Indeed, these rights are often provided for in the constitution,
requiring a balancing between the right to freedom of expression, including freedom of the media, and the right to dignity.
The issue is to get the balance right – to protect legitimate reputational concerns while ensuring that the media can get on with its job,
which is to report accurately and fairly on news that the public needs
to know about.
There are two types of defamation that are commonly provided for in
the laws of African countries: civil and criminal defamation.
Civil defamation is uncontroversial and is provided for in almost all
legal systems internationally. Namely, a person who has been unlawfully defamed is able to sue the defaming party or parties for damages.
It must be said, however, that politicians have been known to abuse
civil defamation remedies by pushing for punitive damage claims,
which have the potential to bankrupt media outlets.
Criminal defamation, on the other hand, is extremely controversial
and has fallen out of favour in democratic countries in recent decades.
This is where the state is able to charge a person with defamation under criminal law with all the attendant features: the possibility of arrest, detention, bail, a criminal trial, sentencing to a fine or even jail,
and a criminal record. The United Kingdom repealed its own criminal
defamation laws in 2009.
Criminal defamation has been on the statute books or part of the
common law of numerous African countries for decades and has had
an extremely chilling effect on newsrooms across the continent. In
recognition of this, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights passed Resolution 169 in 2010 which specifically calls on states
to repeal their criminal defamation laws. Progress has been slow – to
date only Benin, Ghana and Niger have done so in full.
South Africa’s ruling party recently announced its intention to introduce legislation in Parliament to repeal the common-law crime of
defamation (like Namibia, it does not have criminal defamation as a
statutory crime) and this is expected to be passed in 2016. Another
mechanism for effectively repealing these laws is to challenge their
constitutionality. The Constitutional Court in Zimbabwe recently declared unconstitutional the criminal defamation laws in that country
– a historic first for a national court in Africa.
Riot police manhandle a journalist in Dar es Salaam
An important case in the African Court of Human and Peoples’
Rights, Konate vs Burkina Faso, was handed down in December 2014.
Although the court did not strike down criminal defamation in its
entirety, it did hold that a sentence of imprisonment for criminal
defamation violated Article 9 of the African Charter of Human and
Peoples’ Rights, which guarantees freedom of expression. This should
send an important signal to African countries that is it time to repeal
these laws.
The issue is to get the balance right
– to protect legitimate reputational
concerns while ensuring that the media
can get on with its job...
A related matter is the issue of prohibitions against insulting important persons. These are throwbacks to the colonial era when there were
prohibitions against insulting the king or queen of Great Britain, foreign princes and the like. Sadly, they have been retained throughout
Africa but now serve African kings, presidents and prime ministers.
There are two key reasons why these are abhorrent. Firstly, they provide for criminal penalties, the chilling effect of which has already
been discussed. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, they undermine the key democratic value of equality before the law. Insult
laws do not protect all of us, including you and me; they protect only
persons who are extremely powerful in society. These laws are not
necessary as heads of state can sue for damages under the ordinary
civil laws of defamation.
Many countries in Africa still have colonial-era statutory provisions
which criminalise the publication of false news (that is, untrue statements, reports or rumours) that are likely to alarm the public or to
disturb the peace. In some countries, such as Tanzania, there is a defence to the charge if the media can demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to confirm the accuracy of the report. But in others, such as
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the mere fact that the report
was incorrect, that is, false, is enough to sustain a charge.
lication because of concerns that it may find itself facing a criminal
probe due to an inadvertent inaccuracy. An on-going problem is that
insult laws are abused by governments to silence legitimate reporting
on political issues such as corruption, cronyism and other barriers to
development. These provisions ought to be repealed and if a story is
false, other remedies such as corrections, apologies, media council
rulings or civil defamation claims should suffice.
Colonial-era security laws were extremely draconian in their ability
to stifle the media from reporting on matters that may have sparked
dissention with colonial rule. Sadly, most of these laws were not repealed at independence in many African countries. All too often, independent states simply continued to use the laws to stifle legitimate
dissention, criticism, comment and expression by their citizens. This
continues today.
A key feature of the laws, particularly the offence of sedition, is that
the definitions are over-broad. They do not relate only to clear threats
to the country’s existence or territorial integrity but also to vague
concepts such as “disturbing relations between different sectors of
the population” and the like. They are also often subjectively framed.
That is, there does not have to be an actual threat. Instead, what is
required is that there is such a threat in a particular minister’s subjective opinion. This makes oversight of such laws difficult, as courts
cannot enquire into the reasonableness or validity of such an opinion.
Very few countries have made any substantive changes to their security laws from the colonial era, and consequently the African media
environment is stuck in the past. In addition, the very countries that
gave rise to such laws – Britain, France and Portugal, for example –
have long since amended their laws to fall in line with international
norms, which guarantee freedom of the media.
After 25 years of the Windhoek Declaration, it is clear that in certain
critical respects the promises of media freedom and independence
from the colonial era remain unmet. It is time to rid our continent
of colonial-era media laws that hold back development and freedom.
Justine Limpitlaw is Visiting Adjunct Professor at the LINK Centre of the
University of the Witwatersrand.
These provisions are problematic since it is impossible for journalists and media houses to get every story entirely right and factually
correct all of the time. Consequently, it happens that a media outlet
with an important public-interest story might well hold back on pub-
25th Anniversary of the Windhoek Declaration
4
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
Who has the say in Africa?
More media, not less!
Will the rise of private media in Africa arrest the dominance
of state-owned media on the continent? Sulemana Braimah
reflects on the current state of media pluralism and diversity
in Africa.
erates. The growing phenomenon of concentration of ownership
therefore results in pluralism in numbers, but not in diversity of content and audience.
When you need to choose between buying food for your family and purchasing a newspaper, the choice is simple, writes
Julie Reid.
Around the continent, many newspapers and magazines continue to
rely on direct sales for their survival. Although there are notable exceptions in nearly all parts of Africa, in many instances sales strategies
have remained street-based, with low or non-existing subscriptions
and home delivery. A majority of media organisations – both print and
broadcast – operate without business plans or advertising strategies.
The result of all this, as observed by Guy Berger in an analysis of the
African media market, is “fragile cash-flows for African newspapers
and often a tendency to hype stories in order to achieve street sales.”
If you live in Africa, the type and amount of media you get largely depends on where you live, which languages you speak and how much
money you have. Many people, particularly the poor, have little or no
choice about the media they receive.
Things look good – at first glance. In nearly all African countries, the
once monopolistic state-owned media are now facing competition
from multiple private media organisations. A 2014 UNESCO report on
trends in freedom of expression and media development in sub-Saharan Africa said: “During the 1990s, in most countries, private newspapers started to flourish. Growing deregulation of the broadcasting
sector began to allow for the blossoming of private and community
radio and television stations”. These are also complemented by news
websites, blogs and many internet and mobile phone-enabled channels of mass communication.
So, yes, there appears to be a flourishing media market almost everywhere in Africa. And there is no doubt that in terms of numbers, Africa
now has a pluralistic media landscape.
But is the essence of media development in Africa just about increasing the number of media outlets? The answer is, no. That was also
not the spirit that drove the Windhoek Declaration. It envisioned a
vibrant, pluralistic, professional and sustainable media landscape,
one in which media offered a diversity of content and voices, where
there was fair competition between state-owned and private media,
and where the media contributed to participatory, democratic governance.
UNESCO’s report provides some evidence that despite the emerging
culture of plural media, state-owned media continue to dominate
the African media landscape, both in terms of numbers and market
opportunities. The report cites a 2002 study by Simeon Djankov and
others, Who Owns the Media?, which revealed that “on average, governments in Africa controlled 61 per cent of the top five daily newspapers by circulation, and reached 85 per cent of the audience for the top
five television stations.”
partments and agencies constitute the biggest media advertisers, and
media houses are mainly financed by ads.
Governments largely tend to use their advertising influence to manipulate and control the media landscape. Many do so by starving
critically minded private media of advertising. At the same time, private commerce and industry, which do not want to be perceived as opposed to the government, also hesitate to advertise on private media
outlets that are very critical of, or not aligned with, the government.
State-owned media continue
to dominate the African media
landscape.
UNESCO’s report highlights the issue of political manipulation by
pointing out: “In 18 out of 30 countries, such advertising was reportedly used for purposes of partisan political support, while the threat
of withdrawal on a non-partisan basis has been used to pressure certain media outlets.”
The usually covert manipulation of the media market by governments
through denial of advertising to outlets which feature critical coverage has the effect of censoring critical media. At the same time, it creates unfair market competition in favour of state media. As a result,
the growth and financial sustainability of the private media sector is
stifled in nearly all countries.
Private media are facing a serious problem of their own making as
well – concentration of ownership. There is an emerging pattern that
sees only a small number of individuals – often government officials,
active members of governing political parties and a few business
people – owning the majority of media outlets. Such outlets are often
politically aligned to government agendas and interests. In countries
like South Africa and Kenya, with long histories of established and
successful media companies in independent private hands, the big
African media houses are, of course, part of nations’ overall economies, and many of these remain weak. A lack of money in the economy
translates into a lack of money for advertising.
“In most African countries, the advertising market alone has not been
sufficient to support a robust, independent and pluralistic media sector, with little indication that this situation is likely to change, in part
due to the lack of audience surveys and market research,” says the
UNESCO report.
This applies equally to online media that are also struggling for advertisements. According to the Balancing Act report, digital advertising
on the internet as a percentage of total advertising spend (which is
low in any case) is currently below two per cent in most sub-Saharan
African countries.
The situation is worsened by high taxes on newsprint and broadcasting equipment as well as a generally poor infrastructure for distribution, especially to rural areas.
Concentration of ownership
compromises the essence of media
pluralism and undermines fair
competition.
Undoubtedly, for a pluralistic media landscape and market to thrive,
there must be enough people to buy newspapers. But readership is
dwindling, not least because the majority cannot afford them. In Botswana, for example, the minimum price for a paper is higher than the
price of a loaf of bread. In Ethiopia a copy of a private newspaper sells
for double the price of a serving of the staple food, Injera.
An increasing number of people are finding their news online, including on social media sites. But this does not mean the demise of the
‘old’ media. The Balancing Act report found that “all forms of social
media serve as a source of news and information alongside more traditional media.”
There seems to be a trend towards a healthy co-existence of ‘old’ and
‘new’ media. Many people indicate that they want to receive news
alerts from traditional media by “liking” them on Facebook. For instance, South Africa’s Metro FM has increased its likes on Facebook by
almost 190 per cent over the last two years (from 301 208 in 2014 to 892
764 in February this year). The Punch newspaper of Nigeria recorded
937 371 likes by February 2016 while the Daily Nation of Kenya had
1.7 million.
Although it’s been over ten years since this study, evidence from more
recent publications appears to corroborate this finding. A 2014 publication by the telecoms, internet and broadcasting consultancy firm
Balancing Act, which focuses on sub-Saharan Africa, concluded that
private participation in the broadcast media remained a big challenge
in Africa. In some countries such as Ethiopia, The Gambia and Côte
d’Ivoire, among others, private broadcasting – television in particular
– is still not allowed. Elsewhere, in Zimbabwe for instance, community radio stations have yet to be licensed.
private media companies are criticised as monopolies that represent
the interests of the middle class and the wealthy at the expense of the
great majority of the poor in these countries.
In all countries, state-owned media are financially supported through
government subsidies. At the same time, state media also operate
commercially and enjoy overwhelming advertising patronage from
the government and the private sector. Government ministries, de-
In the process, the few media houses owned by politically non-aligned
individuals struggle to survive. They tend to be the victims of the advertising squeeze by governments and media market manipulations
by concentrated, politically or ideologically-aligned media conglom-
Concentration of ownership compromises the essence of media pluralism and undermines fair competition in a pluralistic media market.
There is a lack of clear legislation on media concentration. As noted by
UNESCO this “has allowed radio owners with substantial capital to
buy out smaller competitors or expand in other areas.”
So, there seems to be light at the end of the tunnel. Private, not
state-controlled media are usually more innovative when it comes to
the use of new technologies. If print, radio, television and internet entered into a happy marriage, then together they could beat the dominance of state media.
Sulemana Braimah is Executive Director of the Media Foundation for
West Africa.
READ MORE:
World trends in freedom of expression
and media development (UNESCO 2014):
www.unesco.org/new/world-media-trends
5
The reality of unequal media access is a mirror of the overall inequality of African societies. In cities across the continent, shopping malls
and supermarkets are mushrooming, suggesting that purchasing
power is increasing. But that is only true for a small part of the population. The large majority of Africans remain poor.
There are huge differences between what is available to the rich and
the poor. For example, while expensive private health care and education is open to the wealthy, the poor must rely on state funded provision of basic services. It is no different with the media. A small middle
class has access to a large amount of media choices – for a price. The
poor need to make do with what media they can access cheaply or for
free. Corporate media, like so many other private services, force the
poor into exclusion.
Private and corporate media flourish all over the continent, be they
print or broadcast media. But they are consumed by a minority middle-class audience that has the expendable income to pay for quality newspapers, sufficient internet access or expensive subscription
television services. Take Ghana, where a newspaper costs nearly half
of the daily minimum wage, or Kenya, where cover prices are higher
than a packet of milk. How are the poor to afford such expenses for a
‘luxury’ item? And when mainstream newspapers are mostly distributed in urban areas, how are people living in rural areas supposed to
get them anyway? In Botswana, 70 per cent of the sales are within 100
km of the capital.
Commercial radio and television stations have mushroomed over the
last decades – but again, access depends on where you live. These
stations focus on the urban areas and are often inaccessible to rural
audiences, which form a sizable part of the population. They broadcast mainly in the languages spoken by the former colonial powers, so
people rarely receive media in their own language. Even worse, reception of broadcasting services, television in particular, is hampered by
a lack of electricity in many countries. In Zambia, for example, as few
as three per cent of the rural population is connected to the electricity
grid. In Uganda, that figure stands at four.
Predictably, because private media are available only to a specific audience, their coverage reflects the interests of this audience. Stories
about poor communities and grassroots struggles are rarely reported on. The result is a lack of a diversity of voices, opinions and world
views. This is detrimental to the political health of any society or democracy.
When a small handful of companies own most of the media two things
tend to happen. First, access to the media becomes expensive, thus
unaffordable to poor people. Second, most of the media start to look
the same, because the same story may be featured across most of the
newspapers or broadcasters owned by the same company. News becomes standardised, and the diversity of content on offer drops.
In many countries, the media market is highly monopolised with only
a few prominent players dominating each media sector. Often, leaders
in the print sector expand into radio and television to snap up an even
bigger portion of the media pie. The absence of clear legislation and
regulatory checks has allowed radio owners with substantial capital
to buy out smaller competitors or expand their presence in different
areas of the same country.
tirely dominated by one outlet – the state-run, public-service broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC).
The predominance of state-run broadcasters is similar all over the
continent, since in most countries they are the only ones permitted
to broadcast nationwide. But the media outlets that break crucial exposés, which publish investigative journalism and the stories of really
excellent and brave journalists, rarely reach the majority. What this
means is that the overwhelming majority of people only get to see and
hear the perspectives of the state authorities and government.
If Africans are to be informed
participants in their society, their
access to a wide range of good quality
media is vital.
So, why can’t online alternative media or the community media fill
this gap? Independent online digitally published media does thrive in
Africa. In South Africa, for example, there exists a selection of blogs
and news websites which are quite different in their character to
corporate or state-run media. Digitally published news sites such as
Groundup, the Daily Vox or the Daily Maverick adopt a more grassroots perspective to news reporting, and carry stories which are relevant to the interests of the South African poor much more often than
larger corporate media outlets.
People on the ground then have a lot less choice. Although a large
number of media may be distributed within a country, most people
will only be able to access a very small amount of it. So, the universality of media systems cannot be taken for granted.
Access to this content is “free”, but only if one can afford to pay for
internet data. In Kenya, for example, many people get their internet
access through wireless external modems – at a price: 3 000 Kenyan
shillings monthly for unlimited access, the cost of a pair of jeans. Research published by the South African Links Centre at Wits University shows that in poorer communities, people often have to choose
between buying food and spending their money on pre-paid data
packages. This enables them to use services like WhatsApp in order to
communicate with family and friends. But when the cost of data is so
high, they are unlikely to use it for anything other than low-cost social
media services. They will not expend their precious data downloading
full-feature news articles.
Research performed by the Media Policy and Democracy Project in
South Africa examines some of these trends. Results paint a dire, yet
predictable picture. The overall market is monopolised, with just a
few companies dominating each media sector. For the poor, media
content is further monopolised in real terms because it is almost en-
Where the internet held the promise of democratising the communications landscape, the high data fees of private telecommunications
companies and corporate interests again serve to exclude the majority. And once more the sector in Africa is dominated by too few big
players including South African giant MTN. The profiteering of large
private companies again depletes access to media diversity.
And what about community media, such as community radio stations? They also mushroom in many African countries, but they all
struggle to survive and many only just stay afloat amidst a number of
pressures. Most have an over-reliance on limited advertising revenue,
and frequently face political interference. Large media corporates
often deliberately force community media outlets out of business.
In South Africa, Media24 is part of the colossal Naspers monopoly
and the country’s largest print media company. It was found guilty
of predatory business practices by the Competition Tribunal in 2015.
Media24 used a heavily cross-subsided newspaper to intentionally
undercut a local rival publication. Ironically, the largest majority of
(privately owned) community-based newspapers are now owned by
Caxton, one of only four major players in the print media sector.
Access to a variety of media by the majority of people across Africa is
not in good shape. But media diversity is important to society because
the individual’s access to a wide variety of opinions, ideas and world
views is fundamental to that individual’s personal formation of their
own views on society and politics. This is essential to democracy.
If Africans are to be informed participants in their society, and if they
are to take part in their political world, then access to a wide range of
good quality media is vital. It is important that Africans be able to access media easily, without having to dig deeply into their own pockets,
and to find information in languages they understand. But the predominance of media conglomerates and their overriding emphasis on
their own commercial interests continue to raise the wall between the
poor and everything that the media has to offer.
Julie Reid is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Communication Science at the University of South Africa and a project leader for the Media
Policy & Democracy Project.
READ MORE:
The Media Policy and Democracy Project
www.mediaanddemocracy.com
Download the full report published by the Link Centre with the
Right2Know Campaign at
www.r2k.org.za/2015/03/31/
research-lived-costs-communications
AfrIcAN free PreSS
6
AfrIcAN free PreSS
7
The media are running helter skelter…
Newspapers: Staying relevant in the digital age
The audience supply pipe has broken, the digital audience
is promiscuous, and the talent disloyal – Churchill Otieno
paints a pretty frightening picture of what traditional media
are up against …
After four decades in print, Gwen Lister says she’s been
called a “dinosaur” because she was and remains a believer
in newspapers – even in the face of the digital tsunami.
From the west, east and south, the best brew in Africa was usually the
one that took a good while in slow-burning fire, maturing to a frothy
bliss that rewarded patience. It was the story of good media – it always
took painstaking work, many hands and heads, time and more time,
and then served to an expectant, waiting, trusting audience. Not anymore.
people to grow into the newspaper reading habit so that when they
begin earning some cash, they can replace the ones who’ve stopped
buying.
The problem is that today’s young person, however rich, does not
think newspaper content is something they should be paying for. One
reason is that news is all over the place, as you’ll see in point six below.
We journalists and our bosses, in a mad rush to embrace the digital
revolution, built beautiful websites where we were only too happy to
offer our stories for free.
The audiences have migrated, and the media is running helter skelter
in search of them. The music has changed and one must embrace new
dance styles to remain attractive. Strangely, many of us imagine that
a little change to our old dance steps will get us by. In all honesty, this
is not a problem unique to Africa, but Africa does have some unique
realities and opportunities going.
The problem is that today’s young
person, however rich, does not think
newspaper content is something they
should be paying for.
We should also note that internet growth is strongest in Africa, rising
from 4.5 million users in 2000 to 330 million in 2015. Then there is the
magical story of mobile telephony in Africa, the gadget that is disrupting every sphere of life – from banks to families to taxis to sex.
In short, the majority of Africans have yet to connect to the internet.
But they will be connecting soon – and they will be reading, watching
and listening to interesting stories. We, the media, should celebrate,
and we can if we address the challenges ahead of us.
Six characteristics of the media landscape stand out in showing us
just how challenging a task producing newspapers, television or radio
in Africa today is.
First, there’s a broken audience supply pipe. At some point, loyal
newspaper readers will stop buying the paper, for a raft of reasons.
Newspaper managers long figured this out and learnt to entice young
Many may have almost the entire skill set, but the digital revolution also came with something that smart people now call disintermediation. In short, it is the elimination of the gatekeeper from the
source-to-audience communication sequence. Hence in real terms,
that skill set is not only sought after by newsrooms, but also by politicians and brands investing in producing audience-ready messages.
So you find that instead of specialising in press releases and media
events, PR agencies now keep whole newsrooms while politicians put
reporters on their staff. And they pay better!
The quality of newsroom talent has also been distorted by interest
peddlers who will stop at nothing in their quest to influence editorial
content. No need to deny it, they will find willing collaborators who
sell their ethics for eight pieces of silver. This is not an entirely new
phenomenon, but it has grown worse especially in territories where
strong media institutions are few or rare.
Where did the audiences go? They went down the digital trail. The International Telecommunications Union tells us that as of November
2015, there were 330 million internet users in Africa out of a population of 1.1 billion. This represents a penetration rate of 28.6 per cent.
These figures mask a few sobering truths. Unpacking them reveals
that even though Africa is the second largest continent in the world by
size and population, it is the last in terms of internet penetration. We
have a 16 per cent share of the global population, but only 9.8 per cent
share of world internet users.
doesn’t exist; a few come close but they are in such demand we can no
longer afford them.
We also notice that this new reader/viewer/listener is a lot different
from the old one. S/he is very opinionated, jumps to conclusions before getting the entire story, is impatient, always seems to be doing
more than one thing at a time (leading to an attention deficit), and
may be living thousands of miles away.
Second, the digital audience is promiscuous. It used to be that every
newspaper had its core audience, made up of those people for whom
the day did not start or end unless they’d read their paper.
Their relationship was so close that they took it as a personal affront
if the editor dared move the Letters section from page 11 to page 13.
They loved it so much they wouldn’t ever pick up the rival paper. These
readers were the rock of the newspaper; even the shareholders paid
attention. Today, they are a highly endangered species.
In their place, we have the newcomers – who are fewer in number and
forage in a variety of news websites to compare information and to fill
in gaps. They come to your website a dozen times a day. They are vociferous in the comments section and on social media. They are also
fair; they do to you what they do to your competitors. Worse, media
managers know of no sure way to monetise them.
Third, a disloyal talent. The fast pace of news demands that we put
on staff a journalist who is an expert on the subject matter, churns
out copy quickly, has mastered the smartphone as a reporting tool,
and can write, photograph and shoot video. Problem is such a person
Many have all but buried newspapers as relics of a bygone era. But
while the readership decline is especially evident in the United States
and Europe, all hope is not lost elsewhere. The 2014 World Press
Trends Survey of the World Association of Newspapers (WAN) shows
print circulation increases in Asia, Latin America and Africa.
Fourth, there is a shrinking bank balance in a pot of interests. Media
is only good business if the audience trusts its word, and that trust is
earned by a currency called independence. It’s also been true that the
same independence brings a host of problems with advertisers, government officials, politicians, criminals and even shareholders.
But that won’t always be the case, caution others, pointing to instances of already dwindling newspaper revenues and sales in the developing world. I’ve heard publishers themselves warn with some relish
that Africa’s newspapers will inevitably face the same demise as digital and online media become more accessible on the continent. I find
the eagerness to write off print inexplicable in view of its often proud
legacy of holding power to account, its contribution to literacy where
libraries are in short supply, not to mention the brave journalists who
risk their all for the truth.
In a situation like now when many media houses are sailing through
rough economic waters, media chiefs often find themselves under
pressure to bend to the whims of these interests, but they also know
that too much of this will deliver them to the very same grave they are
Print has always been my passion – from my beginnings as a newspaper journalist in 1976 to the founding of The Namibian in 1985, at the
height of apartheid South Africa’s occupation of the country, to my
current role as publisher. I remain a believer.
Media is only good business if the
audience trusts its word, and that
trust is earned by a currency called
independence.
trying to avoid. These pressures work in concert to erode trust and
further disenfranchise media audiences.
Fifth, where did the time go? We used to have a whole day to produce
a daily newspaper, and our readers were patient enough to wait until the following morning to learn about what happened yesterday.
The viewer and listener would come to us by standing appointment
– when we ran the bulletins. On the odd day when a particularly big
story broke, we would quickly publish a “special edition” in the afternoon and shout “breaking news” on air. With the luxury of time, we
sculpted clever phrases and checked all the facts. We fished just the
right picture/footage from the darkroom and chased every relevant
document.
Today, the newsmakers serve it directly to the audience. Since we
cannot afford the experienced journalist and s/he wouldn’t be quick
anyway, we make do with the greenhorn or intern. In our rage to keep
pace, we rush to press and to air, and end up as competing conveyor
belts and amplifiers.
And sixth, news became democratised and commoditised. Anybody
can deliver the news – whether it is written by themselves or by the reliable copy/paste function. Or indeed by robots. Hence, we have multiple sources without multiple voices, resulting in an unending echo
of timelines. If it is not unique, perish the thought of ever selling it.
To make it unique you will need expensive talent and expensive infrastructure. In the age of shrinking profit margins and competing investment options, the media is scurrying for the business model that
will deliver the bacon to the shareholder and fund quality journalism
all at once.
Ultimately, all questions boil down to how we define quality journalism and how we fund it. What do media sell – content or audiences?
What model do we use – can media houses continue to run as businesses? Or do we get the charities and tax payers here?
Churchill Otieno is the Managing Editor for Digital and Convergence at
the Nation Media Group in Kenya.
READ GWEN LISTER’S ARTICLE ON THE NEXT PAGE TO GET A FEW
ANSWERS…
As the digital revolution and new technologies gain impetus, the media world changes with almost frightening rapidity. The survival of
traditional media, print in particular, will be more contingent than
ever before on journalistic excellence and connectivity with audiences.
It was no easier to start newspapers then than it is to sustain them
today. Advocates of an independent press in the African context faced
similar tough scenarios, and political, financial and technological
constraints dogged our efforts every step of the way.
As the 1980s came to a close, it was a case of the survival of the fittest
as obstacles to newspaper sustainability piled up. The African media
landscape is littered with the skeletons of once-brave newspapers that
didn’t stand the test of time. But many did survive and still continue
to “shine a light into the darkness”.
It was mainly print journalists who were the flag-bearers for an independent media in Africa. Their resolve to demand recognition for
media freedom culminated in the adoption of the ground-breaking
Windhoek Declaration on 3 May 1991 – which the UN later marked as
World Press Freedom Day. These journalists and editors laid bare the
demands, constraints and challenges facing those who were committed to independent media as an indispensable vehicle for imparting
news and information.
I am optimistic that journalists of the same calibre can again lead the
way in ensuring the survival of print – provided they and their newspapers, editors and owners, don’t rest on their laurels.
I have listened attentively at various international fora scrutinising
the future of media, as smart young men in suits talk about algorithms, stealth models, fast flips and going viral, all the while warning that print’s time is up. And I realised I wasn’t alone when I looked
around at the audience and saw the often puzzled faces of journalists who always believed in their cause and their craft. We wondered
where this left us.
The key question is whether those of us with a love for print will simply lie down and die - or will we manage to adapt to remain relevant?
Freedom of speech and expression can never have enough defenders.
The digital world has been indispensable in giving voice to “people’s
revolutions” in situations where vibrant and independent print and
other traditional media were unable, under-equipped or prohibited
from doing so.
But I remain resistant to the idea of a totally online world, and whatever the current status of print, it is clearly not an “either-or” situation.
There is need for the coexistence of multiple-platform media, and
print should continue to have a place in the mix.
Similar to the banning and bombing of newspapers, the digital world
also faces its own constraints of government regulation and shutdown. We’ve already seen this, most recently in the 2016 Ugandan
elections. Print and online media must be mutually supportive when
it comes to guarding our freedoms. Both are vital constituents in the
democratic process, and together can contribute to the development
of an engaged citizenry and realise the goal of true media pluralism.
They must jointly urge governments to refrain from ill-considered attempts to regulate either traditional or new media or risk silencing
millions of new voices that have found expression online.
Free speech and media were once considered the exclusive prevail of
journalists. This is no longer the case – the right to freedom of expression belongs to all people. The combined strength in numbers of
both traditional and new media, if harnessed, will surely give great
impetus to the on-going battle for freedom of expression and access to
information, not only in Africa, but across the globe.
The key question is whether those of
us with a love for print will simply lie
down and die...
I’m convinced that a world in which there are no newspapers would
be a joyless and, dare I say, uniformed world indeed. Those of us who
started our careers in the era of hot lead, typewriters, landline telephones and telex machines, and who still believe in the power and the
ability of the pen to change the world, must however be prepared to
adapt and innovate to remain relevant in the digital era as we did in
the past when the arrival of television posed a similar threat.
The biggest danger to newspapers is undoubtedly the loss of public
support. It remains critical to enhance professionalism, investigative
skills and a commitment to ethics among journalists to retain and regain credibility and to stay close to the communities they serve.
This can be done in a number of ways. Gone are the days of big print
newsrooms and expensive foreign bureaus which covered a wide
range of news and events. Lean, mean and specialised should be the
new watchwords. There are few newspapers today which haven’t already created an online presence in a bid to remain relevant, to facilitate interaction with people and offer them different access options.
Important choices need to be made on varying content for the print
and online platforms. The newspaper content of the past, with a broad
spectrum of international, local news and sport, columns, editorials
and letters pages, needs a total overhaul in keeping with a changed
audience.
Digging deeper, including cross-border collaborations in investigative reporting, in print and online, to maximise resources, reach larg-
er audiences and save on high newsroom costs, is one of the ways to
go. Publishing in local languages and providing SMS short-message
pages to create a conduit between people and government are just
a few of the successful innovations at various African newspapers.
Print has to become more global, yet more local in its reach. In a faster-paced media world, journalists will be required to adapt their skills
to both print and online, but this is nothing new. This adrenalin and
deadline-driven environment has always faced change and challenge,
and committed journalists have proved themselves up to the task.
Owners and publishers must be prepared to place a premium on
principled journalism before the profit-at-all-costs approach, which
has also contributed to editorial compromise and dented credibility
among readers.
Africa’s internet growth can’t yet match the boom in mobile technology access on the continent, and there’s a difference between noise and
news. Information may have become more “democratised” online, but
at some point people may tire of what has been described by a lecturer from the London School of Economics as a “race to the bottom in
terms of ethical standards”.
The perception that Facebook is the internet and the inability of many
on social media to differentiate between hate speech and free speech
as well as other online abuses play directly into the hands of governments looking for excuses to “regulate” freedom of expression online.
Media literacy campaigns about online media and information are
crucial for people to maximise the use of what could be a tremendous
resource for their own development. But sooner or later, there will be
those who seek out alternative sources of reliable news and information. Newspapers could be there to catch them when they fall.
It may be true that the newspaper reader of old has all but disappeared, that the new online generation have no specific loyalties and
will pick and choose the media or medium they prefer. It’s the job of
newspapers to get their attention once again, and I’m convinced the
recipe lies in a local and community-based approach to what people
both need and want to know.
If even the Newspaper Association of America acknowledges that
“newspapers continue to innovate and transform, reaching new audiences and discovering new revenue streams”, surely we in Africa must
do the same before real decline sets in? The question is whether we
have the will and the resources to do what is necessary to ensure that
print media not only survives, but also thrives in the process.
Gwen Lister is the Founding Editor and currently Publisher of The
Namibian newspaper, which is owned by the Namibia Media Trust.
8
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
9
Open data and new technologies:
Keys to the media’s future
Stephen Abbott Pugh looks into a future of mobile phones,
data and drone journalism where news is a dialogue and access to data may even save lives.
The spread of mobile phones and connectivity across Africa offers opportunities and challenges for the way information will be discovered
and used by citizens. If people have the necessary skills and knowledge, open data and new technologies hold the keys to the media’s
future.
Code for Africa is the continent’s largest network of civic technology
and open data labs. We work with media partners to create actionable information for citizens that helps them in their daily lives. From
checking if their doctor is dodgy, to seeing if they are registered to
vote, Code for Africa’s tools have been used in dozens of countries to
help empower people.
How might technology be harnessed in the coming years to further
democratise the use of information and news across Africa? This is
what some of the experts predict:
Dickens Olewe of African skyCAM in Kenya was inspired when British filmmaker Danny Cooke shared online aerial footage of Pripyat,
a city affected by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Cook had used
a drone camera costing about $1 500 for this project 18 months ago.
Since then African skyCAM has covered several stories, including
floods, political rallies and marathons. They are also looking at the
development of 3D models using drone footage and have produced a
3D model of a dumpsite in Nairobi, giving users an interactive experience with a physical feature.
Citizens now have much greater control over how and when they receive information, and can react to and participate in it if they choose.
Audience involvement, either through use of cell phones or through
social media, has fostered a culture where more people come to value
media freedom more broadly. The anonymity offered by these platforms means that ideas and information can be shared widely and
faster with a large number of people, but these same innovations have
created opportunities for widespread manipulation of information,
which is difficult to stem.
Gicheru warns about the new threats to media freedom arising from
these technologies. Mobile companies are obliged to give up cell
phone records when ordered by the courts, presenting journalists
with the challenge of keeping their sources secret. Kenya’s 2014 Security Laws Amendment Act, which weakens safeguards and widens the
scope and powers of the police as well as undefined “national security
organs” to surveil and intercept communications, restricts the media
freedom space. As importantly, it also restricts the ability of citizens
to point out and demand action on government failures. That is where
whistleblowing platforms like Code for Africa’s Afrileaks come into
play, providing both citizens and journalists with a platform where
they can share information on stories and tips.
evil geniuses, very elusive, and difficult to catch”. The MDCN has
brought over 40 cases against accused quacks in several courts across
the country, but convictions are rare.
As the authorities continue to struggle and the judiciary continues to
fail, says Adeoye, vulnerable citizens continue to die. Code for Nigeria
has therefore partnered with West Africa’s largest online news outfit,
Sahara Reporters, to deploy a data-driven tool called Dodgy Doctors
to empower citizens to fight quackery from the comfort of their computers and mobiles.
Media should give citizens simple,
actionable and easy-to-use tools to solve
their problems.
The Dodgy Doctors app is one of a set of tools in the SaharaHealth
initiative that uses official MDCN data to help citizens check quickly
and easily whether their doctor is properly registered. All they need to
do is type a doctor’s name in, and the service will cross check it with
the MDCN’s master register.
The biggest challenge to civic drone use is regulation. Several African
governments have issued decrees banning civilian operation, arguing
they pose a threat to security and privacy. The Kenyan government
published a notice in January 2015 banning drone use; Uganda and
Morocco have similar ordinances.
To secure the future of drone journalism in Africa, there’s a need to
cooperate with other industries that have professional interests in the
technology, and to jointly lobby for friendly regulation.
Drones have become a low-cost
alternative to expensive helicopters when
it comes to capturing aerial images.
Catherine Gicheru, an ICFJ Knight international journalism fellow at
Code for Kenya, says in her country computer ownership and usage
has grown relatively slowly, with more people likely to use computers
than to own them. However, there has been an exponential growth in
mobile phone ownership – 88.1 per cent penetration as of September
2015. In the same quarter, 31.9 million Kenyans were estimated to be
internet users, meaning that 74.2 per cent of the population now have
access to online services.
The advance of new media and technology has changed the way journalists work and how information is obtained and produced. Gicheru
points out that the business of news is incrementally becoming a dialogue between the news providers and the receivers of information.
While we celebrate the emancipatory potential of digital
technologies, we should also realise their contradictory nature, argues Sarah Helen Chiumbu.
As a little boy, Nelson Mandela was excited to watch the regular tribal meetings at the Great Place in his village. In his autobiography he
wrote: “Everyone who wanted to speak did so. It was democracy in its
purest form. … Everyone was heard: chief and subject, warrior and
medicine man, shopkeeper and farmer, landowner and labourer. … I
was astonished by the vehemence – and candour – with which people
criticised the regent”.
In essence, then, the Great Place was what German philosopher and
sociologist Jürgen Habermas later called the “public sphere”, a place
or platform where individuals can meet to discuss and identify societal problems and, through that discussion, influence political action.
This term has become shorthand for any space provided by the media.
Over the years, control of the mainstream media, either by the state
or the market, has compromised their democratic potential. This has
led some to argue that digital technologies have become alternative
public spheres that provide many avenues for political and social
expression outside formal controls. Without falling into the trap of
public sphere idealism, the internet, arguably the single most important communication innovation of the latter half of the last century,
has transformed the way people communicate, how they access information (including reporting by the mass media), and how citizens
respond to and engage with social and political issues. One cannot
talk of these new media technologies without stressing their transformative power – or at least their vast potential to tip the scales of power.
Drones have become a low-cost alternative to expensive helicopters
when it comes to capturing aerial images. The agility of off-the-shelf
“copters” means they can be deployed to examine the kinds of details
in a story that might be out of reach otherwise.
However, South Africa’s approach could help reverse this copycat reaction. Like the other countries, it had also banned drones. But the
South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACCA), while expressing concerns about drones interfering with commercial aircraft, acknowledged there were viable civic uses. SACCA promised to engage the
industry and published new regulations in May 2015. South Africa is
now one of the world’s leaders in progressive drone regulation and the
Kenya Civil Aviation Authority has since indicated that it is also considering reversing the ban.
Internet: two-faced monster or revolutionary breakthrough?
Web 2.0 technologies in particular, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google+, allow citizens to no longer be just passive consumers and docile onlookers but also creators of information. The production and dissemination of news and information is no longer the
preserve of professional journalists only. The internet has ushered in
a new dynamic related to the production of digital content. Audience
members are no longer at the receiving end of the information flow.
Instead, they are actively engaged in producing information and altering the information flow through participation and collaboration
with other media users.
Digital technologies have given journalists opportunities to be innovative, ethical and inclusive, and to work in collaborative ways to
solve problems and improve lives. An example Gicheru cites is the
GotToVote platform, which not only offers citizens information on
elections that was previously not easily accessible, but also gives journalists information that adds nuance and depth to their reporting.
The value of such tools will become increasingly evident in the future
when more journalists develop the skills to analyse, synthesise and
interpret the vast array of statistical information being made available on the internet.
Other apps in the suite include Hospital Finder and Medicine Prices. The Hospital Finder app is a geo-location service that helps citizens reduce the critical time it takes to locate health facilities around
them. The Medicine Prices app helps citizens check how much the
government expects them to pay for medicines.
According to Temi Adeoye, an ICFJ Knight international journalism
fellow at Code for Nigeria, there is a desperate need for affordable
healthcare in Nigeria’s poorly funded, understaffed and ill-equipped
health sector. This has driven many – especially the poor and vulnerable – into the hands of persons not qualified to treat them, otherwise
known as quacks. The impact of quackery is very difficult to measure,
but nonetheless extremely severe. Its cost is in human terms, measured in agonising disillusionment, temporary or permanent deformation, complication of existing ailments, and in some cases, needless deaths.
Stephen Abbott Pugh is an ICFJ Knight international journalism fellow
working with Code for Africa. He works on audience engagement for
projects across Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa and Tanzania.
Contrary to popular opinion in Nigeria, public medical institutions
are not insulated from this cancer. The complicity and culpable negligence of recruiters at public health service commissions paves the
way for quacks to infiltrate the system. This is a major headache for
health regulatory authorities. As the Director of the Inspectorate at
the Medical and Dental Council of Nigeria (MDCN) says, “They are
Data-driven tools like SaharaHealth are changing how media affects
our lives. It is no longer sufficient to talk about what is wrong in our
world; the media should give citizens simple, actionable and easy-touse tools to solve their own problems.
READ MORE:
Code for Africa
www.code4africa.org
Got to Vote
www.gottovote.cc
Afrileaks
www.afrileaks.org
African Sky Cam
www.africanskycam.com
Dodgy Doctors
www.bit.do/your-doctor-is-a-con-artist
Political theorist John Keane, in his 2009 book The Life and Death of
Democracy, contends that a new political type of “monitory democracy” has spread around the world since 1945. This is the notion that
decision-makers in all domains of society –government, civil society
and the private sector – are now more exposed to high levels of public
scrutiny than before. Arguably, public accountability initiatives are
on the rise worldwide, and digital technologies are increasing the order of public scrutiny and monitoring of power. The power bearers are
now routinely subject to public monitoring and public contestation by
an assortment of bodies, institutions and individuals – all at the click
of a button!
Beyond scrutinising the wielders of power, digital technologies also
enable citizens to mobilise and take action. Social media specifically
has redefined political mobilisation and protest. While distance and
boundaries in the past thwarted the ability of people to convene for a
political cause, now citizens can mobilise and voice dissent in large
numbers easily – often augmenting other forms of protest. This has
meant that the holders of power can be pressured through organised action that will bring issues not just to a community’s but to the
world’s attention. #BringBackourGirls is a good example of the ability
of social media to globalise a local problem, thereby facilitating collective action across both physical and social distances.
A cornerstone of a successful protest is its ability to mobilise broadbased support – the critical mass needed to increase pressure. Social
media has been able to achieve this, in interaction with other factors,
to bring about a national or global protest movement of sufficient
proportions to topple even entrenched authoritarian regimes, as was
the case in Tunisia and Egypt in 2011 and 2012 respectively. Or – on a
smaller scale – take the example of the #FeesMustFall campaign in
South Africa, which forced the government to cancel a planned increase in education fees.
While a few years ago the digital divide excluded many people from
accessing the internet, the proliferation of mobile phones has helped
narrow this gap as many countries in Africa have reached 100 per cent
mobile phone penetration. However, only a third of the population
have access to the internet (and, by the way, more than one in three
adults in sub-Saharan Africa cannot read).
Online engagement and deliberation necessary for democracy require not only a computer or mobile phone, but also access to smartphones, data and broadband, which sadly remain the privilege of a
few urban-based people. As a result, members of the young, educated
middle class dominate social media while the poor and elderly are excluded. The skills needed to use the internet effectively are perhaps
even more stratified than access itself. Digital inequality or the “data
divide” is the current reality impacting freedom of expression on the
continent.
Nonetheless, the internet is enabling political and social deliberation
in ways never imagined before among those with digital capital. To
what degree these deliberations are constructive and lead to genuine
civic engagement is another question.
First there is the issue of fragmentation. In days when traditional
mass media ruled, if you got a story into a big newspaper, a great num-
The power bearers are now subject
to public monitoring and public
contestation, at the click of a button!
ber of people would be aware of it. The media provided a shared public
and common space. In the digital age, this space has fragmented into
several spheres. Some argue that fragmentation spells the end of the
common cultural forum symbolised by traditional media, or worse,
the birth of audience enclaves that scarcely interact. Yes, there is dialogue on Facebook, for example, but only in friendship groups and not
across society at large. These groups back each other in their views
and no longer take note of counter-arguments. No wonder that conspiracy theories are on the rise worldwide. Facebook and other social
media platforms are thus not only a boost for democratic campaigns,
they could also be a threat to an open society.
Take, for example, the death of famous Mozambican journalist Carlos Cardoso, assassinated in 2000. At the time, the news of his death
galvanised the media fraternity and those interested in freedom of expression issues across the region and beyond. Fifteen years later, another Mozambican investigative reporter and publisher of the online
Diario de Noticias, Paulo Machava, died in an almost similar fashion
as Cardoso, but the news went almost unnoticed. Similarly, the revolution in Burkina Faso in 2014 and the current political violence in
Burundi have not occupied prominence in the public imagination. Yet
it may be that discussions of these issues are taking place in disparate
spaces among virtual communities of interest. The accepted myth of
the power of social media encourages us to believe that our gatherings
on social media platforms are promoting expressive collectivity, when
in reality they are not.
Second, there is the issue of citizens’ preoccupation with “soft” issues
like entertainment or lifestyles, which can result in non-participation
regarding issues that really matter, such as development, democracy
and politics. Several studies indicate that social media in particular
are mainly social and used as a social arena. For example, the 2010
Twitter trending topics report showed that only 3 per cent of topics
were about politics, 28 per cent about entertainment and 40 per cent
centred around specific topical hashtags (#), predominantly music
and dating. In Africa, like in the rest of the world, celebrities have the
most-followed profiles on Twitter.
One aspect of digital technology that is less talked about is the hazard
of information overload. Our societies have become message-saturated. Many people presume that there’s a correlation between communicative abundance and democracy; yet this abundance of information has effects that can be harmful to democratic governance. People
are increasingly finding it hard to pay attention to specific events
amid the deluge of media messages.
Citizens, or “netizens” (as they are sometimes called), already overloaded with information, also face exposure to undemocratic practices by autocratic governments and market manipulation by corporations. In 2012, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a
landmark resolution supporting freedom of expression on the internet. It affirmed that the same human rights that people are entitled
to offline must be respected online as well. However, new modes of
surveillance and regulation by governments are threatening these
rights in many parts of Africa. These measures represent an extension
of already draconian media regulations which exist on the continent.
The near silence of African civil society on the subject of state surveillance could indicate the extent to which African governments have
succeeded, largely unnoticed, in pursuing policies and legislation
that compromise digital security. Hence, there remains an urgent
need for sincere, inclusive dialogue that can give as much weight to
citizens’ rights to online privacy, security and expression as is given
to their rights offline. Surveillance of online platforms contributes to
an atmosphere of self-censorship.
The internet is also increasingly being influenced by private interests. Studies show that Facebook and Twitter manipulate the visibility of posts, tweets and trends in favour of advertising clients and at
the expense of everyday users to accumulate capital. User-generated
content is also increasingly commoditised and manipulated by social
media companies to create segmented markets (commodities) that
can be sold to advertisers. Facebook manipulates content through an
algorithm used to determine where and what posts appear on each user’s newsfeed. This algorithm is seen as the editorial voice of Facebook
and its operations remain unknown to many.
Social media are not only a boost for
democratic campaigns, they could also
be a threat to an open society.
These threats to internet freedom posed by state and capital should intensify the fight for freedom of expression that started with the group
of journalists who gathered at Windhoek 25 years ago. Understanding
the subtle and not-so-subtle ways in which the internet poses threats
to freedom of expression and creates hierarchies that impact on civic
engagement is becoming an important task.
The struggle for freedom of expression in the digital age lies with us
– the users of these digital technologies. It is time to stand up for the
rights we want in the digital era. In much the same way African journalists drafted and promoted the Windhoek Declaration, we need to
once again come together and connect with all the different people
and groups fighting for freedom online across the continent.
Sarah Helen Chiumbu is a researcher at the Human Sciences Research
Council South Africa.
10
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
The media we want
Our reporters asked young people around
Africa about what kind of media they
would like to see in their country. Here
are summaries of what they said. You can
see video versions of their statements at
www. WHK25.misa.org
Liberia
Uganda
11
Kenya
Nigeria
Zimbabwe
Pwanidi Francis (23), Adamawa State of Nigeria, Student,
Adamawa State Polytechnic Yola.
I expect the media to be very objective. They can meet this expectation if they are independent and without bias. They can also fail
in meeting this objective if they choose to dance to the tune of government.
Grace Timanywa (22), Mukono, Uganda, Student, Uganda
Christian University
Shaloam Strooper (18), Nairobi, Kenya, Student, University
of Nairobi
I expect the Ugandan media to deliver accurate news and the latest
information. I also expect the Ugandan media to interview our leaders so that we can get to know their views on what is happening in
the country. I would like to see some of the newspapers deliver more
accurate news. Some have facts, yes, but they add in more soup to
the news. It’s better to just keep it simple.
I expect from the media in Kenya that at any given time, at any
given place, whenever something happens I should be able to get
that information. I should be able to know what is happening in my
country. Sometimes you may be on Twitter or Facebook and you see
photos of things happening that the news hasn’t yet reported. The
media should be faster than social networks.
Mosupatsila Nare (25), Gwanda, Zimbabwe, Law studies
graduate
I expect the media to be independent from any external influences,
be they political, business or financial. I expect them to be fair and
present issues as they are. Not to be biased, based on any political
party influence or anything. There is a great deal of improvement
that is needed in the Zimbabwean media. We feel like when news is
being relayed to the public, there is bias mainly favouring the ruling
party to the exclusion of every other opinion or every other view. I
think as citizens of Zimbabwe we deserve to know what the issues
are, with no bias or any other influence exerted. I expect that we be
given the truth as it is, be it from the opposition or from the ruling
party. We need to know the truth.
Malawi
Abdullah Sesay (19), Monrovia, Liberia, Child Rights
Advocate; Student, Light International School
I would like our media to be more proactive, to be independent in
their reporting and to get to the people and get more information,
especially information that is genuine, on national development or
national security.
Prince Bongani Chikwebo (24), Blantyre, Malawi, Graduate,
University of Malawi
I would like to see a media that it is free and objective, not being influenced by any social groupings or projections of western or eastern
media, just projecting what represents society in Malawi as a whole.
Anthony Kanuma (26), Kampala, Uganda, Sound Engineer
Edward Maina (19), Nairobi, Student, University of Nairobi
I expect the Ugandan media to always tell the correct news, be on
time and ensure that information is delivered to the public accurately. There are certain stories, certain news clips that may not be
suitable for the younger audience so I would like to see them sort of
censor those things especially for the younger viewers so that they
may not be affected, and to address those particular stories only to
the desired audience which is the mature, adult type of people.
The media in Kenya should provide first-hand information which
is genuine, not just relying on information given by local people.
It should also have research that will help to bring out information and give it weight. During the holidays when most schools are
closed, the media could concentrate on the children who need to be
educated and given information that will help them with problems
we are encountering nowadays. It should entertain them and, at the
same time, bring them information.
South Africa
Irvine Takavada (24), Harare, Zimbabwe, Activist
I expect the Zimbabwean media to be transparent in their coverage,
to be explicit and not to be manipulated. They are failing to meet
our expectations because you find that journalists when they cover
a story, at times they are manipulated by businessmen or politicians
or they cover it with a slant or cover it for money. I would like to see
the Zimbabwean media change in the sense that when they do their
journalism they should be ethical and look at issues that are affecting society. They should not serve any individual’s interests. They
should cover any issue as it is and cover it up to the end.
Nora Wreh (26), Monrovia, Liberia, Student, African
Methodist Episcopal Zion University
I expect the media in my country to give me factual information.
The media has to be robust in giving that information. They must
be professional. Some of our media practitioners are not meeting
the expectation of the Liberian people. Some of them are biased.
They are not independent when it comes to feeding us information.
They are being carried away or bought by somebody or somebody is
pushing them around, telling them what to do. They do not believe
in themselves or believe what is right for the people. The media must
stand firm: they must go out, seek information no matter where it is
hidden or how long it takes them to get it.
Beatrice Mwape (20), Blantyre,
Broadcasting Corporation
Intern,
Malawi
I want to see a media that is free, objective and has access to information. Whatever the media writes, it should bring development,
hope and a change to our nation. I think things really have to change
so that people can be experts, people can know the truth and the
world can change.
Thandeka Gamede (22), Soweto, Newlands, Johannesburg,
South Africa, Coordinator & Assistant Director at a casting
agency
My expectation of media is a non political treatment, reporting
without fear or favour, more reporting on issues around gays and
lesbians, making the public aware of their rights and responsibility.
Do I think that the media is meeting my expectations? No, I don’t
think so because politically it’s always about the ruling party. The
smaller parties are not always mentioned. Issues of gays and lesbians are not well reported. I would like to see more balance: equal
reporting about all genders and equal reporting on political parties.
Itumeleng Ditshego (20), Johannesburg, South Africa,
Student in software development
The type of media I would like to see in South Africa is just basically well-balanced media and well-researched stories. I would like to
see less speculation. And I would also like the media to showcase
what we as youth are doing to push our country forward. I don’t really think they are meeting my expectations the way I would like
them to because of all the negatives they portray. I would also like
to see positives and how our country is changing for the better, just
more human interest in the stories they are putting out, stories that
engage with us as people, stories that motivate us, stories that can
change our lives.
12
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
National security and free expression: Lessons from South Africa
Jane Duncan urges journalists and civil society across Africa to research and mount campaigns against increasing
restrictions on free speech – in the name of “national security”.
National security is a term many governments use and abuse to limit
basic human rights, including media freedom and broader freedom
of expression rights. In doing so, they increasingly cite the growing
number of terrorist attacks in different parts of the world.
Yet, there is little basis for Southern African governments in particular to raise the terrorism red flag, as the sub-region has largely escaped the scourge that has plagued countries to the north, like Nigeria, Somalia, Kenya, Egypt and Libya. No country has experienced the
kinds of attacks seen in Mali and Burkina Faso recently. None have
their own versions of Al Shabaab or Boko Haram.
Why the obsession with national security in the Southern African Development Community region then? South Africa offers some important clues to this troubling question.
The South African apartheid regime repressed liberation movements
on the grounds of national security. The former State Security Council, the highest decision-making body in the apartheid government,
was led by a powerful clique of military generals. When the country
transitioned to democracy, its founders were determined not to allow
national security to be abused again in order to suppress internal dissent.
The new constitution’s drafters decided to place the security cluster
– consisting of the police, the intelligence services and the military –
under democratic civilian control. The police were de-militarised and
the intelligence services made accountable to Parliament and subject
to investigation by an independent Inspector General of Intelligence.
Over the past two decades, however, democratic controls over South
Africa’s security cluster have weakened, and there is growing evidence
that security forces are being put to anti-democratic uses. The most
visible manifestation of this has been an escalation in police violence
against public protests – culminating in the 2012 Marikana massacre, when the police shot and killed 34 mine workers during a violent
strike and wounded another 78. This event signifies the deadliest use
of force against civilians in a single incident by South African security
forces in over four decades.
re-militarisation of society. A growing layer of democracy-era militarists have argued for a massive increase in the military budget, using
the military’s expanded domestic role as a reason. This is despite the
fact that the country faces no major threats to its territorial integrity. The once powerful defence industry, headed by arms parastatal
Denel, is seeking to re-establish itself as a major economic player.
The South African Police Service (Saps) has also shown signs of a
creeping re-militarisation, leading to the service becoming more like
the military in terms of organisational design, operational functions,
institutional culture and martial weaponry, even uniforms. The number of paramilitary policing units has grown, and they have been
normalised in a range of domestic policing functions, including public-order policing.
There is more and more evidence
of security forces being put to antidemocratic uses.
At the same time, the public-order police has moved away from a more
civilian form of policing to a more militarised one along French lines:
a model which, according to sociologist Christian Mouhanna, has
intensified rather than discouraged social conflict in France’s public-housing estates (the banlieues).
The foreign and domestic branches of the intelligence services were
centralised into the State Security Agency (SSA) in 2009. Yet, a 1995
White Paper on Intelligence had warned against centralisation because it made political control over what were meant to be professional services easier. The SSA was formed without the necessary
democratic checks and balances, such as sufficient transparency and
public accountability. The SSA has a political-intelligence gathering
mandate, which means that it can conduct surveillance on politicians
within and beyond the ruling party. But this very broad mandate is
open to abuse.
For instance, the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa
(Numsa) and the United Front (UF) – both involved in the creation
of a left alternative to the ANC – claim to have evidence that they
have been spied on simply because of their political activities. Social
movements have been complaining for over a decade of intelligence
harassment.
There are also other signs that a process of “securitisation” is under
way in South Africa. In other words, the government is treating more
and more social problems as threats to national security. Rather than
using the civil capacities of the state – such as social welfare departments – to respond to these problems, the state instead resorts to its
coercive capacities.
In the first years of democracy, the Inspector General of Intelligence
played an important role in bringing intelligence abuses to light.
However, more recently the Inspector General’s office has been deprived of resources and independence, and there are signs that the
government is mounting a power grab on this office in order to appoint an obliging party cadre.
The government is increasingly deploying the military jointly with
the police on domestic operations. This is in spite of the fact that a
1996 White Paper on Defence strongly discouraged domestic military deployment on the basis that this amounted to the unacceptable
The Inspector General has confirmed that the intelligence services
use mass surveillance technologies, in spite of a growing body of
opinion worldwide that mass surveillance leads to unjustifiable invasions of the right to privacy. Yet, while there are signs of intelligence
overreach, these services do not appear to be paying sufficient attention to much more genuine threats to national security, such as the
periodic outbreak of xenophobic attacks on African and other foreign
nationals who migrate to the country seeking work and safety.
In spite of all these worrying developments, democratic controls of the
security cluster still remain largely intact. However, there are signs
that an increasingly paranoid and authoritarian South African government is using technologies and practices developed during the war
against terror to monitor, harass and even suppress perceived critics.
Sadly, journalists are among those perceived critics. At least since
2008, the intelligence services have periodically placed journalists
from the Sunday Times and the Mail & Guardian newspapers under
surveillance, attempting to uncover their confidential sources. Journalists’ sources are drying up, as more of them are too scared to speak
in case their identities are revealed through surveillance.
Independent investigative journalism on security cluster (mis)doings
in South Africa is needed now more than ever. However, the presidency is set to sign a Protection of State Information Bill (the ‘Secrecy
Bill’), which will make it extremely difficult to source the facts and
information needed for these stories.
The bill will require the security cluster to classify information, and
anyone found leaking or publishing that information (including journalists) may be jailed. In spite of the massive civil society and media
campaign that has been waged against the bill – with some success
– the definition of national security and the grounds for classification of information still remain overly broad; the classification and
declassification processes lack independence and transparency; and
the defences for disclosure of information remain inadequate. The
bill is therefore likely to reduce what little transparency exists in this
sensitive area of government, which means that abuses could become
more frequent.
Learning the lessons from “democratic” South Africa, journalists
and civil society across the continent need to investigate and mount
campaigns against the expansion of security cluster activities and
classification of information purportedly in the interests of “national
security”. The term is so nebulous that governments can invest it with
whatever meaning they see fit, including deployment of the armed
might of the state against political critics. National security must be
narrowly defined to include only genuine threats to public safety and
territorial integrity.
With regard to classification, nobody should be lulled into accepting
the argument that because an issue concerns national security, information must be kept secret. Only if there is a real and substantial
threat of harm if information is released should that information be
kept out of journalists’ hands. Most information about security cluster
activities does not fall into this narrowly defined category. Over-classification is a routine practice.
While the Southern African region is currently largely at peace, things
may well not stay that way. The devastating drought caused by the
El Niño phenomenon is resulting in mass hunger and thirst. Climate
change could turn parts of the region into dustbowls. The persistent
instability in the global economy could increase poverty and inequality in Africa. This scenario provides a lucrative landscape for expanding the role of security agencies through sophisticated surveillance
technologies. In the absence of transparency and democratic accountability, this expansion could take place unchecked.
Violence against women on the net
New communication technology can be a blessing. It can
also be a curse. Emilar Gandhi takes a look at a frightening
aspect: Violence against women via the internet.
“You dumb bitch, shut the f*** up!”
“I know where you live and I will come and rape you!”
“All she needs is a good f*** by a huge d*** and she will forget about
this lesbianism!”
“This is what you get when you get women in power, a bunch of sluts
swapping notes about lipstick!”
The list goes on and on. These are examples of vitriol spewed on women’s social network pages and tweets directed at women, especially at
women human rights defenders, journalists and bloggers.
Over the past two decades, the increasingly rapid advance of the internet into our daily lives has radically altered the consumption, production and distribution of information, and has already played an
influential role in shaping political systems. The internet has expanded the ways people learn and communicate, opening a new medium
for expression, especially for activists and minorities. It has allowed
for the development of a huge scope of media outlets with unprecedented room for the dissemination of messages and information.
This development, obviously, has affected women as well, enabling
them to express themselves freely and empowering them economically and politically. The open and outwardly free spaces online give the
perception of security. However, women are being attacked for using
these spaces.
Internet violence creates an environment
of fear, intimidation, powerlessness and
social isolation.
The threat of technology-related violence against women - acts of
gender-based violence committed, abetted or aggravated, in part or
fully, by the use of information and communication technologies - is
no longer a secret.
In 2013, during the 57th session of the Commission on the Status of
Women, an intergovernmental body set up by the United Nations, the
Association for Progressive Communications (APC) stated: “Violence
against women that is mediated by technology is increasingly becoming part of women’s experience of violence and their online interactions. In the same way we face risks offline, in the streets and in our
homes, women and girls can face specific dangers and risks on the
internet such as online harassment, cyber stalking, privacy invasions
with the threat of blackmail, viral ‘rape videos’ and for young women
in particular, the distribution of ‘sex videos’ that force survivors to
relive the trauma of sexual assault every time it is reposted online, via
mobile phone or distributed in other ways.”
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right protected by international human rights law and an essential ingredient of democracy. In
principle, the provisions found in these laws should offer sufficient
protection of this right for all. However, acts of technology-related violence hinder women from taking full advantage of the right to freedom of expression because they create an environment of fear, intimidation, powerlessness and social isolation.
Online violence against women takes different forms and works in a
number of ways: Internet technologies are used to maintain abusive
personal relationships and to introduce unwanted sexual contact.
Vulnerable groups are lured into sexual exploitation. Community organisations and individuals that promote gender equality are pilloried or threatened.
Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, as
well as emails and cell phone texts, are being used to send messages
that intimidate and harass women or to impersonate and write harmful or derogatory messages on behalf of women and girls. Images of
women are altered and used in sexual and non-consensual manners.
As a result, many women are discouraged from engaging in online activities, including learning and social networking.
What can be done? Should such messages be blocked, as some have
demanded? Should there be censorship – for a good cause? The presence of pornography on the internet has often elicited calls for stricter
policies for monitoring and censoring internet content, including the
development of software devices that would track down the creators
and consumers of pornographic material. This could be a very slippery slope, though, and invite censorship measures that could very
easily be extended to other content areas, thus limiting freedom of
expression far beyond the initial seemingly benign intention.
Edward Snowden’s information leaks, and subsequent reporting on
these by courageous journalists like Laura Poitras and Glen Greenwald, showed that the most powerful national security state in the
world can be confronted successfully. Their work has forced reforms
to the US’s mass surveillance programme. With a concerted effort by
the region’s journalists to turn the national security arena into a dedicated beat, there is no reason why similar victories can’t be won here.
Cartoon by Zapiro. All rights reserved. For more Zapiro cartoons visit www.zapiro.com
pecially in Africa, more and more women are using social media sites.
They not only help women connect beyond borders but also enable
them to engage in businesses transnationally, seek out opportunities,
take online courses, engage in political and social discourse and be a
true part of this global network. Ideally, they help women to realise
their right to freedom of expression.
Alerting the authorities to instances of technology-related violence
against women is a chapter of its own. Incidents often go unreported
due to embarrassment, shame and the belief that nothing will be done
anyway. Police and government agencies usually refuse to apply the
criminal sanctions in existing law to tech-related violence.
Unless journalists in Africa join the fight to limit the powers of governments to push the boundaries in this sensitive area, they may well
find themselves on the receiving end of security cluster abuses.
Jane Duncan is Professor in the Department of Journalism, Film and
Television at the University of Johannesburg. She is the author of “The
Rise of the Securocrats: The Case of South Africa”, published in 2015.
13
These forms of violence cause psychological and emotional harm,
reinforce prejudice, damage reputations, cause economic loss, create barriers to participation in public life, and may lead to sexual and
other forms of physical violence.
and accessing justice across borders. However, the abuse can be tackled and reduced.
Simply identifying harassing users is not enough: It does not put a stop
to the violence suffered; it does not give proper redress to the victim;
and it does not reduce the chances of future harassment. Instead,
Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms could terminate
the accounts of people who misuse their services repeatedly by being
involved in instances of online abuse, be those hate messages, violence or privacy violations (“repeat infringers”). Tech corporations
have to protect the rights of all users, those who actually power these
companies, and take responsibility for their security.
So far, they are doing little. In 2013, Facebook and Twitter both came
under intense public pressure for failing to take action regarding online violence against women. They defended themselves, citing “free
speech” and “humour” as justifications for abusive posts.
Should there be censorship – for a good
cause?
Only after large public campaigns condemned the companies’ inaction and advertisers threatened to drop their spots, Facebook announced it would update its training to address gender-based hate,
and Twitter brought in new reporting and blocking mechanisms for
its users. However, there is no transparency whatsoever around these
measures, and nobody knows what actual effect they may have or
promise to have in future.
Social media companies take pride in empowering people and creating greater transparency and accountability in the world. They must
live up to these ideals and get their own house in order if all users are
to profit equally from their services.
Emilar Vushe Gandhi is the Africa Policy Coordinator of the Association
for Progressive Communications (APC).
Technology companies such as Google, Facebook and Twitter must
play a major role in combating online violence against women while
promoting free expression. Obviously the challenge of acting against
online violence is complex given the difficulty of prosecuting abusers
While internet access for women still lags far behind that of men, es-
READ MORE:
APC statement on technology-related violence against women:
www.bit.do/tech-violence-women
APC reports: From impunity to justice: Exploring corporate and
legal remedies for technology-related violence against women,
March 2015:
www.genderit.org/VAWonline-research
14
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
Building trust in the media
The general public judge journalists collectively and the
unprofessional behaviour of one may affect the public’s
opinion of all journalists, says Clement Daniels.
Journalists are often referred to as “professionals”, but this term needs
to be unpacked in the context of journalism. Unlike other recognised
professions such as doctors and lawyers, journalists do not have specific ‘clients’. Their ‘clients’ are the members of the general public who
buy newspapers, listen to radio stations, watch television and access
news and other stories online. Unlike doctors and lawyers, they do not
charge their clients individually. Professionals are expected to have
specialised knowledge and skills of a certain and certifiable standard.
Journalists come into the job from all walks of life and with all sorts of
qualifications and levels of formal or non-formal training. Yet they are
still expected to act in a professional manner.
Journalists and media houses must analyse the concept of professionalism in the media more thoroughly and decide on the best ways to
maintain professionalism and adherence to certain ethical standards
– for the benefit of journalists in general and the societies they serve.
The general public judge journalists collectively and the unprofessional behaviour of one will affect the public’s opinion of all journalists at the same media house and even “the media” as a whole.
Many media houses and media councils have adopted specific codes
to enforce ethical behaviour and accountability of journalists.
In essence, ethical behaviour means that media practitioners should
act with integrity and strive to report accurately, fairly and factually –
in the public interest. Journalists must be able to assess facts astutely
and select relevant content. They should avoid self-censorship, but at
the same time consider the impact and potential harm of publication.
Whenever errors do occur, corrections should be published promptly
and any person aggrieved by a publication or broadcast should have
the right to reply.
Journalists should avoid self-censorship,
but at the same time consider the impact
and potential harm of publication.
In a country like Namibia – with a background of enforced apartheid,
inequality, political division and civil war – the need for ethical reporting is particularly great, and so is the difference of opinion over
what exactly constitutes ethical behaviour. At independence in 1990
there were big ideological differences amongst journalists, and media
ownership was predominantly in the hands of the privileged minority. The process of bridging these divides is still ongoing.
After years of squabbling, editors of both public and private print and
broadcast media united in 2007 to form the Editors Forum of Namibia (EFN), now the leading voluntary organisation concerned with the
upholding of professional and ethical standards in the country. The
EFN Code of Ethics, adopted in 2009, lists the general principles of
ethical behaviour expected of journalists in a constitutional democ-
racy (see box). It also addresses the divisive past and encourages journalists to report on the rich diversity of all Namibians and not to focus
merely on urban elites.
The code is enforced through a complaints procedure that enables the
general public to voice their grievances about any alleged unethical
behaviour on the part of journalists. These complaints are then dealt
with by an independent and objective Media Ombudsman, appointed
by the EFN.
Of the 17 complaints reported to the Media Ombudsman on average
every year, most relate to inaccurate reporting, which could be a result of carelessness and the poor skills of journalists. There are also
complaints of unfairness and bias in reporting where a journalist has
failed to solicit the views of the subject about particular allegations.
Complainants then assume that the journalist in question is unethical and has a hidden agenda.
Journalists and the media are important parts of any democratic system, because they check and report on abuses of the powerful and
provide citizens with reliable information to make informed decisions and choices. The continuous building of trust in the media by
providing a link between the public and journalists through a Media
Ombudsman is an important contribution to strengthening not just
the profession, but also the very culture of democracy in our country.
Clement Daniels is a practising lawyer and the Media Ombudsman
of Namibia.
Excerpts from the Code of Ethics for the Namibian Media
Preamble
The Code is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to
which the industry has made a binding commitment. Editors, publishers and broadcasters must ensure that the Code is observed rigorously not only by their staff but also anyone who contributes to
their publications or broadcasts. …
3.2 Newspapers, broadcasters or journalists are entitled to respond
to such a reply in so far as to apologise and/or express regret
for the error or stand by the story, provided however that the
aggrieved party be given sufficient opportunity to counter the
response of the newspaper, broadcaster or journalist.
7. Public Interest
4. Conflict of Interest
The Code should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise
its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, or so broadly
that it prevents publication or broadcasting in the public interest.
4.1 Newspapers, broadcasters or journalists must at all times avoid
conflict of interest in whatever form in their reporting.
Ethical Principles
4.2 Personal gain motive should not override media freedom, social
responsibility and editorial freedom.
1. Accurate Reporting
5. Sources
1.1 Every journalist shall strive to report news and events accurately, fairly and with balance.
Every journalist shall observe confidentiality regarding any source
of information and has a moral obligation to protect sources unless
the source authorises the disclosure of his/her identity.
1.2 Every journalist is encouraged to engage in investigative journalism for the public good.
1.3 Every journalist shall use all reasonable means within his/her
power to ascertain prior to publication or broadcast, the reliability of the contents of any article written or recorded by him/
her for publication or broadcast. Due regard should be given to
the possible negative effect to the subject of the article or broadcast.
2. Corrections
Where it subsequently appears to an editor that a report was incorrect in a material respect, it shall be rectified without reservation or
delay. The rectification should be presented with such a degree of
prominence and timing as may be adequate and fair so as to readily
attract attention.
3. Right of Reply
3.1 An aggrieved party has the right of reply. Provision should be
made for an aggrieved party to reply to an article to protect him/
her against verified factually incorrect statements that tarnish
their reputation, dignity and privacy.
6.6 Journalists must avoid publishing or broadcasting details of a
person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, physical or mental illness or disability unless these are directly relevant to the story
and in the public interests.
7.1 The “public interest” includes, but is not limited to:
7.1.1 Detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour.
7.1.2 Protecting public health, safety and the environment.
7.1.3 Preventing the public from being misled by some statement
or action of an individual or organisation.
7.1.4 Exposing misuse of public funds or other forms of corruption
by public bodies.
7.1.5 Revealing potential conflicts of interest by those in positions
of power and influence.
7.1.6 Exposing hypocritical behaviour by those holding high office.
6. General Reporting
7.2 In each case where the public interest is invoked, the Media Ombudsman will require a full explanation by the Editor demonstrating how the public interest was served.
6.1 The media should strive to represent social reality in all its
diversity, complexity and plurality, and shall strive to redress
imbalances in society when reporting on women, children, minorities, and the under-privileged and disabled persons.
7.3 In cases involving children, editors must demonstrate an exceptional degree of vigilance to serve the best interest of the child.
8. Privacy
6.2 The media should not without due care and sensitivity, present facts, opinions, photographs, graphics or scenes that depict
or relate to brutality, sadism, salacity, violence, atrocity, drug
abuse and obscenity except in the public interest.
8.1 The Constitution recognises the Right to Privacy as a fundamental human right of all persons.
6.3 In reporting or causing to be printed or broadcasted accounts of
crimes or criminal cases, a journalist shall not:
6.3.1 Identify victims of sex crimes (this shall not apply when an
adult gives consent to be identified); or
6.3.2 Identify any young person accused of a criminal offence who
to his/her knowledge is under 18 …
8.2 Insofar as both news and comment are concerned, the media
shall exercise exceptional care and consideration in matters involving the private lives and concerns of individuals, bearing in
mind that the rights to privacy may be overridden by a legitimate public interest.
6.4 A journalist shall not commit plagiarism.
See the full code at
www.mediaombudsmannamibia.org/downloads.html
6.5 A journalist shall not promote ethnic or religious discord or violence.
15
State vs self-regulation of the
media in Tanzania
The Media Council of Tanzania is fighting an uphill battle on
all fronts. But it is gaining ground, writes Kajubi
Mukajanga.
On 16 January this year, the media fraternity in Tanzania woke up to a
rude shock: the two-month-old government of President John Magufuli had permanently banned a newspaper.
In an unprecedented move, the government also made sure that the
Kiswahili publication, Mawio, would not be brought out electronically. In the past, suspended newspapers had taken the online option.
This time, this was not to be.
In a terse order published in the government gazette, the Minister
for Information, Culture, Arts and Sports, Nape Nnauye, put to use
two laws to silence a media outlet: the Newspaper Act 1976 to ban the
physical paper, and the Electronic and Postal Communication Act to
ensure it could not resort to online publication.
In an interview, the minister accused the paper of publishing “incendiary” and “inflammatory” content that put the peace, stability
and security of the country at risk. In particular, he cited two recent
stories on the tense situation in the semi-autonomous archipelago
of Zanzibar. In the words of Tanzania Editors Forum (TEF) Secretary-General Neville Meena: “The minister, who is the ultimate boss,
has powers to be the complainant, jury, judge and hangman. And if he
bans a newspaper or radio station, the law does not provide a mechanism for appeal.”
Ominously, the banning of Mawio coincided with the state regulator,
the Tanzania Communications Regulatory Authority (TCRA), issuing
notices of deregistration to 20 radio stations and eight TV stations for
failure to pay their statutory fees on time.
The minister has powers to be the
complainant, jury, judge and hangman.
Though we have covered a lot of ground since the mid-1990s, when the
media landscape in the country was liberalised, there is still a long
way to go. And this applies to both the legal and regulatory framework
and the performance of the media itself.
Ethical challenges for the media do not result only from having a host
of untrained or insufficiently trained journalists, or some corrupt editors, but also from a legal regime that enforces self-censorship and
the sorry economic state of many outlets. Most media are poorly capitalised and do not pay staff well and promptly, leading to what is commonly referred to as the “brown envelope syndrome”, where media
practitioners accept freebies and facilitation from sources.
Under such conditions, objectivity, fairness and balance suffer.
During the October 2015 general election, major political parties had
journalists embedded in their presidential candidates’ entourages, with the parties paying all or most of their expenses. Inevitably,
TV, radio, newspaper and online reporters filed stories that at times
sounded like cheap propaganda in favour of the candidate they were
covering.
When a journalist refused to tow the party line, as did a Mwananchi
reporter embedded in the campaign of ruling-party candidate John
Magufuli, he was asked to stop accompanying the candidate and
leave. However, Mwananchi, being the established media house that
it is, continued independent coverage of the ruling CCM party campaigns using its stringers and various bureau chiefs in the country.
Other ethical lapses that the Media Council of Tanzania (MCT) has
identified in its reports over the years include a lack of impartiality in
coverage of court cases, where headlines and content tend to convict
people who are still standing trial. This shortcoming has been so serious that the MCT and the Tanzania judiciary have started a forum
bringing together senior magistrates, judges and editors to discuss
professional issues. Since it was established in 2014, two major meetings have been held and a training session jointly organised by the
MCT and the judiciary has been undertaken. The MCT has also published guidelines for court reporters.
Tanzania’s Chief Justice Mohamed Chande Othman speaks during the 2014 joint forum between Media and Judiciary in Tanzania
in 2014.
Coverage of gender, children, and the disabled is another challenging
area, and the MCT has conducted several training projects and published manuals and guidelines for journalists on these subjects.
As a result of these efforts, the Tanzania media has registered noticeable improvement in terms of ethical reporting, as shown in a study
commissioned by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
(SDC). However, veteran editor Hamis Mzee, who has worked for both
government and private media, insists that “We are not yet there! Despite improvements, independence, truth and even accuracy are commonly contravened.”
Dr Ayub Rioba, Associate Dean of the School of Journalism and Mass
Communication at the University of Dar es Salaam, decries malpractices such as the reporting of unsubstantiated rumours, sensationalism, stereotyping and “mule journalism”, where reporters or even
editors are paid by sources to write or slant stories in their favour.
As a means of addressing these challenges, he proposes training and
retraining, enhancing self-regulation within newsrooms, including
effective post-mortems, and appointing in-house mechanisms that
would censure rogue practitioners while rewarding the best, and rooting out unprofessional hacks.
Self-regulation has proved quite
successful because it is fast, inexpensive
and effective.
Providing media practitioners with exposure to other African countries with higher standards, paying them well and ensuring they have
the tools they need, will also go a long way towards boosting the quality of their work.
The MCT will continue to oversee and promote ethical conduct and
media accountability and to raise standards and professionalism in
the media in line with its mandate. It was established by the media
industry in 1995 as a voluntary, independent and self-regulatory body
to counter government intentions to set up a statutory body to control
media behaviour.
resorting to (expensive) court proceedings. This kind of self-regulation has proved quite successful: it is fast, inexpensive and effective,
with a compliance rate of 90 per cent in mediated and arbitrated cases. People filing complaints with the Council include senior political
and religious leaders (such as a sitting vice-president, former prime
ministers and serving bishops), academics, business people, students
and others from all walks of life.
However, the government has not given up on establishing a statutory body to control the professional and ethical conduct of the media. In 2015 it attempted to rush through Parliament a Media Services
Bill that sought to do away with the press freedom gains made in the
country thus far. The bill included punitive measures that would have
effectively criminalised independent journalism as we know it.
Among other things, the bill stipulated hefty jail terms for ethical
lapses (a minimum five-year prison sentence), provided for the state
licensing of journalists, forced private broadcasters to broadcast the
8 p.m. evening news bulletin of the state broadcaster, made it possible to confiscate assets of offending media houses and granted
wide-ranging enter-and-search powers to junior police officers when
raiding media offices, including the confiscation of computers and
other equipment and material.
It took urgent action by all 11 members of the Coalition on the Right
to Information (CORI) – led by the MCT – to stop the bill. It was to be
presented under a Certificate of Urgency, which waives the public’s
right to see and debate a bill before it is passed into law and even curtails the right of Members of Parliament to exhaustively discuss a bill.
The struggle for a free, professional and independent media in Tanzania is therefore far from over. Whether we will succeed depends on
the speed and capacity of the media to adequately develop the professional and ethical reporting skills of journalists, as well as the ability
of politicians to curb their appetites for power and refrain from suppressing media freedom in the country – too often under the guise of
curtailing “irresponsible journalism”.
Kajubi Mukajanga is the Executive Secretary of the Media Council of
Tanzania.
On a practical level, the Council acts as an important mechanism to
assist the public in adjudicating grievances against the media without
16
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
17
A personal message from Namibia’s Gwen Lister, co-chair of the seminar that crafted the Windhoek Declaration.
We had big dreams, so many of us journalists who attended the 1991
United Nations/UNESCO-organised seminar that gave birth to the
Windhoek Declaration. We were not yet practiced in the ways of democracy, as governments across the continent were still largely intolerant of freedom of speech and expression. But we were idealistic and
infused with a fervent desire to see all of Africa’s media able to speak
truth to power.
In the 25 years since its historic adoption, and against the background
of a media landscape that has since changed dramatically with the
digital revolution, there have been a multitude of assessments and
analyses about progress made. Unfortunately, most often the state of
media freedom in Africa has been characterised by “a one step forward, two steps back” approach.
The principles of the Windhoek Declaration on Promoting
an Independent and Pluralistic Press are still relevant 25
years after its adoption as political authorities in Africa continue to undermine media freedom in their efforts to control
the press. Edetaen Ojo compares the main demands of the
Declaration with the reality today and outlines an agenda
for the coming years.
Nobody really expected to attend a historic seminar when they arrived at the Safari Hotel in the Namibian capital, Windhoek, on 29
April 1991. Among those gathered were 63 journalists from 38 countries all over Africa as well as observers from 23 member states of the
United Nations, three intergovernmental bodies, 22 non-governmental organisations and three specialised UN-organisations.
Most brutal dictators have either
passed on or transformed into more
sophisticated and subtle violators of
media freedom.
Four days later, on 3 May 1991, they made history by adopting the Declaration of Windhoek on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic
African Press, popularly known as the Windhoek Declaration. Since
1993 that date has been World Press Freedom Day, celebrated around
the world to raise awareness about the importance of press freedom
and to remind governments of their duty to respect and uphold the
right to freedom of expression as enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948.
The seminar was organised at the initiative of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in partnership with the United Nations and in cooperation with the United
Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the International Federation of Newspaper Publishers, the International Federation of Journalists and the International Press Institute.
The Windhoek Declaration recognised that multi¬party democracies
across Africa would “provide the climate in which an independent
and pluralistic press can emerge” and welcomed developments in this
regard, but its description of the situation at the time was bleak: “In
Africa today, despite the positive developments in some countries, in
many countries journalists, editors and publishers are victims of repression – they are murdered, arrested, detained and censored, and
are restricted by economic and political pressures such as restrictions
on newsprint, licensing systems which restrict the opportunity to
publish, visa restrictions which prevent the free movement of journalists, restrictions on the exchange of news and information, and
limitations on the circulation of newspapers within countries and
across national borders. In some countries, one¬-party States control
the totality of information.”
Many of these challenges continue to plague the media sector in
countries across Africa, although on a much smaller scale following
the wave of democratisation that has swept across the continent.
The key and most quoted principle outlined in the Declaration states:
“Consistent with Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, the establishment, maintenance and fostering of an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development and
maintenance of democracy in a nation and for economic development.”
The Declaration defined “independent press” to mean “a press independent from governmental, political or economic control or from
control of materials and infrastructure essential for the production
and dissemination of newspapers, magazines and periodicals”, and a
“pluralistic press” to mean “the end of monopolies of any kind and the
existence of the greatest possible number of newspapers, magazines
and periodicals reflecting the widest possible range of opinion within
the community.”
This principle and the accompanying benchmarks are now widely
recognised, not only by governments across Africa but throughout the
world. However, the achievement of an independent press in Africa
remains a challenge as newspapers in many countries continue to be
under the control of governmental, political or economic interests or
entities. In other countries, the materials and infrastructure essential for the production and dissemination of newspapers are still controlled by similar interests.
The Declaration also proposed as a matter of priority the “establishment of truly independent, representative associations, syndicates
or trade unions of journalists, and associations of editors and publishers” in African countries where such bodies did not then exist, to
“assist in the preservation of the freedoms” outlined in the document.
formed into more sophisticated and subtle violators of media freedom
and freedom of expression.
There have also been efforts to promote broadcasting freedom, including genuine public broadcasting and independent private commercial and community broadcasting, as well as to ensure independent and transparent regulatory frameworks for the broadcast sector.
The African Charter on Broadcasting has been a major advocacy instrument in this regard and much progress has been made in terms of
the sheer number and diversity of broadcasters in many countries on
the continent. But genuine public service broadcasters and independent regulatory bodies remain hard to find.
The third area of work goes beyond the Windhoek Declaration and
focuses on efforts to promote the right of access to information for
citizens both in law and in practice.
At the time of the Windhoek Declaration 25 years ago, no single country in Africa had an access to information law. Today, there are about
17 national laws and a number of regional instruments affirming the
right and outlining procedures for its exercise and enjoyment. But
with only about 30 per cent of the countries of the continent guaranteeing their citizens the right of access to information and the
challenges of implementation in almost all of these countries, much
remains to be done.
The independence, sustainability and
effectiveness of many of the journalists’
unions and associations remain in
doubt.
Such unions of journalists and associations of editors or publishers
have now been established in virtually all the countries of the continent, and so have similar bodies at sub-regional and regional levels
operating across and beyond national boundaries. However, the independence, sustainability and effectiveness of many of the national
unions and associations remain in doubt.
The final area of work has been in recent efforts to promote digital
rights and freedoms in the digital age. Internet access is a major challenge for the vast majority of people on the continent.
The Declaration also recommended that in view of the importance
of radio and television in the field of news and information, a similar
seminar of journalists and managers of broadcasting services in Africa should be convened to explore the possibility of applying similar
concepts of independence and pluralism to those media.
In many countries where internet access is widely available, costs are
often prohibitive. Given that access to many government and commercial services is now increasingly dependent on access to the internet and other digital technologies, the challenge has become an
urgent one.
During the 10th anniversary celebration of the Declaration, held in
Windhoek in May 2001, media professionals and freedom of expression activists from Africa and beyond proposed and adopted the African Charter on Broadcasting, which is now a continental reference
for the sector.
Added to the problem of access and affordability is the violation of
human rights online, particularly the right to freedom of expression,
the right to privacy in the age of mass surveillance, the rights to freedom of assembly and association, and the right to a fair hearing, to
name a few.
Over the last 25 years, freedom of expression and media freedom activism has evolved across Africa, targeting four major stages or areas
of work.
As we celebrate the progress that has been made since the Windhoek
Declaration, these continuing challenges provide us with a clear
agenda for the coming years.
Much effort has been devoted to promoting press freedom in the traditional sense as understood in the Windhoek Declaration. With democracy taking hold on the continent, a lot of progress has been made
and many of the most brutal dictators have either passed on or trans-
Edetaen Ojo is Executive Director of Media Rights Agenda, an NGO
based in Nigeria.
The ethos which drove it inspired similar journalistic demands in other parts of the world, and the sentiments behind it are as relevant today as they were at the time of its adoption. Circumstances may have
changed in the intervening years, but the campaign to realise these
lofty objectives should be as vigorously pursued now as it was in 1991.
Inspired by Namibia’s liberation from the stranglehold of South Africa’s apartheid colonial rule and buoyed up by the promise of a new era
in the country’s commitment to human rights, journalistic independence was seen as the way to assert these freedoms and loosen the ties
that bound media to state control.
Giving voice to these aspirations, the Declaration boldly proclaimed
that “the establishment, maintenance and fostering of an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development and
maintenance of democracy in a nation, and for economic development”.
An environment in which independent, pluralistic and free media,
both traditional and online, can thrive remains key to the goal of development.
The Windhoek Declaration, although it applied mainly to print media,
was and should remain a catalyst for free speech and expression advocates across Africa.
The gathering brought together journalists from 38 African countries,
many of them viewed as government opponents in their countries
of origin. They had paid a high price for their commitment to press
freedom. But there were also editors and executives from state-owned
media. Wide-ranging and often lively discussions on a range of issues
affecting (mainly print) media, and including political, economic and
technological constraints, were proof of the journalists’ passion for
their craft.
History made in Namibia: The Windhoek Declaration of 1991
newed government attempts to “regulate” and deny access, this new
environment offers a stark reminder of a draconian past.
For all Africans, the dream to assert and practice their rights to free
speech and expression in the interests of democracy and progress
must come true.
While there is more widespread acceptance, including by African governments, of the need for free and independent media, the reality on
the ground in many countries shows that impunity for violations of
media freedom continues. A vibrant and critical media holding governments accountable is not easily tolerated. Indeed, with millions
of citizens now giving voice to freedom of expression online, and re-
It’s not just about the media any longer. Across the length and breadth
of Africa, voices must continue to ring out to demand the right to free
speech and access to information in the interests of promoting informed opinions for viable democracy and progress.
Gwen Lister is the Founding Editor and currently Publisher of The
Namibian newspaper, which is owned by the Namibia Media Trust.
The impact of the Windhoek Declaration
All too often declarations remain just that: declarations,
pieces of paper filed away and forgotten. Not so with the
Declaration of Windhoek on Promoting an Independent and
Pluralistic African Press adopted on 3 May 1991, says Henry
Maina.
the process of encouraging press freedom, independence and pluralism in Africa” and resolved to “extend” such declarations “to other regions of the world”. It also recommended to the United Nations General Assembly that 3 May be declared “International Press Freedom
Day”. The UN did so in 1993.
The timing was perfect. The winds of change were blowing for a second time after the liberation from colonial rule in the 1960s as many
countries in Africa embarked on a democratisation process leading to
the end of military and one-party regimes. Until then, independent
professional journalism was a rarity and efforts to entrench it came
at a huge price. African journalism, in its various manifestations, has
largely been worshipful and reverential of authority, primarily as a
means of self-protection and remaining economically viable.
Since then, 3 May is a date observed every year to celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom, to evaluate press freedom around
the world, to defend the media from attacks on their independence,
and to pay tribute to journalists who have lost their lives in the exercise of their profession. While UNESCO leads the worldwide celebrations by identifying the global theme and organising the main event
in different parts of the world each year, many parallel national celebrations are also conducted.
But the situation has been changing fast, not least thanks to the Windhoek Declaration. In the new spirit of democratisation, the Declaration contributed directly and indirectly to changing the media landscape in Africa.
In essence, the gathering in Windhoek marked the beginning of a solidarity movement of journalists, editors and media owners and the
emergence of media development organisations across the continent.
The Declaration kick-started the
liberalisation of media laws in Africa
and encouraged many journalists to start
independent newspapers.
Following in the footsteps of MISA, similar organisations were initiated in Eastern and West Africa with mixed levels of success. The Media Foundation for West Africa has emerged as a strong sub-regional
actor on media freedom advocacy. The Media Institute of Kenya and
the East African Media Institute took off but became moribund not
long after their infancy. Discussions on forming a global coalition
started at the Windhoek conference and the International Freedom of
Expression Exchange (IFEX) was established a year later. IFEX is now
a worldwide actor on freedom of expression.
The Declaration left its impact around the globe in other ways as well.
In 1992, a UNESCO conference of media practitioners held in Kazakhstan adopted the Declaration of Alma Alta, declaring “full support for,
and total commitment to, the fundamental principles of the Declaration of Windhoek”, and acknowledging “its importance as a milestone in the struggle for free, independent and pluralistic print and
broadcast media in all regions of the world”. The Declaration of Santiago (Chile), which followed in 1994, expressed the same support. Two
years later the Declaration of Sana’a (Yemen) stated that, in line with
the Windhoek Declaration, the “establishment of truly independent,
representative associations, syndicates or trade unions of journalists,
and associations of editors and publishers is a matter of priority”. Finally, in 1997, the Declaration of Sofia (Bulgaria) urged “all parties
concerned that the principles enshrined in this (Windhoek) Declaration be applied in practice”.
The celebrations on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the
Declaration – also held in Windhoek – were used by activists to propose and adopt a new document that would address issues specific
to broadcasting, the African Charter on Broadcasting. The Charter
proposes a three-tier system of public, commercial and community
broadcasting.
The Declaration gained global relevance at UNESCO’s General Conference in 1991 when a resolution “recognised” that “a free, pluralist
and independent press is an essential component of any democratic
society”. The conference described the Declaration as “a catalyst in
The worldwide recognition of the Windhoek Declaration and the solidarity of African journalists made it possible to use both documents
as powerful lobbying tools. They kick-started the liberalisation of media laws in Africa and encouraged many journalists to start indepen-
The Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA), an organisation with
chapters in eleven countries of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) and which promotes independent and pluralistic
media, was formed in 1992. One of its first projects was the establishment of an email alert system to make Africa and the rest of the world
aware of violations of media freedom as soon as they occurred – much
to the surprise and anger of governments which, up to that stage, had
been able to act against journalists without much international attention. Regular conferences were held to share experiences in setting up
and maintaining newspapers against all odds.
dent newspapers, for example The Post in Zambia in 1991, MediaFax
in Mozambique in 1992 and The Monitor in Malawi in the same year.
The demand for truly public broadcasters has become a common call
around the continent – although with mixed success so far. Community radio stations are flourishing in many countries – even though
many struggle financially.
The Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression, adopted in
2002 by the African Union’s African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, has been influenced by the spirit of Windhoek, especially
in regard to broadcasting. Like the African Charter on Broadcasting,
the AU’s Declaration recognises the three-tier system and demands
that “all state and government-controlled broadcasters should be
transformed into public service broadcasters”. The Windhoek Declaration also informed the Midrand Declaration on Press Freedom in
Africa, adopted by the Pan-African Parliament in 2013, as well as the
Midrand Call to Action on Media Freedom in Africa, also adopted by
the PAP in the same year.
Twenty-five years after Windhoek, there has been some progress with
regard to media freedom in most African countries and the lofty goal
features prominently in many an official speech. However, an “independent, pluralistic and free press”, as the Declaration demanded, is
still far from being a matter of course. Politicians across the continent remain desirous to control the breadth and depth of coverage
that must be given to different issues. They do this through political
edicts, calculated deployment of state advertising, complacency when
cronies intimidate and attack journalists, and by banning media
houses from operating. The media still have to tread a very tight rope
lest they be framed as foreign mercenaries or political and economic saboteurs and prosecuted under frivolous pre-independence laws
that penalise journalists for publication of false news, sedition, insult
and/or criminal defamation.
The Midrand Call to Action deplores this state of affairs: “Since the
turn of the century the building of democratic institutions in many
parts of Africa, and with it the promotion of freedom of expression,
has been stagnating, or even regressing, and governments have not
lived up to the expectations created by … documents” (such as the
Windhoek Declaration or the Declaration of Principles on Freedom
of Expression).
So, has the Windhoek Declaration now ended up being just another
piece of paper, merely of historical interest? No, given the impact it
has had over the last 25 years, its legacy lives on. The conferences of
Windhoek have proven that journalists can come together in solidarity and change the world, at least the media world.
Henry Maina is the Regional Director of ARTICLE 19 in Eastern Africa.
AfrIcAN free PreSS
18
AfrIcAN free PreSS
A year in the life of journalists in West Africa
Getting away with murder – violence against journalists
A report by the Media Foundation for West Africa
Across West Africa, critical journalists have had to
face parliamentary and judicial enquiries, arbitrary
arrests and detentions in 2015. In what appears to
be an emerging pattern of attempts at censorship
and restrictions on critical reporting, journalists in
various countries have had to face questioning by
authorities for their reports.
appear and clarify a claim they made on the 3 December edition of a radio programme called “Good
Morning Salone.” The programme was broadcast
on local radio station Radio Democracy. The claim
concerned the travelling budget of the Minister of
Information and Communications, Alhaji Alpha
Kanu.
Since the beginning of 2015, 23 journalists from
different countries in the region have been summoned or arrested and questioned by state institutions or regulatory bodies.
On 10 September, the Clerk of Parliament had summoned Abdul Karim Fonti Kabia and Bampia J.
Bundu, Publisher and Managing Editor of Blade
newspaper, regarding a satirical article they published on September 1, titled: “SHAMEFUL: Rubber
Stamp Parliament.”
On 4 December, the Attorney General of Guinea
Bissau, António Sedja Man, ordered the cancellation of a scheduled popular programme on a stateowned radio station and summoned the Director
General of the state broadcaster to the Ministry of
Justice for what he called “a working meeting.”
A subpoena dated the same day, signed by the Attorney General, summoned Francisco Muniro Conte and called off the programme which is popular
for its frank discussion of topical national issues.
However, strong protests from media organisations
in the country saved the journalist from further harassment.
On the same day, the Clerk of Parliament in Sierra Leone summoned three journalists to appear
before Parliament to answer questions. Thomas
Dixon and Theo Harding, Managing Editor and Editor of Salone Times, respectively, and Asma James,
Station Manager of Radio Democracy, were asked to
In Niger, two journalists, Zabeirou Souley, Editor
in Chief of Le Nouveau Républicain, and Roufai Dan
Doua, Editor in Chief of 90 Minutes, were arrested
on 4 November, and questioned by the police following a defamation complaint by the president
of the Niger Football Federation. Souley and Doua
were released after being detained and questioned
for several hours.
Earlier, Garba Lompo, the Managing Editor of Canard Déchainé, Oumarou Aliou Modibo, was summoned and questioned at the office of the Public
Prosecutor at the Niamey County Court. The questioning followed a 16 March publication of an article on the illegal acquisition of land by the Nigerien
Minister of Justice. The editor was later put into
custody overnight.
Then comes Côte d’Ivoire. On 30 October, Koffi
Kouassi Norbert, who writes under the pen name
Norbert N’Kaka, was summoned by Sessi Soukou,
the Deputy Mayor of Dabou, a town in southern
Côte d’Ivoire, to explain his articles about the town
that the Deputy Mayor considered unfair. While
N’Kaka was with the Deputy Mayor responding
to questions about his articles, some youth in the
town attacked his home.
Prior to this incident, Joseph Gnahoua Titi and
Séverine Blé, Managing Editor and Editor in Chief
of Aujourd’hui newspaper, were summoned on 28
July by the investigative department of the country’s Gendarmerie to explain a publication about
the wealth of Ivorian President Alassanne Ouattara. The two journalists were questioned for nearly five hours by the Gendarmerie.
In Senegal, on 28 August, Mamadou Wane, Managing Editor of Enquête newspaper, was summoned to
appear before an investigating magistrate and accused of “illegally publishing judicial proceedings
before public hearing”. When he appeared, he was
charged and put on probation the entire day. His
passport was also seized.
Still in Senegal, three journalists — Mohamed
Gueye, Alioune Badara Fall and Mamadou Wane
— were summoned by the police on 14 July. Prior
to this, Gueye had been summoned twice by the
police regarding a publication on a counterfeiting
case involving a musician. The three journalists
were later detained.
On 1 July, the dreaded National Intelligence Agency (NIA) of The Gambia summoned and interrogated five journalists of The Voice newspaper. The
NIA questioned Musa S. Sheriff, Sulayman Ceesay,
Bakary Ceesay, Amadou Bah and Mafugi Ceesay
and demanded personal information. The Agency requested information about the newspaper’s
sources of revenue, how it obtains reports, its aims
and objectives, what it stands for and the kind of
information the journalists cover.
Ghana is no exception. On 29 June, Kojo Yankson,
morning show host of Accra-based Joy FM, was
summoned by the Privileges Committee of the
country’s Parliament. Yankson was summoned
along with Professor Alex Dodoo, an academic and
clinical scientist. This followed an interview Prof.
Dodoo granted Yankson, in which Prof. Dodoo said
MPs were ignorant about Ebola vaccine trials.
In Guinea, Diallo Souleymane, the General Manager of Lynx newspaper was summoned on 25 and
26 March, and questioned by Martine Condé, the
president of Guinea’s media regulatory body, Haute
Autorité de la Communication (HAC - High Communications Authority). This followed an article
Souleymane wrote on the then newly constituted
HAC. The article condemned a violation of Article 7
of the HAC law stipulating that “the President of the
HAC shall be elected by his peers under the supervision of the Constitutional Court.” In the case in
point, however, the new president and members of
the HAC took an oath before a bailiff instead.
A month in the life of journalists in Eastern Africa
Article 19 Eastern Africa issues a monthly bulletin on the status of freedom of expression in the region. This is the slightly shortened January 2016 edition.
Burundi
28 January: Foreign journalist Jean-Philippe Remy and photojournalist
Philip Edward Moore, while on assignment for French daily newspaper
Le Monde in the capital city Bujumbura, were arrested and detained by
police. Pressure from international human rights and media groups including from French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius meant that the
journalists were released the next day.
29 January: Hermes Ntibandetse of Radio Publique Africaine, which
was one of the biggest independent stations in the country before being
shut down by the government last May, was arrested and interrogated
for an hour before being released.
Kenya
6 January: Denis Galava, Special Projects Editor at Nation Media Group,
was suspended for an editorial deemed critical of the government.
The article criticized President Uhuru Kenyatta’s administration, and
touched on the issues of security, unemployment, economic stagnation,
corruption, and poor leadership.
12 January: Brian Otieno, popularly known as Odhiambo Otieno, was
arrested and charged with ‘misuse of telecommunication gadget’.
Odhimbo said that three police officers came to the Kenya News Agency
offices at Prosperity House building in Kisumu, and arrested him for
allegedly defaming a candidate for government on social media. He was
then detained at the police station.
19 January: Eddy Reuben Illah was arrested and charged with publishing prohibited material for sharing images of what he alleged were Kenyan soldiers killed in an Al Shabaab attack, via a WhatsApp group. Illah
denied the charge and was remanded in custody pending the hearing
of his case.
19 January: Cyprian Nyakundi, was arrested and detained for 24 hours
after tweeting about a construction company that was linked to Mombasa Governor, Hassan Joho.
21 January: Patrick Safari, a prison warden, popularly known as ‘Modern Corps’, was arrested for posting comments regarding the Al Shabaab
attack at the Kenya Defence Force camp in El-Adde, Somalia. He spent
the night in the cell being interrogated. His three mobile phones and
laptop were confiscated by police. Safari regularly provides security updates via his social media accounts.
21 January: a female journalist was mishandled after she picked up a
call from a ‘perceived political enemy’ of the Murang’a Governor Mwan-
gi Wa Iria. She was covering a scuffle between Ethics and Anti Corruption Commision officials and the Governor when the anti-corruption
detectives went for a search in his house over corruption allegations.
23 January: Yassin Juma, a freelance journalist and blogger was arrested
and interrogated over what he had posted on social media about the terror attack on a KDF camp in El-Adde, Somalia, which left an unknown
number of soldiers dead.
27 January: Elkana Jacob, of the Star newspaper, was arrested at the
Likoni Channel while driving home. He was taken to Makupa police
station where police claimed he had illegally photographed the station.
Jacob said his arrest was actually due to a story he had published the
previous day regarding two police officers who were discharged after
they were allegedly caught by President Uhuru Kenyatta taking bribes
from motorists.
South Sudan
22 January: Innocent Ngbati, a reporter working for the Government
owned Yambio FM, was beaten and injured by prison officers as he was
taking photos and talking to eyewitnesses at the scene where a police
commissioner had been shot dead. Police alleged Ngbati was one of the
people who shot the commissioner.
Tanzania
15 January: The Tanzanian government permanently banned Mawio
newspaper, an independent publication. Announcing the ban, the Minister for Information, Culture, Arts and Sports, Mr Nape Nnauye, said
the decision was reached after the newspaper embarked on a series of
news articles that, according to him, “had all the indications of inciting
violence in the country.” Mawio editors, Jabir Idrissa and Simon Mkina,
were summoned and questioned by police about the paper’s coverage
of Zanzibar. They were ordered to report daily to a local police station
until further notice, said Mkina. He said no formal charges had been
made against them.
Uganda
7 January: Ben Byarabaha, managing editor of the privately owned
daily newspaper Red Pepper, and Dickson Mubiru, managing editor of
Kamunye, a privately-owned weekly publication, were summoned and
questioned regarding the source of a photograph of the body of a man
the newspapers identified as the chief of security for Ugandan presidential candidate Amama Mbabazi. The two editors were released after being held for 24 hours without charge. Media reports said police arrested
the editors after they refused to disclose how they got the photograph.
19
12 January: Mulindwa Mukasa, a journalist and human rights activist,
had his house broken into and laptops, two video cameras, a mobile
phone, three harddrives, and 500 000 Uganda shillings taken. According Human Rights Network for journalists (HRNJ-Uganda) the intruders
forced open Mukasa’s back door while he was asleep. Mukasa was quoted by HRNJ-Uganda saying “These were not ordinary thieves. It was a
highly sophisticated intrusion into my house which I believe did not last
long. They were interested in items where I store my information. They
specifically went for information gadgets and ignored items that I would
expect an ordinary thief to carry such as TV, radio and even a brand new
(boxed) home theater system among other things”.
The practice of journalism in Africa is not for the faint-hearted. Journalists are intimidated, attacked, jailed, beaten up or
killed for doing their job. Eighty-two journalists were murdered between 2012 and 2015 alone. Most of these murders
have gone unpunished. Gabriel Ayite Baglo explains why.
Violence against journalists on the continent has a long history. Before the 1990s, most media outlets were state owned, and very few
journalists were engaged in independent journalism. One-party systems and dictatorial regimes did not tolerate dissent or scrutiny. They
went to some lengths to stifle independent voices, from persecution of
individuals right up to attacks with heavy weapons on media buildings, shutting down entire operations and sending many journalists
into exile.
rica. In recent years religious extremism, in particular Islamic fundamentalism, and tribal hatred have added more fuel to this toxic mix.
During the Rwandan genocide of 1994, more than 100 Rwandan journalists were reported murdered in the space of three months. Their
colleagues in Algeria were caught up in the midst of an Islamist terror campaign between 1993 and 1996, which left 58 killed and forced
many more into exile.
Media practitioners have been in the sights of extremists in countries
like Somalia where at least three journalists were killed each year over
the last decade. A major clampdown on independent media in Eritrea
has led to the disappearance of a dozen journalists since 2001. About
20 were jailed – their whereabouts unknown. They have been held incommunicado for the last 15 years and are feared dead.
Many victims have been recorded in South Sudan, the youngest nation
on the continent, which has been engulfed in a bloody civil war since
December 2013, two years after gaining independence from Sudan.
Protecting the safety of journalists is not
only an African issue – it is a worldwide
concern.
In most countries, space was opened up in the early 1990s for political opposition. Fundamental rights, such as freedom of expression,
were increasingly respected – either after a long liberation struggle or
because new cash-strapped governments had to accept certain conditions in exchange for financial assistance from Western countries.
The new situation made the emergence and development of private
media possible. This provided serious competition to state media,
which had long kept the monopoly on information in the hands of the
ruling elites.
The scene was then set for a hot pursuit of political power by governments and opposition groups, whether armed or not, with journalists
trapped in the crossfire while reporting events and holding each side
to account. Those vying for political domination and control of wealth
and resources were rarely prepared to accommodate critical or independent reporting.
Violent extremism, political upheaval, lawlessness and intolerance to
media scrutiny have been taking a heavy toll on the profession in Af-
Very few cases have been brought to court. One exception was the
murder of Carlos Cardoso, editor of the Mozambican newspaper Metical, killed in 2000 in Maputo after publishing investigative reports
on corruption at a Mozambican bank. Six culprits were convicted in
2003, including Anibal dos Santos Junior, who was sentenced to 30
years. The son of then President Joaquim Chissano was charged and
accused of being the mastermind. He died before the trial.
Most perpetrators of atrocities against journalists are getting away
with murder. Governments may have no interest in investigating such
crimes or be implicated themselves. To end this impunity, a number
of media organisations have supported families of victims at regional
and continental courts. And they have had their victories.
In 2014, ten years after the murder of Gambian journalist Deyda Hydara, the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African
States ordered the Gambian government to re-open its investigation.
In the same year, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights
found in the case of Burkinabe editor Norbert Zongo, murdered in
1998, that the Burkina Faso government had not seriously investigated
the crime and showed no will to hold the killers to account. The court
also said that the killing of a journalist was a method of intimidation
that should not be tolerated anywhere.
UNESCO’s Guy Berger outlines how it is meant to work.
The key to stopping attacks on journalists is to end impunity for the
perpetrators committing these crimes.
On behalf of the international community, Irina Bokova - UNESCO’s
Director-General - publicly condemned a total of 178 killings of journalists worldwide over 2013 and 2014. Of these, 23 were murdered in
sub-Saharan Africa.
If those who want to silence journalists violently foresee there will be
consequences, they are likely to think twice. The state can and should
make an example by investigating and prosecuting these killers.
17 January: Galiwango Ronald, of the privately-owned station NTV;
Kenneth Oryema, of the privately-owned daily New Vision; Ernest Kyazze, from the privately-owned daily Bukedde; and Julius Ariong, correspondent for the independent Daily Monitor in Moroto were assaulted
by George Obia, the Moroto district police commander. Media reports
said the four reporters went to cover an alleged road block, set up by
police to prevent an opposition presidential candidate from reaching
his supporters in Nadiket. Obia threatened the journalists and ordered
them to hand over a camera. Their equipment was damaged according
to reports.
It does not have to be that way. African stakeholders can do more to
join the growing momentum of the United Nations Plan of Action on
the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, endorsed by the
UN’s Chief Executive Board in 2012.
2 November – the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes
Against Journalists – has been proclaimed by the UN as a special day
to call on governments to ensure proper judicial process for slain journalists.
The Plan aims to make the world a safer place for journalists in both
conflict and non-conflict situations. Its steps include helping countries develop laws and systems that protect journalists through cooperation between governments, media houses, professional associations and NGOs on this key issue.
In terms of the UN Plan, governments should also respond to killings
by publicly condemning these attacks. They have a duty to send out a
strong message that it is unacceptable for anyone to be violently attacked as a result of exercising their right to free expression.
20 January: Endigyito FM ceased broadcasting after the Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) revoked the station’s licence, and confiscated its broadcasting equipment only a day after the station aired
an interview with opposition presidential candidate Amama Mbabazi.
Media reports indicated that the UCC director initially said the station’s
licence was suspended because it owed licensing fees. However the station’s owner, Nulu Byamukama, said he had paid the outstanding fees in
full following the suspension of the station’s licence.
Protecting the safety of journalists is not only an African issue – it is
a worldwide concern. In 2015 alone, 112 journalists were killed in the
line of duty around the globe. To help stop such killings, UNESCO developed a United Nations Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists
and the Issue of Impunity in 2012. This plan is meant to rally support and forge broad coalitions among journalists, media companies,
governments, media freedom groups and other civil society organisations as well as the international community.
Violent attacks on journalists and the media are not just punishable
crimes. They are also attacks on the right of citizens to full and accurate information on public affairs. It is therefore in the interest of
each and every member of society that journalists must be able to do
their job freely, safely and without fear of persecution from whatever
quarter.
Gabriel Ayite Baglo is Director of the Federation of African Journalists
(FAJ).
UNESCO developed a United Nations
Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists
and the Issue of Impunity in 2012.
Making Africa safe for journalism: The Plan
15 January: The government announced that journalists without a
university qualification will be barred from covering Parliament. The
communication manager for Parliament defended the decision, saying
journalists with degrees are the ones who can ably follow debate in parliament and report appropriately to the public.
18 January: Ali Golooba Lukuuba, a journalist for Radio Buddu, a privately-owned station based in Masaka, was beaten, and his equipment
confiscated by security guards while covering a function by local politician Hajji Muyanja Mbabaali. Media reports said Lukuuba was accosted
by six security guards, who asked him why he was recording their candidate. The men then hit and kicked the journalist, and confiscated his
equipment. Lukuuba said even after identifying himself as a journalist
and showing them his ID, they continued beating him.
The Federation of African Journalists (FAJ) has been waging a campaign at all levels of governance on the continent and among African
Union organs to ensure that the safety of journalists and the issue of
impunity for crimes targeting journalists are placed high on the political agenda. Thanks to this campaign, the African Commission on
Human and Peoples’ Rights in 2011 adopted a Resolution on the Safety
of Journalists and Media Practitioners in Africa. The document calls
on governments “to fulfil their obligation on preventing and investigating all crimes allegedly committed against journalists and media
practitioners and also to bring the perpetrators to justice”. It urges
“all parties involved in situations of armed conflicts to respect the
independence and freedom of journalists and media practitioners to
exercise their profession and guarantee their safety and security in
accordance with international humanitarian law”.
Even governments who fear free expression have a stake in stopping
attacks on journalists because they need two things:
• credible and independent information to make decisions – it’s not
smart to rely only on your own public relations;
• actions to show that the state is in charge and that it will not tolerate
extra-judicial attacks and killings.
While many states seek to justify the jailing of journalists, none can
publicly condone fatal attacks against journalists. The rule of law has
to prevail if a state wants to demonstrate it is a credible and legitimate
factor in society. After all, each state seeks to command respect as a
central authority.
Some governments may have the political will to deal with the problem, but lack the capacity to take effective action, while others indeed
exercise effective state power, but lack the political will to defend
journalists.
In the first case, the UN Plan offers capacity-building assistance to
the state; in the second case, the Plan underlines the need to sensitise
the political leadership through advocacy and awareness-raising.
Then there are those places where neither political will nor capacity can be found, such as countries or areas ravaged by war and civil
conflict. In these cases, the UN Plan calls for training of journalists,
and the documenting of attacks against them so that effective judicial
process can occur at a later stage.
The Plan also encourages all states and civil society to play a role in
monitoring and reporting killings of journalists and the issue of impunity.
In Africa, according to the 2014 UNESCO study, World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development, Eritrea, Nigeria and
Tanzania responded to the official UNESCO request for information
on the killing of journalists dating back to 2007. A number of African
states have also co-sponsored relevant UN resolutions in this regard
in the past three years, including Benin, Botswana, Burkina Faso,
Cabo Verde, Chad, the Central African Republic, Ghana, Kenya, Mali
and Nigeria.
But there was no response to the UN’s request for official information from Angola, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, both the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Republic of Congo, Guinea, Kenya, Mali, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Uganda.
African countries can therefore do more to respond and also more to
support international resolutions on the safety of journalists.
On a more practical level, people leading mainstream and community
media can also play an important part in campaigning to end impunity. And, at a minimum, each company needs a safety policy. Unions,
NGOs, community-based organisations and academics can help with
training, research and awareness-raising.
Through action and co-operation, African stakeholders can make
progress on safety for journalism. It has happened in Latin America
and Eastern Europe; it can be done in Africa.
Guy Berger is the Director of UNESCO’s Division of Freedom of Expression and Media Development.
20
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
21
National broadcasters in Africa:
The politics of non-reform
The rise and fall of public
broadcasting in South Africa
The transformation of state broadcasters into public broadcasters as envisaged by the African Charter on Broadcasting
has failed. Hendrik Bussiek examines why and what can be
done about it.
For over a decade, the SABC shone as a beacon for what
public broadcasting can do for African democracies. Not
anymore. Sekoetlane Jacob Phamodi explains why.
Again, it was the 1991 Windhoek Declaration on Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic Press that set the agenda. It recommended the
convening of a seminar “to explore the possibility of applying concepts of independence and pluralism” to radio and television. This
was very careful wording, indeed, and the matter – or should we say
the hot potato? – of broadcasting reform stayed on the to-do list for a
while.
It was only in 2001, when freedom of expression organisations from
all over Africa met again in the Namibian capital on the sidelines of
a UNESCO world conference celebrating the 10th anniversary of the
Windhoek Declaration, that a group of 20 broadcast activists took up
the challenge. After three days of work, they proposed to the conference an African Charter on Broadcasting, which was vigorously debated and then adopted. The Charter calls for independent regulation
of broadcasting, the recognition of community broadcasting – and the
transformation of state broadcasters into public broadcasters. A year
later the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights included
most of these principles in its Declaration of Principles on Freedom of
Expression in Africa.
Has the Charter made an impact? Yes, as far as the flourishing of
community radio is concerned. Mostly “no” in regard to independent
regulation, and a definite “no!” when it comes to public broadcasting.
That needs to change, urgently.
While most national broadcasting organisations nowadays prefer to
call themselves “public services”, in essence they remain what they
have always been: state broadcasters. And in spite of their diminished
reputation they are still a force to be reckoned with.
As things stand, only national, state-controlled broadcasters have the
potential to satisfy the needs of the broad majority of the population
in most countries in Africa for the provision of news, education and
entertainment. They dominate radio and television services in all
Most national broadcasters remain
what they have always been: state
broadcasters.
aspects: with regard to technical reach, diversity of languages (with
those of the former colonial powers dominating television) and popularity in terms of audience ratings. They are usually the only broadcaster in the country with a nationwide network for both radio and
television transmission, including services to remote rural areas.
All of this makes the existing national broadcasters indispensable –
but not necessarily popular.
Surveys show that a majority of citizens are dissatisfied with their
national broadcasters. They regard them as government controlled,
designed to convey the government’s view of things, and to protect
and advance government interests. They lack credibility – perhaps the
most important quality for any successful media.
Government control over national broadcasters is evident both in
their manner of organisation and in their content. Their governing organs (board and management) are appointed largely or exclusively by
the government; they are owned, supervised and maintained by the
government and often run as government departments, with employees having the status of civil servants. National broadcasters are thus
seen as organs in the pay and service of the government rather than
institutions meant to serve the public and the community. In their
coverage of current affairs they focus mainly on official events and
the activities of state and ruling party figures. The voices of representatives of the powers that be and influential politicians always feature
prominently while those of the opposition and ordinary citizens are
largely absent. The different ideas, beliefs and interests of the nation’s
diverse social, political and cultural sectors are not reflected in an equitable and inclusive manner.
of non-reform”, bar perhaps a few cosmetic changes so as not to lose
all credibility.
The concept of public broadcasting has been tarnished greatly by the
performance of national broadcasters that are public in name only.
Nevertheless, a study on broadcasting in eleven countries of Africa,
and largely representative of the continent, showed that the overwhelming majority of civil society representatives and media practitioners, even many (mostly opposition) politicians interviewed, were
passionate about the idea of public broadcasting. There is also general
support for the demand in the Declaration of Principles on Freedom
of Expression in Africa that “state and government-controlled broadcasters should be transformed into public-service broadcasters accountable to the public”.
For those in power, the status quo is certainly preferable to the prospect of opening up a space for critical voices or relinquishing control
over a state-owned and controlled broadcaster, a convenient tool to
be used as the government’s mouthpiece to publicise its projects and
programmes and help to ensure the incumbents’ stay in power. Opposition politicians may and do complain openly about this favouritism and will then, if available and accessible, use private media to
put across their own messages – hoping to get into the driving seat in
future and then put the state broadcaster to their own use.
All supporters of the concept envisage a broadcaster that will truly
serve the interests of the public by reporting on events fully and impartially, by offering a credible forum for democratic debate, by empowering and inspiring citizens, not least the poor and marginalised,
and by providing varied programming for all interests, including minority audiences.
National broadcasters are seen as organs
in the pay and service of the government
rather than institutions meant to serve
the public and the community.
Over the years there have been many calls by journalists and civil society groups to transform existing state broadcasters into public broadcasters and some cautious attempts have been made. In South Africa,
where a public broadcaster was officially created and prospered for a
while as part of the new democratic dispensation after apartheid rule,
the clock has largely been turned back over the past 15 years.
In quite a number of countries, state broadcasters themselves have
become aware of their questionable roles in what profess to be democratic societies, including the increasing loss of audience trust and
the devastating effect this might have on their future in a competitive environment. A few have tried to reform their organisations from
within.
In some countries, such as Kenya, tentative steps taken by a newly appointed managing director to professionalise the national broadcaster and to restore a sense of balance in the newsroom did not go down
well with some politicians. These actions marked him as an outsider
and no longer one of their own. This is a risk that many are reluctant
to take.
Another obstacle to transformation is the constant pressure of trying to cut costs or even being expected to make a profit. In effect,
therefore, the ostensibly public broadcasters see themselves as commercially driven broadcasters with a public mandate. Financial considerations often trump the commitment to professionalism or public-service values.
Many observers of the media scene are also concerned about the role
played by the major media houses, which appear to be quite content
with the current, regulated state of affairs and the space they have
managed to carve out for themselves and their often flourishing operations. This makes them hesitant to engage over the issue of far-reaching reforms: a more attractive national broadcaster could become an
unwelcome (additional) competitor.
What can be done to get things moving? A first step would be to follow the example of concerned citizens in some African countries who
operate sustained campaigns for the attainment of genuine public
broadcasting. National freedom of expression and community activists should form pressure groups with other civil society organisations which are natural allies in this struggle. Faith communities,
trade unions, student organisations, anti-corruption campaigns, artists, charities, community-based organisations, environmentalists
and development communication groups – all of them will profit from
making their voices heard, not just via fringe media, but over the nationwide broadcaster. They should be brought together for workshops
or online fora to discuss what they really expect from their national
station.
This should be followed up with concrete activities. Setting up a national broadcaster “watchdog” could be one idea: such a group would
monitor and analyse the performance of the national broadcaster
over a certain period of time, both in terms of management and programme output, in particular news and current affairs programmes.
Many politicians regard independent
media as a nuisance at best or as
inherently hostile.
This could lead to campaigns based on real evidence and not only on
incidental grievances. As a means of long-term monitoring one could
set up an alert system via email and social media, to expose examples
of the abuse of power by the national broadcaster.
The tools to promote change are there. All that’s needed to use them
is the political will of activists to start rallying the support of media
practitioners and, above all, the general public. Waiting for politicians to do the job is no option.
The SABC was being commercialised and politicised at the same time
– a toxic combination.
Ten years ago the façade of the dream public broadcaster of the new
dispensation cracked for all to see. It was discovered that the SABC
had blacklisted a number of reporters, analysts and commentators
who held views that were inconsistent with those of the ANC. Since
then, and as a result of direct and piecemeal political and legal interventions by the ANC-led government, the SABC has seen the rapid
escalation of its on-going crisis of independence and credibility.
We really enjoyed them, for a while, the programmes of the new South
African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) before and after the country’s first democratic elections in 1994. They tuned into the major issues occupying the lives and conversations of ordinary citizens and
helped us see and understand what was happening in our country, on
the continent and in the wider world. Under the leadership of men and
women who not only understood, but were deeply passionate about
using the power of mass communication to transform our society, the
public broadcaster delivered what it was supposed to: professional
news bulletins, lively and controversial debates, socially relevant soap
operas, crisp satire, investigative journalism, brilliant documentaries
and quality entertainment. The best talent in journalism, showbiz
and film production all lined up to become part of the team. The SABC
shone as a beacon for broadcasters on the continent for what public
broadcasting can do for African democracies. We were proud of it – at
least for a decade.
Up until 1990, when the liberation struggle entered the phase of negotiation with the release of Nelson Mandela from prison and the lifting
of the ban on the African National Congress (ANC), the SABC was a
mighty propaganda tool firmly held and wielded by the nationalist,
racist white government. This needed to be changed. During the period preceding the historic 1994 election, activists from the Campaign
for Open Media (COM) took the lead and engaged with the ANC, other
opposition political parties and progressive civil society organisations over the urgent need to transform the SABC into an independent broadcaster. The timing was vital because a non-partisan public
broadcaster was an essential ingredient of a free, fair and open election. Chances were good for a simple reason: It was in the interest of
the ANC that the ruling National Party (NP) should not have control
over the SABC in the long run-up to the elections; and it was in the
NP’s interest that the ANC should not gain power over the broadcaster
after the elections.
Cyril Ramaphosa, then Secretary-General of the ANC and now Deputy President of South Africa, showed the way when addressing the
Campaign in 1992: “The ANC believes that unquestioning loyalty by a
public broadcaster to a ruling party is incompatible with democracy.
The ANC is committed to public broadcasting which is independent of
the government of the day and which owes its loyalty not to any party,
but to the population as a whole”.
When the ANC was elected to power in 1994, new policies were put in
place to guarantee the SABC’s independence as a public broadcaster.
One of the key achievements was the introduction of an independent
and open process for the appointment of the SABC board with as much
popular participation as possible. Office bearers with the government
or political parties were not allowed to serve on the board.
In 2008 the SABC was bankrupt. It was rescued only by a substantial
government guarantee that allowed it to borrow from commercial
banks. Five years later the Auditor General attested that its books were
still in disarray. In 2014 the Public Protector (Ombud) described the
continuing financial mayhem and failure of corporate governance at
the corporation as “pathological”. The appointment of a Chief Executive Officer and other group executives after approval by the Minister
of Communication was the first overt step towards direct government
control over the affairs of the public broadcaster since the fall of the
apartheid regime. The current minister is now trying to introduce legislation that would also see direct ministerial control of the appointment of the SABC’s non-executive board members, thus returning the
SABC to the status of state broadcaster it had when South Africa was
still under apartheid rule.
These policies worked – for a while.
In 1996, the SABC invited business consultancy McKinsey to look
into its management. And these consultants did what they usually
do: they concentrated on the most efficient and cost-effective way of
doing things. The SABC gradually changed into a commercially oriented enterprise with less and less emphasis on its public broadcasting mandate. New legislation was passed in 1999 and the SABC was
converted from a corporation in its own right into a company with
the government as its sole shareholder – SABC Ltd. This was to give
the state more oversight in financial matters and thus prevent future
financial crises. On this occasion, the clause excluding political office
bearers from board membership was quietly dropped.
Things went downhill from there. The corporation became a commercial public broadcaster. The shareholder – the ministry – interfered
in management decisions under the pretext of ensuring correct use
of taxpayers’ money (although only a very small percentage of SABC
revenue comes from the state budget). The ruling party increasingly
flexed its muscles when it came to important appointments. It used
its majority to push through members of the board sympathetic to the
party and “deployed” (the official term) its people in top management
positions, often without regard to their professional qualifications.
South Africans see and hear the effects on air every day: Opposition
voices and reports on scandals implicating the ruling party, and the
State President in particular, are sanitised or censored. An informal
“good news” editorial directive was introduced to ensure an emphasis
on positive stories. The culture of professional, independent public
broadcasting in the corporation has almost completely fallen by the
wayside.
The downward spiral has been both rapid and cyclical, with the same
problems cropping up repeatedly. Organised civil society groups,
such as the SOS Support Public Broadcasting campaign as well as
concerned members of the public, find themselves making the same
statements in response to the same issues and raising the same alarms
over and over again, at times almost immobilised by sheer disbelief at
the outright lack of political will on all levels (from board to parliament) to get things right.
But, frustration aside, this is exactly what SOS will continue to do.
Our dream public broadcaster – independent, empowering, open for
all – is well worth the fight. We know because it’s been within our
grasp, not so long ago.
Sekoetlane Jacob Phamodi is the Coordinator at SOS: Support Public
Broadcasting Campaign in South Africa.
Hendrik Bussiek is an independent media researcher and consultant.
All too often activities on the part of civil society to help bring about
the desired transformation have been sporadic, merely reactive or
confined to repeated complaints, with few suggestions or model solutions put forward on how to resolve the problems.
Media issues in general and their impact on individual citizens’ rights
are not always well understood or high on the agenda of civil society –
unless there are glaring and sustained breaches of media freedom (as
in Zimbabwe, for instance), or concrete threats to newly won liberties
or guarantees of independence that people have learnt to value (as in
South Africa).
Many politicians do not have any real appreciation of the role of the
media and the fundamental importance of media freedom in a democratic society; they regard independent media as a nuisance at best or
as inherently hostile. As a result, they lack the political will to tackle
media reforms and instead pursue what is aptly termed “the politics
African Charter on Broadcasting 2001
READ MORE:
Public Broadcasting in Africa Series – An Overview
http://bit.do/public-broadcasting-africa
The section pertaining to public broadcasting:
1. All State and government controlled broadcasters should be
transformed into public service broadcasters, that are accountable to all strata of the people as represented by an independent board, and that serve the overall public interest, avoiding
one-sided reporting and programming in regard to religion, political belief, culture, race and gender.
2. Public service broadcasters should, like broadcasting and telecommunications regulators, be governed by bodies which are
protected against interference.
3. The public service mandate of public service broadcasters
should clearly defined.
ming, public service broadcasters should be required to broadcast minimum quotas of material by independent producers.
4. The editorial independence of public service broadcasters
should be guaranteed.
7. The transmission infrastructure used by public service broadcasters should be made accessible to all broadcasters under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
5. Public service broadcasters should be adequately funded in a
manner that protects them from arbitrary interference with
their budgets.
6. Without detracting from editorial control over news and current
affairs content and in order to promote the development of independent productions and to enhance diversity in program-
READ THE FULL DOCUMENT:
http://bit.do/african-charter-broadcasting
22
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
23
Campaigning in the digital age
Press releases, resolutions, workshops and demonstrations
are all tried-and-tested tools in campaigns for freedom of
expression. But, says Grace Githaiga, there are additional
ways now to rally support.
Freedom of expression activists have time and again used traditional
media as a strong voice in openly condemning infringements of the
right to free speech, corruption or other vices in society. However, in
the digital age, we need to embrace more platforms for mobilisation.
Campaigners are now adopting social networking, mobile phones,
blogs, wikis and a range of other innovations to make the desired
impact. It is important for activists to be aware and understand the
potential of the new tools available online, especially social media
platforms, to promote freedom of expression.
Social media platforms are changing the ways people interact in all
areas of life, and yet when we consider social media, it is first and foremost social – a place to interact aimlessly, to chat about nothing, to
enjoy companionship and to link up with old friends and renew family
ties. The term social media, however, is something of a misnomer, because it is as much a place of economic activity and political leverage
as it is a site of gregarious companionship. For example during the
Arab Spring, Facebook and Twitter were used to mobilise and organise demonstrations, while in Iceland they helped to engage citizens
during the drafting of their new constitution. Bloggers have also used
online platforms to challenge social injustices and abuses, and to galvanise support around an issue.
Social media allows for interactions and establishing connections. It
eliminates problems of physical accessibility, making it possible to
address different audiences in different geographic areas all at once.
Social media platforms therefore give freedom of expression campaigners a chance to engage in dialogue instead of simply targeting
information to specific audiences. Furthermore, social media has the
potential to reach big numbers of people, increase support and, for
example, collect signatures for a petition.
Community radios: game-changers in Africa’s media landscape
Community stations have made a profound change in people’s perception of radio. They empower citizens by making
them both producers and consumers of information, writes
Dumisani Moyo. But they still face serious challenges.
Since the passing of the Windhoek Declaration 25 years ago and, in
particular, the African Charter on Broadcasting in 2001, the number
of community radio stations in Africa has skyrocketed. In 1985, the
World Association of Community Broadcasters (AMARC) counted
fewer than ten independent radio stations on the continent. Today,
South Africa alone boasts 156 community radio stations and the Democratic Republic of Congo an amazing 450.
The campaign for a three-tier system of public, commercial and community broadcasting as envisaged by the Charter on Broadcasting
yielded widespread regulatory and policy reform in the broadcasting
sector, with most countries having ended decades of state monopoly
broadcasting by the turn of the century. Community radio in many
ways became a critical game-changer on the continent’s media landscape: for the first time we had a medium that directly catered to the
interests and needs of Africa’s voiceless majority rural populations.
Underpinned by the three core principles – community ownership
and management, non-profit status, and community participation –
community radio stations have helped overcome the communication
challenges that most countries on the continent faced, and often still
face today. Those include poor road, telephone and electricity networks that leave millions in hard-to-reach rural areas cut off from the
rest of the country. Unlike mainstream national or commercial radio
stations, community radio provides new opportunities for participatory and horizontal forms of communication. It thus empowers citizens by making them both producers and consumers of information
– rather than mere listeners.
At the same time, these stations help promote diversity at the broader
national level. They allow communities to engage in dialogue and ad-
dress national issues that affect them. They serve both geographical
communities and communities of interest, and act as platforms where
discussions are held on local issues including gender equality, health,
education and agricultural challenges, and income-generating projects. Their ability to reach a large number of marginalised communities in their local languages, and to do so from a community’s own
cultural and tradition perspective, allows the stations to play a pivotal role in promoting citizen participation in democratic and developmental processes. Where public broadcasting is weak, as in most
countries on the continent, community radio stations have taken over
that role – informing, educating and entertaining local communities.
For the first time we had a medium that
directly catered for the interests and
needs of Africa’s voiceless majority rural
populations.
Community radio has also helped many communities, especially
those in border areas, experience, perhaps for the first time, a sense of
belonging to the broader “imagined community” of the nation-state
they are a part of. Beyond the usual developmental and democracy-building functions, community radio has also been a critical tool
in peace building in post-conflict communities.
The evolution of the community radio sector has been accompanied
by some exciting innovations, most of which have enhanced the potential of this medium. Radio listening clubs connect isolated rural
communities with officials, bold programming promotes transparency, accountability and good governance, education programming
enhances school performance in under-resourced schools, and radio
can be become an instant messaging system in the wake of a natural
disaster.
With increased access to the internet, more community radio stations
are using this resource to download critical information on health, development, agricultural markets and prices, and other topics to share
with their audiences. They have become intermediaries in opening
up the internet to communities that would otherwise not have access.
In countries such a Mozambique, community radio stations have
been equipped with multi-purpose telecentres that enable easy internet access. In others, there have been experiments with interfacing
community radio with mobile phones both as receivers and as tools
for linking audiences directly with stations. This has the potential to
revolutionise both listening and participation habits. Community radio stations have also enabled small and medium-sized enterprises
to boost incomes through radio advertising at affordable prices. Remarkably, while technological innovations are moving at breakneck
speed, they tend to complement what these services offer rather than
spell the death of radio.
The enabling environment for community radio varies from country
to country, and is often dependent upon the levels of democratisation
and tolerance for a diversity of opinion. In some countries community
radio stations have been well received, with governments creating the
necessary regulatory and policy frameworks for their licensing and
operation, such as in South Africa and Mali. But in others, there has
been disinterest, mistrust and even hostility towards the very idea of
community broadcasting. Where governments have reluctantly given
in to external pressure to issue community radio licences, there have
been strict regulations prohibiting news programming (as in Niger)
or, more broadly, any discussion of “politics” (as in Zambia). Some
stations have tried to push the limits – but not without consequences
(Zambian community radio stations have often been shut down for
addressing political topics).
In some countries, fear of the unknown among authorities has led to a
very tightly controlled licensing regime, with licences given to trusted
party loyalists, such as in Rwanda and Uganda. In others, the regulatory institutions responsible for licensing lack autonomy. They are
• Continued on page 23
Campaigners should use Facebook, a platform that allows them to
reach many people. With an estimated 1.5 billion users all over the
world (125 million in Africa), it offers an entry point for campaigners
to communicate with citizens on a platform that is already familiar to
many. In addition, connecting there is free.
In addition, tweeting a message via Twitter to organise action allows
one to reach a large number of supporters instantly and affordably.
Campaigners should create a hashtag symbol # before a relevant keyword or phrase (no spaces) that identifies the campaign (say #freedomofexpression2016) and then use it in each tweet related to that topic.
Creating a hashtag for a campaign will allow users to contribute in
various ways, as well as make it easy to search for tweets about the
campaign. Any click on a hashtagged phrase or word in a message
gives an idea on the thinking behind the tweets since it pulls up all
those containing that hashtag. Twitter messages should be brief and
focused and target the right people, for example by using the @ sign
before a Twitter name, such as @president, @minister, @mobileserviceprovider or whoever the campaign is directed at.
Creating a blog to allow supporters to debate, comment, or contribute
their views on an issue is another approach that campaigners should
use.
In addition, other digital tools can come in handy: mobile phones can
stream directly to the web if, for example, freedom of expression activists are being arrested by police. Digital cameras can be used to
document ill treatment; text messaging can mobilise supporters of the
campaign.
The online community all by itself, however, will not be effective
without the offline world. Masses of followers on Facebook should be
accompanied by masses on the streets, if necessary.
It will be important to forge coalitions, partnerships and alliances.
These might be multi-stakeholder in nature, depending on what the
freedom of expression concern is. It is crucial for campaigners to bring
together civil society constituencies from across the fields of freedom
of expression and democracy issues, both technology groups and
communication activists, and reach across sectors to include government and business. Additionally, they should engage with communi-
cations companies to help or pressurise them to incorporate principles of free expression in their business practices. Also, campaigners
should explore ways of aligning companies’ business interests with
freedom of expression values in different policy areas.
Musicians should be included in these campaigns as they articulate
real issues in people’s languages in an entertaining way. They are able
to express serious matters in metaphors easily understood by everybody. Lyrics encouraging more people to take action or defy attempts
to curtail freedom of expression can be transported in song in ways
that resonate with them. Music has a way of allowing even the taboo
and the seditious to be expressed and gain acceptance or participation among those who understand and enjoy the songs. Examples of
songs of protest abound all over the world, the most notable perhaps
being reggae and rap, a very popular music form among those who
feel downtrodden or marginalised. Freedom of expression activists
should work together with popular musicians and come up with lyrics that break down concepts of freedom of expression in pragmatic,
easily understood ways. Lyrics can be written which draw on familiar
aspects of people’s cultures that are familiar and not threatening, as
is sometimes the case with new ideas.
Institutions such as faith communities and trade unions are too often
neglected by campaigners. These can be powerful allies in campaigns
and they exercise influence in large sections of society. Depending on
the issue at hand, they ought to be lobbied so that they gain an understanding of the concept of freedom of expression. After all they largely
thrive on this freedom themselves in order to reach their constituencies effectively. Once they are on board, they are likely to mobilise
these constituencies and speak out – publicly and candidly – about
issues that are important to them in online as well as offline forums,
thus helping to increase the impact of the campaign.
Grace Githaiga is an Associate of the Kenya ICT Action Network (KICTANet).
• Continued from page 22
The very idea of people talking freely among themselves
through radio puts fear in the hearts of the authorities.
weak and often captured by politicians (the DRC is one example), resulting in partisan licensing processes where politicians are awarded
licences in the name of communities. This is in total disregard of the
principles of independence, fairness and transparency in regulatory
bodies and licensing procedures laid out in the Declaration of Principles on Freedom of Expression in Africa as well as the African Charter on Broadcasting. Worse still, in some countries a colonial legacy
persists in which regulatory authorities are either appointed by or fall
under the Ministry of Information. This has serious implications for
their autonomy.
Licensing community radio has been done in a climate of suspicion,
hence with extra caution and trepidation in some countries. The idea
of people talking freely among themselves on the radio puts fear in
the hearts of the authorities, who have found all sorts of “alibis” for
not allowing this to happen. Angola, Botswana, Swaziland and Zimbabwe stand out in southern Africa as countries that have steadfastly
resisted the licensing of community radio. Fears of “balkanisation”,
the fanning of ethnic conflict, or having “a repeat of Rwanda”, where
radio played a critical role in whipping up the ethnic violence that
resulted in genocide, are often given as justifications for the delayed
licensing of community radio. These are, of course, legitimate concerns. But lessons abound from elsewhere on the continent that with
a sound regulatory system in place, such dangerous developments can
be anticipated and prevented.
Important as they are in promoting development and democracy on
the continent, community radio stations face numerous challenges
that threaten their survival. Foremost among these is the question
of sustainability, which goes beyond the financial to include broader
issues of sustaining relevance, community interest and community
participation. The fact that most stations have been established with
and continue to rely upon donor funding is perhaps the single biggest
threat to the sector.
As donor priorities and interests shift, many community radio initiatives face collapse. With the exception of South Africa, where a Media
Development and Diversity Agency is mandated to support community and other alternative media, most governments have done nothing
to support the sector beyond establishing the enabling legal framework. This is quite ironic, given the mistrust many governments have
for external funding and its potential to influence local communities.
For many stations the pursuit of financial sustainability becomes an
all-consuming goal, distracting them from their core business of producing relevant content for their communities and ensuring vibrant
community participation.
As the cost of producing quality local programmes continues to soar
and budgets continue to shrink, some community radio stations have
ended up operating like juke boxes, providing endless foreign music content. NGO-sponsored programmes are also extensively used
– often at the expense of relevant local content – as a means of not
only filling up time, but also generating income. Typically, most stations run live broadcasts (such as talk shows, phone-in programmes,
round-table discussions in the studio). These, of course, have the
advantage of being cost-effective and promoting dialogue, but they
should not totally replace pre-recorded programmes that are thought
through, well edited and in depth.
of critical skills, particularly concerning financial management and
fund-raising or income generation, and a lack of capacity regarding
equipment maintenance as well as audience research. This means
that stations are unable to fully understand listeners’ needs and interests, and thus do not have a strong basis for courting advertisers who
could potentially replenish their coffers.
While these challenges vary from country to country and station to
station, the sustainability of community radio initiatives remains an
elusive goal everywhere. Government support could be crucial for
their survival but such support must not translate into the capture of
community stations for political interests. Greater attention needs to
be paid to ensuring clear regulatory and policy frameworks that allow
community radio to flourish. This entails the creation of autonomous
and transparent regulatory authorities as well as laws that make it
easy for such stations to operate.
Despite all these challenges, the advent of community radio has
brought profound changes. It has disrupted the dominant state monopoly on broadcasting and its top-down approach. It has shifted the
power dynamics in the relationship between (marginalised) communities and elected authorities. And in many areas where community
radio has taken root, elected officials today ignore their constituencies at their own peril, as communities have been empowered through
radio to demand accountability. People will not easily forget the experience or allow themselves to be deprived of this democratic right.
Dumisani Moyo is an independent researcher and media consultant.
Other challenges faced by community radio stations on the continent
are many. They include high staff turnover as a result of poor remuneration and factional fights over ownership and station control, given the multi-ethnic nature of most communities. Often there is a lack
READ MORE:
Da Costa, P., The Growing Pains of Community Radio in Africa:
bit.do/community-radio-africa
Kruger, F., “Community Radio Matters … a Lot.”
bit.do/community-radio-matters
Myers, M., (2008) Radio and Development in Africa
bit.do/radio-development
24
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
No justice without the right to know
South Africa’s access to information legislation is regarded as one of the best in the world. Mark Weinberg examines
whether it is really working in the struggle for social justice.
I remember one cold night in a community hall in a working-class
township of Cape Town. A group of about 50 backyard dwellers were
meeting to discuss their struggle to acquire formal housing. Upon our
request, they had also invited the newly formed Right2Know Campaign to give them a briefing on the Secrecy Bill before Parliament
at the time. I looked around the room at the mostly unemployed people and wondered how I was going to make a piece of legislation as
abstract and technical as the Bill accessible and relevant to people
fighting to meet their most basic need for decent housing.
It was 2010 and the newly appointed Minister of State Security had
just tabled the draconian Secrecy Bill that proposed giving the government far-reaching powers to classify information, had no oversight mechanisms, and proposed jail terms of up to 25 years for
whistle-blowers, activists, and journalists who got hold of classified
documents. The Bill would, in important respects, give securocrats
power over all state institutions.
I was part of a handful of activists who decided that the provisions of
the Bill posed a serious threat to democracy and that a popular campaign should be launched to oppose it. We called for a week of protest
and began canvassing support around the country.
That night with the backyard dwellers I fumbled my way through a
presentation and then the floor was opened for questions and comments. There was only one question: Why does the government need a
new law, when everything is already a secret?
This was the response we encountered in meeting after meeting with
community after community. From those seeking information on
government housing plans, to those wanting details about medicine
supplies in their local clinics: people well understood the power of access to information and, despite constitutional and legal commandments to transparency, experienced the government as unresponsive
and closed.
The state of the right to access information in South Africa is best understood in its broader historical context.
Formal apartheid ended in 1994 with a negotiated compromise. Put
very bluntly, the apartheid private sector would continue to own
South Africa’s productive resources. The predominantly middle class,
white population would continue to enjoy their leafy suburbs, swimming pools and other fruits of an economy built on cheap black labour. The small, black middle class would grow and a select few would
become millionaires overnight. The black majority would gain their
political freedom, but continue to live in poverty.
The justification advanced by the African National Congress (ANC) at
the time was that the compromise was necessary to prevent civil war
and to usher in a human rights dispensation more favourable to the
pursuit of social and economic justice. The redistribution of wealth
would be achieved gradually through economic growth.
What is needed is an active citizenry
ready to organise to defend their rights
and advance their interests.
An export-led economic growth strategy saw South Africa integrate
into the global economy on the assumption that attracting foreign investment would drive rapid economic growth, which would in turn
result in wealth redistribution. Integration into the global economy
demanded the lowering of corporate taxes, privatisation and the commodification of public services, as well as greater labour market flexibility.
Looking back, we can reflect on a decade of economic growth characterised by wage stagnation, growing unemployment, and deepening
poverty. Instead of redistribution of wealth we saw growing inequality. Another decade of economic stagnation has only worsened inequity and poverty.
What does any of this have to do with access to information?
The 1994 compromise was codified in the post-apartheid constitution. It was hailed by many as “the best constitution in the world”
because of its exemplary Bill of Rights and vision of a progressive
realisation of socio-economic rights. The constitution left apartheid
property relations intact and put in place a democratic system based
on proportional representation, in which the electorate at the provincial and national levels vote for political parties and not for individuals. This has enabled political parties (and party bosses) to mediate
the relationship between people and their government.
As inequality grew and social cohesion faltered, the human rights protected in the constitution remained largely a fiction for many South
Africans trapped in urban poverty or feudal relations in the countryside. They have the right to be educated, but more than half of those
who start school do not complete secondary education. They have the
right to health, but while the middle class uses private medical aid
schemes, the poor rely on a woefully underfunded and poorly managed public health system. They have the right to water and energy,
but cost-recovery policies and the introduction of prepaid metres see
a great many cut off from water and electricity for non-payment of
services that they cannot afford.
African Platform for Access to Information (APAI) Declaration 2011
The African Platform on Access to Information (APAI) declaration was adopted at the Pan African Conference on Access to Information (PACAI), held in
Cape Town, South Africa
Here are the key principles:
Fundamental Right Accessible to Everyone
Access to information is a fundamental human right, it is open to
everyone.
Maximum Disclosure
All information held by public bodies is public and should be subject to disclosure (except in limited circumstances).
Established in Law
The right to access to information shall be established by law in
each African country.
Applies to Public Bodies & Private Bodies
The obligation to access to information shall apply to all public bodies as well as government owned or controlled private bodies.
Clear and Unambiguous Process
The process to obtain information should be simple and fast.
In the past five years, the Right2Know
Campaign has worked with many communities that realise the crucial importance
of accessing information to advance their
struggles for social, environmental and
economic justice.
Obligation to publish information
Public and relevant private bodies shall be obliged to proactively
release information relating to their activities that is of public interest.
Whistleblower protection
Adequate protections against different forms of sanctions should be
provided for those who disclose information on wrong-doing and
information in the public interest.
Language and Accessibility
Information should be available in the language of the person seeking it, and in an accessible location and format.
Right of Appeal
Everyone has the right to appeal administratively any action that
hinders or denies access to information or any failure to proactively
disclose information.
Limited exemptions
The right to access to information shall only be limited where there
would be a significant harm if the information was released.
Oversight Bodies
Independent bodies should be established to monitor and hold government bodies and relevant private entities to account.
Cartoon by Zapiro. All rights reserved. For more Zapiro cartoons visit www.zapiro.com
Duty to Fully Implement
Public and relevant private bodies have an obligation to ensure the
law is fully implemented.
• Continued from page 24
Why does the government need a new security law, when
everything is already a secret?
low-income housing development outside Cape Town, began protesting the poor quality of their houses, ranging from cracks in the walls,
to leaking, broken and poorly connected plumbing, to faulty electricity connections and poor ventilation. The poorly built structures sit
on swampland.
With the support of the Right2Know Campaign the settlement adopted a strategy of direct action in addition to the more bureaucratic, unreliable and potentially expensive process provided for in the
PAIA. They embarked on a series of protests drawing public attention
to their plight.
These include communities in Durban
who live alongside massive polluting petrochemical refineries. The South Durban
Community Environmental Alliance asked
about the levels of air pollution in the area
and the compliance of industries with permitted emission levels. Their initial PAIA
request to authorities met with failure, as
is common with many such requests. The
communities were eventually forced to
collect and analyse their own air samples
and to litigate to obtain basic documents.
The PAIA monitoring report for 2014 finds
that less than half of private sector information requests are responded to within
statutory time frames and 40 per cent are
refused.
Another common challenge in accessing
information related to the provision of
public services is the rampant outsourcing
of government services (such as refuse removal and road building) to private companies. Responsible government departments often meet information requests
with a shrug, referring people to their private contractor. These private companies
in turn refuse to disclose details of tender
contracts, arguing that they contain commercially sensitive information.
Recently, residents of the Fountainhead
settlement, a government-subsidised,
Duty to Collect and Manage Information
Public and relevant private bodies have a duty to collect information of public interest on behalf of their citizens.
Right to personal data
All persons have a right to access and correct their personal data
held by third parties.
They have freedom of expression, but ownership of the South African
media has consolidated and mostly remains in the service of largely
urban and middle-class markets. They have freedom of association,
but remain trapped in an untransformed apartheid geography with
expensive and unsafe transport systems. They have freedom of assembly, but when they try to organise to voice their needs they are
often met by riot police.
They also have the right of access to information held by the state
and private bodies under the Promotion of Access to Information Act
of 2000 (PAIA). But according to the PAIA Civil Society Network 2014
Shadow Report, 26 per cent of all initial information requests to the
government and 44 per cent of internal appeals were simply ignored.
Only 21.5 present of requests were met in full.
25
The strategy paid off and the residents forced the contracting company, BVI2000, and the government’s Department of Human Settlements, to make public the original contract between the department
and the contractors, as well as the pre-development Environmental
Impact Report.
Across South Africa today we see signs that the social contract negotiated at the end of formal apartheid is reaching its limits. Evidence
of faltering social cohesion can be seen in the many wildcat strikes,
daily township protests in many parts of the country, conflicts on our
university campuses over tertiary education policies, the fracturing
of the trade union federation (Cosatu), populist splits from the ruling
party, and open calls for the removal of the country’s president.
South Africa is again at a crossroads. The current crisis will be resolved either by democratic or authoritarian means. While the risks
to democracy are great, so too is the possibility of forging a new social
contract that will see basic rights like access to information made real.
What is needed now is an active citizenry ready to organise themselves collectively to defend their rights and advance their interests.
As the Right2Know has learnt, when it comes to accessing information, strategies using public protest can be more effective than the
passive and bureaucratic processes provided in the PAIA law. Not only
do they often secure the desired information, they also build the confidence and capacity of citizen groups to organise for the struggles to
come.
More than five years of on-going campaigning has seen over 100
amendments introduced to the Secrecy Bill I discussed with the community in Cape Town. Many of its draconian features have been removed, but substantial problems remain. It was approved by Parliament in 2013, but is still lying unsigned on the President’s desk.
Mark Weinberg is the National Coordinator of the Right2Know
Campaign (R2K). He writes in his personal capacity.
READ MORE:
www.r2k.org.za
The Right2Know Campaign protests outside the South Africa Parliament in Cape Town
• Continued on page 25
See the PAIA Monitoring Report at
bit.do/PAIA-report
26
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
Whose freedom? Whose expression?
Women make up 52 per cent of the population in Africa, yet
comprise a mere 19 per cent of news sources in Southern
Africa. This shows the extent of “gender-based censorship”
that exists in the media, writes Sikhonzile Ndlovu.
Imagine a world where women and men could walk into a media house
and ask to share their story on the airwaves or in print. That would be
freedom of expression and access to information at its best. However,
this remains a far-fetched dream as citizens, and especially women,
do not enjoy freedom of expression
in the news media. Only a select few
enjoy the right, while the majority of
citizens have their stories told by others, if at all!
Likewise, the Global Media Monitoring Project (GMMP) shows that
the proportion of women sources in the global news media remains
constant at 24 per cent, the same figure recorded in the 2010 GMMP.
Women make up 22 per cent of sources in Africa, a two percentage
point drop from 2010. (See chart above.)
The Windhoek Declaration states that: “The world¬wide trend towards democracy and freedom of information and expression is a
fundamental contribution to the fulfilment of human aspirations.”
As gender, media and development
NGOs and activists commemorate 25
years of the Windhoek Declaration,
it is sad to note that despite the slow
progress in increasing women’s voices in the media and representation
in media institutions, the United Nations has not committed itself to developing global standards on gender,
media and ICTs.
In September 2015, the UN General Assembly (UNGAS) adopted 17
Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs) to guide the global agenda
for the next 15 years. While goal five
on Achieving Gender Equality and
Empowering Women and Girls is a
significant improvement on the earlier Millennium Development Goal
three, gender and media activists had
hoped for a specific media and ICTs
goal, with targets and indicators. In
the absence of specific gender and
media targets in the SDGs, civil society does not have the required
muscle to push for equity. Goal five has no specific provisions on gender equity in the media.
Gender equality is intertwined with freedom of expression, participation and human rights. Nothing is more essential to this ideal than
giving voice to all segments of the population. Women make up 52
per cent of the population in Africa; yet comprise a mere 19 per cent
of staff at news sources in the 14 countries of Southern Africa. This
shows the extent of “gender-based censorship” that exists in the media. The media excludes and makes invisible certain people in society.
The same is true for radio talk shows and current affairs programmes,
where male opinion dominates.
An analysis of advertising continues to show the same levels of gender stereotypes, which portray women and men in a narrow range of
roles. Yet the campaign for gender equality in freedom of expression
has completely fallen off both the regional and global agendas.
Women make up 52 per cent of the
population in Africa but comprise a mere
19 per cent of staff at news sources in the
14 countries of Southern Africa.
The preliminary results of the Gender and Media Progress Study
(GMPS 2015), a follow-up to the Gender Links and MISA GMPS of 2010,
shows that women’s voices in news in Southern Africa have remained
virtually stagnant at 19.5 per cent. (The GMPS is a three-part study
that explores the status of gender in media content, including news,
advertising and radio talk shows, as well as gender in media houses,
journalism, media education and training.)
the call for inclusion and full participation by all cross sections of
society. Gender Links is therefore implementing a project with journalism and media training institutions in SADC through reviewing
teaching curricula and creating debate and dialogue on gender, media
and diversity.
Following the launch of the Gender Links and MISA 2015 Gender
and Media Progress Study on World Press Freedom Day 2016, a series of advocacy workshops is to be held in 14 SADC countries with
the aim of discussing findings
and supporting individual media houses in reviewing their
gender-policy action plans.
Micro-level engagements will
provide much needed impetus to take the work of Gender
Links’ Centres of Excellence
for gender in the media forward. The Gender and Media
Summits that Gender Links
conducts bi-annually with
other media partners also provide a platform for continuous
engagement and exchange of
ideas and strategies in achieving equity in the media.
Moving forward, Gender
Links will look to partner with
pro-media freedom institutions which view gender as a
cross-cutting issue and accentuate the link between freedom
of expression, media freedom,
democracy, governance and
issues of gender justice in both
the operations of media houses
and the content of their products.
The question is how does the world fulfil human aspirations when 52
per cent of the world’s population (women) are silenced and the UN
watches? Does the fight for democracy and freedom of expression rest
with civil society?
The campaign for gender equality in
freedom of expression has completely
fallen off both the regional and global
agendas.
Gender Links has conducted research, advocacy, training and policy
projects in the Southern African Development Community (SADC)
region since 2001. While the media often shows a willingness to give
both women and men a voice and make access equal, having a global set of standards against which all media institutions are measured
would lead to greater commitment to gender equality. Gender Links
has always promoted the idea of a UN seal of approval for those who
have been consistent in their efforts.
The landmark SADC Protocol on Gender and Development, adopted
in 2008, has been signed by 12 out of 14 countries. The Protocol is a
very comprehensive instrument as it includes a stand-alone goal, targets and indicators on gender and media. These far-reaching targets
and indicators cover a broad spectrum of sectors: media house institutional practice (policy and working environment), media content,
media education, gender in advertising, access to information and
ICTs. This framework has provided civil society with a basis for their
campaigns for gender equality in and through the media.
More than 100 media houses in the region have committed to mainstreaming gender in their institutions, but this is not enough as there
are several thousand other media institutions that have not heeded
There are many ways to celebrate 25 years of the Windhoek Declaration. We will do this through annual tracking and engaging with partners. Our Gender and Media Diversity Centre (GMDC) is creating a
community of practice that will champion the cause of gender, media,
diversity and free expression for all. Through collecting, connecting
and collaborating, the GMDC will breathe much-needed energy into
the gender and media movement in Southern Africa and by taking the
Southern African story to the global stage.
Sikhonzile Ndlovu is the Media and Communications Manager at Gender Links.
READ MORE:
Media Centres of Excellence: A first for the South
bit.do/CentresofExcellence
Gender, Media, ICTs and the Post 2015 Agenda Position paper
bit.do/Post2015
GMDC Advisory Group Meeting
bit.do/GMDC
Gender Links advocacy
http://bit.do/advocacy
27
Media literacy: a call for pedagogical intervention
Media are our culture and we need to know how to use them
to our advantage. Media literacy education, urges Suraj
Olunifesi Adekunle, must be an indispensable part of school
curricula.
In a world dictated by Web 3.0 and accelerated by the Internet of
Things, it is obvious that literacy, once understood as basic reading
and writing skills, vital as it is, is no longer adequate in today’s knowledge societies.
Media play premium roles in our individual lives and collective entities. To a large extent, media has become part of us. It is our culture.
Therefore, Media and Information Literacy (MIL), which emphasises
skills around the deciphering of information, the production of content and the scrutiny of the media, is needed more than ever. MIL is
the antidote to the unfiltered, inaccurate and misleading information
too often propagated by the conventional and online media.
People without a degree of media literacy or who cannot question media messages will always be at the mercy of content producers who
indirectly control our lifestyles, habits and preferences. They will
struggle to cope with the multitude of information offered in the digital age. They will be unable to make conscious choices, simply opt for
entertainment products, or – worse – be vulnerable to messages that
can lead to radicalisation and culminate in extreme behaviour.
How do we ensure that every child has
access to the skills and experiences
needed to become a full participant
in the social, cultural, economic, and
political future of our society?
What we need today is to learn how to find what we need to know,
when we need to know it, and to have the thinking skills to analyse
and evaluate whether the information we find is useful to us.
The importance of media literacy was emphasised at a UNESCO symposium on the topic as early as 1982: “The role of communication and
media in the process of development should not be underestimated,
nor the function of media as instruments for the citizen’s active participation in society. Political and educational systems need to recognize their obligations to promote in their citizens a critical understanding of the phenomena of communication.”
More than 30 years later, media literacy is still struggling to gain the
momentum needed to make an impact on development. Even more
disturbing as an indication of persistent disregard is the fact that
authorities always complain of overcrowded curricula and a lack of
resources as an excuse for not including MIL in the school syllabus.
Yet, unless our educational systems take the lead in developing appropriate pedagogies for media engagement, corporate experts will
be the ones to determine how people learn, what they learn and what
constitutes literacy.
We must rise to the challenge by initiating pedagogical interventions
that will address the obvious media literacy gap. For instance, how
do we ensure that every child has access to the skills and experiences
needed to become a full participant in the social, cultural, economic and political future of our society (participation gap)? How do we
ensure that every child has the ability to articulate his or her understanding of how media shapes perceptions of the world (transparency
problem)? And, very importantly, how do we ensure that every child
has been socialised into the emerging ethical standards that should
shape their practices as media makers and as participants in online
communities (the ethics challenge)?
So, what do children and young people actually need to learn? A paper
published by the German media development organisation DW Akademie proposes three steps.
First and foremost, young people must acquire technical skills. In addition to learning how to use computers and mobile phones to access
information and navigate the data deluge, they must also learn how to
be content producers: using media technologies to create their own
content, thereby enhancing their active participation in an information-driven knowledge society.
Secondly, young people need to learn content decoding skills. They
must be able to understand messages, to analyse them, to differentiate between nonsense and serious information. What is the message?
Who created the message? Why is the message being sent? What creative techniques are used to attract my attention? How might different
people understand the message differently? What values, lifestyles
and points of view are represented in or omitted from the message? To
complement the formal MIL training curriculum, participatory workshops with media literate professionals should impart skills in deconstructing propaganda messages. Overall, inquiry must be the norm,
problem solving the focus, and critical thinking the process.
What is the message? Who created the
message? Why is the message being sent?
What points of view are represented in, or
omitted from the message?
Learners should also know that states as well as corporations such as
Google or Facebook gather private information, why they do so, and
how people can defend themselves when right-to-privacy violations
occur. They should learn how to use information ethically, ensure
their privacy and adopt appropriate online behaviour while interacting on social media platforms.
Thirdly, children and young people must learn how the media tick
– how do they gather information and how do they decide on news
values? What principles guide them in their work? What is their role
in society? Young people should acquire the necessary skills to be critical media consumers, learn about the negative effects of the media
but also their positive impact. They should understand the need and
be ready to defend the media against unwarranted pressure. Visits to
media houses could be useful and journalists should be invited into
classrooms – this would help to build trust between young citizens
and the media.
MIL education as part of an academic curriculum should be a multidisciplinary exercise. Disciplines as wide-ranging as media, information, technology, education, social and cultural studies, language,
art and history should be packaged in the form of training modules
and delivered (in addition to classroom learning) through online platforms and via new media.
In short: media literacy education should enable learners and media
users to adopt a more active, “lean-forward” role rather than remaining in the “lean-back” position of passive consumers.
African governments must promote a curricular agenda that aims to
empower and promote citizenship education through media literacy.
Such citizenship education, which many have described as a necessity
for democratising society, could instil media and information literacy
skills such as identity (belonging to groups yet developing personal
identity), virtue (valuing freedom, fairness and truth, yet tolerating
other people’s reasoning) and social activism (promoting civil and
legal rights while maintaining active participation in public debate).
Taking into consideration the sophistication of our media and their
profound effect on our lives as global citizens, the need for media literacy is no longer in doubt. Educational authorities must ensure the
inclusion of MIL in curricula and provide the appropriate teacher
training. Media literacy consultants must be hired to establish communication networks and develop curricula with appropriate benchmarks.
A media-literate society is not a luxury; it is a necessity in the 21st century. Because the media is so omnipresent, it is no longer simply an
advantage to be media literate, but a debilitating disadvantage not to
be.
Dr Suraj Olunifesi Adekunle is UNESCO Consultant on Media Literacy
and the Postgraduate Coordinator at the School of Communication,
Lagos State University, Lagos, Nigeria.
28
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
Business models of
29
successful independent media
The Namibian: no shareholders to threaten independence
By Graham Hopwood
Donor funding kept the newspaper alive for years but shortly after independence in 1990, those sources dried up. The paper then had to
make a difficult but ultimately successful transition to profitability
on its own terms. At the same time, The Namibian had to shift from
being supportive of the Swapo liberation movement in the cause of
independence to operating as a sometimes fiercely critical watchdog
of Swapo as a ruling party.
In 2011, Lister handed over editorial responsibilities to Tangeni
Amupadhi. He is answerable on governance and financial matters
to the Free Press of Namibia’s board of directors which is chaired by
a lawyer and comprises a media rights activist, another lawyer and
Lister. Amupadhi says as editor he is given plenty of leeway when
it comes to editorial standpoints and decisions. He argues that the
newspaper’s structure helps insulate the paper from the influence of
commercial interests and ensures that its editorial stance remains
feistily independent: “One can only emphasise that The Namibian is
in a fortunate and unique position where no one actually owns the
newspaper”.
The Namibian, Namibia’s leading and most respected newspaper, is
a strange animal in the world of business: it is owned by no one who
could make a profit from it. It is registered as a legal company, the
Free Press of Namibia (Pty) Ltd, but no single individual can claim
dividends. The money goes to its owner, the non-profit Namibia Media Trust, which was set up to promote the principles of press freedom
and free speech and to assist with the professionalism of journalism.
And that is where the profits go.
Gwen Lister started The Namibian in 1985 as a weekly with just ten
employees and a limited circulation. Now the paper, which became a
daily with independence in 1989, has over 100 staff. It sells more than
70 000 copies on Friday when its extended edition appears – a readership of 350 000 if one assumes five readers per copy, a huge number in
a country with just over two million citizens.
That’s the key, Lister says: “We didn’t want shareholders breathing
down our necks at any time and we particularly wanted to protect editorial integrity.”
The paper was born at the height of the struggle against apartheid colonialism in Namibia, the only newspaper to report on wartime atrocities and campaign for independence indefatigably and persistently.
That stance came at a price – the arrest of journalists and firebomb
attacks on the newspaper’s offices were just some of the regular forms
of harassment meted out by the then occupying power, South Africa.
Some of the brands in its stable are the EastAfrican, a high-quality
weekly newspaper covering the East and the Horn of Africa, Africa
Review, an online newspaper covering the African continent, NTV, a
Nairobi-based television station, and two radio stations in Kenya.
The group expanded it activities to Uganda in 1992 with newspapers
and a radio station. In Tanzania it has a controlling stake in newspapers. The group also owns Taifa Leo, the largest Kiswahili daily newspaper in East Africa.
Its flagship brand, however, remains the Daily Nation which now sells
more than 200 000 copies daily according to the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC). Each copy is read by at least five people, adding up to
NMG’s success, however, is also a point of concern for observers of
the African media landscape. The group is one of only two publishing
houses that dominate the market in Kenya (the other is the Standard
Group). Its owner, the Aga Khan Foundation for Economic Development (AKFED), is also active in a variety of other industries such as
His media company first produced adverts, features and documentaries for other stations – but he kept thinking of having his own. In
2002, he applied for a licence. Four attempts and three years later, he
was allowed to broadcast. ZBS started with five transmitters, now
they transmit nationwide from 35 sites.
He keeps on walking. In 2013, he decided to go into television as well,
and Zodiak now offers a fully-fledged TV service featuring both news
and entertainment.
Zodiak has become a household name. In 2012 the regulator found
that the station has a listenership of 76 per cent, trailed by state-run
Radio 1, Kazako’s former employer, at 43 per cent. His business secret: ZBS has won the trust of the audience. “Radio should be fair, balanced, ethical, professional and non-partisan”, he said, adding that
Cities and commercial or industrial hubs are known to be fertile
ground for any radio station, be it commercial or community based.
Mike Daka, however, chose to go the more difficult route when he ventured to set up his station in a remote town in eastern Zambia, close to
neighbouring Malawi.
In 2002, Daka quit as Director of the Zambia Institute of Mass Communication. He moved to Chipata with his family and started to realise his dream of a financially sustainable rural radio station with
a mission. His personal knowledge, skills, contacts and practical experience built over many years of working as a journalist and media
trainer stood him in good stead and he managed to translate what he
had been teaching into a model: Breeze FM, a mixture of a community-based and commercial station whose objective was to be profitable
and community-oriented at the same time.
There is a good reason why NMG is so successful. The owner put the
media house on a long leash from the very beginning, and its editors
aligned the editorial policy with the cause of African independence.
In so doing, they created a loyal readership among the large African
population whose nationalist press had been banned by colonial authorities.
With its highly trained manpower, the group is now recognised as a
publisher of quality content in all its formats, and is seen as a pioneer
in the use of new media technologies.
The journey hasn’t been a joy ride. Politics has been an ever-present
obstacle in his path of “reporting nothing but the truth”. Four of the
station’s vehicles were torched; staff members have been beaten and
threatened. Kazako says he is not an enemy of the state, but he “does
not like handshakes to go beyond the elbow, as they might turn into
a hug”.
Inspired by what he saw every day at state-run radio where he was
working at the time, Kazako started to imagine whether he would
be able to run an operation like that single-handedly. Sometimes he
asked colleagues at the station how much a microphone might cost,
and they began to ridicule him behind his back. But he was determined, and he left his comfortable job after seven years to set up his
own small media house: “Sometimes people look at you like a crazy
fellow, but just believe and keep on walking”.
Kazako proudly says that he owes his success to nobody: “We made
it on our own, and if we fail, we will fail on our own. Anybody can do
this. Take off your fear and believe in your idea”.
Marie Segula is a correspondent in Malawi.
By Chris Chirwa
a readership of about 1 million, before being used to wrap up the meat
at local butcher shops.
In the 1990s the group supported the “second liberation”, a push towards political pluralism in Africa. This allowed it to benefit from
media assistance programmes offered by Western countries to aid the
deepening of democracy on the continent. Many Kenyan journalists
acquired graduate training at top journalism schools in Europe and
America.
he wants to ensure “that people are well informed, so they can make
decisions about their future and lives”.
It took a bold step for Gospel Kazako, a 47-year-old Malawian man, to
own and head what is now the most successful and independent media house in the country, Zodiak Broadcasting Station, or ZBS.
Breeze FM in Zambia: radio at the doorsteps
By Charles Muiru Ngugi
It was the start of the building of an empire, the Nation Media Group
(NMG), now one of Africa’s most successful media companies. With
products in print, television and radio as well as internet formats, the
group reaches an audience of several million people every day in East
and Central Africa and beyond.
By Marie Segula
Graham Hopwood is the Director of the Institute for Public Policy
Research, Namibia.
One of the big boys: Kenya’s Nation Media Group
It was a nuclear scientist who set Kenya’s Daily Nation on the path to
success when he was just 25 years old: Hillary Boniface Ng’weno. He
became the paper’s first African editor in 1963, four years after His
Highness Karim Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of the Shia Imami Ismaili Muslim community, had bought the fledgling operation from
colonial settler interests.
“No handshakes beyond the elbow” – the story of Zodiak Broadcasting Malawi
One of his recipes for success, he says, was “that we paid attention to
planning from the beginning”. This included a feasibility study and
an audience survey to understand not only the demographics but,
more importantly, what the audience’s information needs were.
packaging, garments, vegetable processing, power generation, tourism and real estate.
Leaving aside, for the moment, the risk of business interests seeking
to influence editorial content, this accumulated economic power
does protect the media house from political interference. On the other hand, it could also tempt the group to act as a political player itself
– always a danger for the independence of editors.
The painstaking preparatory work paid off and the model has stood
the test of time. The station has gained the confidence and trust of
the community and positioned itself as a prominent channel of communication in the region. It managed to break even by its third year
and has since continued operating sustainably, providing jobs to 24
people, 13 of them full time.
Breeze FM is on air 24 hours a day, targeting listeners from the age
of 10 to 70 – peasant farmers, villagers, small-scale traders, workers,
businessmen and, of course, the general public. Two-thirds of its
programming is in the local language, Chinyanja, and one third in
grammes or paying for adverts”. And every Kwacha counts: “We’ve established ourselves as the most effective channel of communication
in our region, so the national advertising agencies have also realised
the benefits of working with us if they want to communicate with people in the eastern part of our country. We’ve also created a rate level
for small-scale businesses in the townships and villages – people selling groceries in the market, hair salons, restaurants and bars”.
Breeze FM is located in the centre of Chipata, a town of just under 100
000, next to a taxi rank, down the road from the main fresh produce
market, and close to banks, restaurants, shops and stalls. It is easily
accessible to the community it serves.
English. Chinyanja is also widely spoken in Malawi and the north of
Mozambique, areas covered by the station’s signal, which reaches well
over one million people within a radius of 300 kilometres.
Listeners are obviously enjoying the mix of programmes offered. In
audience surveys, more than 75 per cent of respondents named Breeze
FM their favourite station. Its programming focuses on education,
information, news and entertainment, and provides useful, relevant
and up-to-date information with a “how to do” approach that offers
guidance and tips to listeners on a range of subjects.
The station also seeks to give the community a voice to express its
points of view and the space to engage in public dialogue and debate
on various issues.
The station’s popular programming and large listenership, says Daka,
enabled it “to attract partners, whether it is for sponsoring some pro-
This, too, has worked in the station’s favour and helped, in Daka’s
words, to “demystify radio”: “I think Breeze FM in its manner of interacting with its listeners, opening up the station, the studios, bringing
close contact between the listeners and the presenters and producers,
has changed completely the way the people of Eastern Province view
radio. Before, when they were listening to (state) Radio Zambia, radio
was distant. They had the voices, they had the information – but it
all came from far away. With Breeze FM in Chipata, radio has been
brought to the doorstep of the listeners”.
One of the letters he received soon after the launch of the station
summed it up nicely: “Thank you, Mr Daka, for bringing the radio station here. Now it is ours”.
Chris Chirwa is a journalist and consultant.
Listen to Breeze FM: www.breezefmchipata.fm
Charles Muiru Ngugi is Associate Director at the School of Journalism
and Mass Communication, University of Nairobi.
30
AfrIcAN free PreSS
AfrIcAN free PreSS
I blame the media
Very special correspondent Tom Eaton managed to uncover
an explosive document, tipped off by an unusually reliable
source.
Your Highnesses, Supreme Rulers, Presidents, Prime Ministers,
Kings, Sheiks, Chiefs, Prefects and Commanders-In-Chief: I bid you
welcome to this, the 5025th annual Secret Meeting of World Leaders,
also known as the Rule-O-Rama, the Power Powwow, the Conglomeration of Domination, here in the beautiful underground bunker at the
Lèse-Majesté Hotel.
Before I begin, I’d like to thank our hosts, Monsieur Garrotte and his
staff, who have gone out of their way to make us feel at home, whether
by putting chocolates on our pillows or by feeding dissenters to the
pigs in the abandoned mineshaft next door. Thank you also, Monsieur, for tonight’s decorations here in the ballroom bunker. The ice
sculpture is magnificent: the way the iron fist is crushing the life out
of the gasping Twitter bird is simply breath-taking.
But now, to business.
Ladies and gentlemen, I will not mince my words. The
thumbs of political prisoners, certainly, but never my
words. As we sit here tonight, we rule a planet that is threatened by three of the most diabolical phenomena ever unleashed on humanity. You know of what I speak. Yes, Highness, you are right to push away your condor liver sorbet in
disgust. These are terrible times.
Think about it. Where did you first hear about Kim Kardashian? The
independent media. Who endlessly bangs on about climate change?
The independent media. And who travels the planet, hunting under
rocks and bushes for the latest wretched election, so that it can prattle
away about democracy? The independent media!
I refuse to believe that this is a coincidence. Indeed, I would go further
and suggest that the free press is the mastermind behind almost every
catastrophe in the modern world. A murder occurs. Twenty minutes
later, who’s on the scene? A journalist. Plagues. Famine. War. Hurricanes. Earthquakes. Volcanoes. And wherever you look, there are
journalists.
Now, modern science would no doubt dispute that journalists are responsible for, say, volcanic eruptions. Then again, there are many of
us in this room who would dispute that modern science knows anything about anything. For example, just this morning the delegation
over at table nine explained to me that natural disasters are in fact the
wrath of God, who has been angered by seeing women in miniskirts
and girls learning to read and refusing to get married before they turn
10. And so, as the PTA committee said to the headmaster during discussions over the new curriculum, let’s leave science out of it for now.
As I was saying: everywhere we look, the rabble want to be the masters
of their own fate. Is this what our ancestors fought for? Did our noble
forebears shed the blood, sweat and tears of peasants to build all this
just so some Kardashian-worshipping rube with a ballot paper can
take it all away? Of course not.
At first glance, it seems we are besieged on three disparate fronts.
Kimmy K, climate change and democracy don’t seem to be obviously
connected. But tonight, lords and ladies, I put it to you that all three
are controlled by a single hidden hand, that a vast and sinister puppeteer twitches them hither and thither, planning our ultimate doom.
And the name of this villain?
The free press.
Thankfully, some media stables can be persuaded to see sense, either
by being offered millions of dollars of state funds or by having their
premises burnt down by young patriots. Indeed, even as we speak,
the story about the penguin-dog is going viral, and tonight’s football
scores will reassure our people that all is well in the world. In fact,
some of our friends in the patriotic media are here tonight – Rupert,
always good to see you. Love to the wife. To these heroes, with their
giant headlines about lottery winners and suburban sex scandals and
endless, endless murders, we say thank you. Your cheque is in the
mail.
I would also like to applaud some of our friends here tonight who take
a more robust approach against the free press. Vladimir, we’re all in
awe of the work you do to keep your country safe from journalism.
To the Chinese delegation, well, wow. Over 40 journalists in prison in
China, ladies and gentlemen! Yes, let’s give them a big hand! What’s
that, Premier? They’re not in prison? Oh, I see, they’re in prison but not
imprisoned? They’re all researching stories about the humane conditions inside Chinese prisons, and they just want to be thorough so
they’re spending between five and 25 years inside so they get the story
right? Wonderful.
Ladies and gentlemen, tonight I have outlined the threat we face,
but I want to leave you with a message of hope. Hope that we
will prevail. Hope that, with the help of your governments, the
co-operative media, and the odd radioactive particle sewn into
the lapel of particularly meddlesome reporters, we can end the
scourge of the free press in our lifetimes. And we must. We owe
it to the children.
The second threat is climate change. Rising sea levels
will wreak havoc: in ten years, our yachts in Monaco and
Hong Kong will be riding three centimetres higher, posing
a massive risk of scraping their paintwork on the concrete
quay. Then there is the relentless rise of renewable energy
sources, and again, the science is horrifying. At current estimates, some of our colleagues in the Gulf may have to get
real jobs within the next twenty years. Already, our friends
in Saudi Arabia are working on plans to diversify their
economy, and have mooted tourism as a possible growth
industry. I’m sure this will be a huge success, especially
among visitors who like sand, religious fundamentalism
and executions with swords. But not all countries have
such vibrant attractions. We must prepare for the worst.
As grim as these two threats are, however, they are dwarfed
by the third monster looming over our community of nations: democracy. Yes! Hiss! Boo! Vent your rage! Decry the
pestilence of self-rule! Condemn this passing fad of – oh,
dear, Field Marshall? Excuse me, Field Marshall? While we
applaud your loathing of democracy, we do ask that you not
fire your golden ceremonial pistol into the ceiling as they’ve just finished the fresco. Thank you.
List of contacts
To our friends in Washington, guys, it’s been a tough few years but
don’t lose hope: one of these days that weasel, Edward Snowden,
is going to make a mistake and you’re going to slip a black bag
over his head faster than you can say “Next stop Guantánamo,
sucker!” And speaking of which: Denmark? Did I hear right that
you gave Washington permission to keep a military jet in your
country on standby, in case Snowden ever showed his treacherous little face in Scandinavia? Your part of the world is known as
a bastion of freedom and democracy, but how wonderful to see
you shaking off that awful reputation! Inspiring!
The first threat is, of course, Kim Kardashian. I have heard
some of you suggest that she is not as dangerous as I fear.
You argue that she keeps the bovine masses docile, chewing on the cud of popular culture, dreaming their little
dreams. But I say to you today: when two buttocks command as much respect and adoration as all of us combined,
then the centre cannot hold.
How do we do it? We start with the written word. We start by
stamping out literacy wherever we find it. Wherever outbreaks
of critical reading occur, we must be there, to guide the children
to safety and to guide the editors to soundproof interrogation
rooms. Right now, millions of children around the world are
learning to read and understand subtext, habits that will doom
them to a lifetime of unhappiness. For them, football scores and
penguin-dogs will never be enough. We have a responsibility to
them and to our pension funds to save them while we still can.
In this regard, I want to give special mention to the government
of South Africa, which, whether deliberately or by happy coincidence, has rendered most of its young children completely
unable to read, write or count. I think that deserves a round of
applause, don’t you?
What we can be sure of, however, is that the media has killed at least
one precious thing in this world: hope. Every day, it crushes the morale of our people with its petty gossip, thrusting itself into their simple lives with slogans like “transparency” and “objectivity” and other
non-existent words made up by anarchists.
Does it ever stop and wonder if our people want to hear its gloomy
mantra of defeat and cynicism? I mean, do our people really want to
know that we’ve borrowed some money from the Treasury to do minor
renovations on our summer palace? Do they really want to be told that
a certain businessman who has been very successful in Colombia’s
nasally ingested stimulant industry was visiting us for the weekend
and made a large contribution to our election campaign? Do they
really want this stream of upsetting non-news? Of course not. The
good, honest, hard-working morons of the world want football results,
frightening statistics about migration and a heart-warming story
about a dog that looks after endangered penguins.
31
Friends, the world ran in perfect harmony for tens of thousands
of years before the free press arrived. The poor worked for the rich,
the strong crushed the weak, and everyone was happy, because anyone who wasn’t happy was obviously poor and therefore irrelevant. I
have a dream that one day we will return to that golden era, and usher
in another ten thousand years of order. With your help, we can climb
that mountain and see the promised land beyond, where dogs guard
penguins, where Liverpool goes 2-1 up against Chelsea, and where nobody ever thinks an upsetting thought because nobody knows how
to think.
I thank you.
Tom Eaton is a columnist, screenwriter, satirist and author. He has published three novels (and read four).
For those who would like to know more or get involved in the struggle for the right to freedom of expression and the right to know, here is a list of useful contact details. All of these NGOs
and associations play an invaluable role in promoting and defending the communication and free speech rights of citizens, artists and journalists. The regional and sub-regional networks
listed include many other national and local organisations within their ranks. Please contact them to locate a similar organisation in your country.
African Freedom of Expression Exchange
(AFEX)
Sulemana Braimah
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.africafex.org
@africaFEX
+233 302242370
+233 244520243
+233 302242470
Africa Freedom of Information Centre
(AFIC)
(Uganda, Sub-Saharan Africa)
Gilbert Sendugwa
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.africafoicentre.org
@AFIC1
+256 414533554
Article 19 East Africa
(Kenya/East Africa)
Henry Maina
[email protected]
www.article19.org
@article19org
+254 20 3862230/2
+254 727862230
Article 19 West Africa
(Sénégal/West Africa)
Fatou Jagne
[email protected]
www.article19.org
@article19org
@article19wafric
+221 338690322
+221 773335845
Association of Media Development in South
Sudan (AMDISS)
Alfred Taban Baja
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.amdissmedia.org
+211 955 807 807
+211 955 104 334
Center for Media Studies and Peace
Building (CEMESP)
(Liberia)
Malcolm Joseph
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.cemespliberia.org
+231 886514357
+231 770514357
Gender Links
(Southern Africa)
(Ms) Colleen Lowe Morna
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.genderlinks.org.za
@Genderlinks
+27 11 6222877
National offices in Botswana, Mauritius, Mozambique, Lesotho, Madagascar, Namibia, Swaziland,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
Human Rights Network for Journalists –
Uganda
Robert Sempala
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.hrnjuganda.org
@HRNJUganda
+256 414272934
Gabriel Baglo, Louis Thomasi
gabriel.baglo@ifjafrique
[email protected]
www.ifjafrique.org
@IFJGlobal
+221 338679586/7
Unions/associations in over 40 countries
Journalistes en Danger (JED)
(Central Africa)
Tshivis Tshivuad, Tuver Wundi
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.jed-afrique.org
+243 999996353
National partners in DR Congo, Burundi, Cameroon, Republic of Congo, Rwanda
Publisher
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
19 Schinz Street, Trift Place, Unit 5, Ausspannplatz,
Windhoek, Namibia
Email: [email protected]
www.misa.org
Co-editors
Hendrik Bussiek ([email protected])
Jeanette Minnie ([email protected])
Aubrey Chikungwa
[email protected]
+265 1758090/1
MISA Mozambique
National Union of Somali Journalists
(NUSOJ)
Abdirashid Abdullahi Haydar
[email protected]
www.nusoj.org
@NUSOJofficial
+252 615889931
Namibia Media Trust
Gwen Lister
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.nmt.org.na
@NamMediaTrust
+264 61279603
+264 61279722
Open Democracy Advice Centre (ODAC)
(South Africa)
Mukelani Dimba
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.odac.org.za
@ODAC_SA
+27 214471198
Right2Know Campaign (R2K)
(South Africa)
Mark Weinberg
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.r2k.org.za
@r2kcampaign
+27 214471000
Right to Know Nigeria
Natasha Tibinyane
[email protected]
[email protected]
@MisaNamibia
+264 61232975
Ene Nwankpa
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.r2knigeria.org
@r2kNigeria
+234 92918795
+234 8034516807
MISA Swaziland
Society for Democratic Initiatives (SDI-SL)
MISA Tanzania
West African Journalists Association (WAJA)
MISA Namibia
Media Rights Agenda (MRA)
(South Africa)
Sheniece Linderboom
Zororo Mavindidze
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.fxi.org.za
@FXISouthAfrica
+27 (0)11 482 1913
MISA Botswana
Fernando Goncalves
[email protected]
+25 8823276670
DW Akademie
Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI)
Alexandre Solombe
[email protected]
MISA Malawi
International Federation of Journalists
(IFJ Africa)
(Nigeria)
Edetean Ojo
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.mediarightsagenda.net
@MRA_Nigeria
+234 17616803
MISA Angola
Tsebo Matšasa
[email protected]
@misa_lesotho
+266 22320941
+266 22310560
Patrick Tumwine
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.hurinet.or.ug
@HurinetU
+256 414286923
+256 414285362
[email protected]
www.cpj.org
@africamedia_CPJ
[email protected]
www.dw-Akademie.de
@dw_akademie
National partners all on www.misa.org
MISA Lesotho
Sulemana Braimah
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.mfwa.org
@TheMFWA
+233 302242470
National partners in Ghana, Guinea, Mauritania,
Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Nigeria, Benin, Sierra
Leone, Guinea Bissau, Togo, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Liberia
Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ)
Zoe Titus
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.misa.org
@MisaRegional
+264 61232975
Modise Maphanyane
[email protected]
[email protected]
@BotswanaMisa
+267 3971972
Human Rights Network – Uganda
(HURINET-U)
Media Foundation for West Africa
Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA)
Vuyisile Hlatshwayo
[email protected]
[email protected]
@MISA_Swaziland
+268 76156605
+268 240046677
Gasirigwa Gasirigwa
[email protected]
[email protected]
@misatanzania
+255 222762167
+255 756864452
+255 782164064
MISA Zambia
Kamufisa Manchishi
[email protected]
[email protected]
@misazambia1
+260 211294285/6
MISA Zimbabwe
Nhlanhla Ngwenya
[email protected]
@misazimbabwe
+263 4776165
+263 4746838
Pictures/sources
AfricanSkyCam (p.8), Alex Gitta (p.11 Uganda), Anthony Stephens
(p.10 Liberia), Article 19-East Africa (pp. 1 top left, 1 bottom, 3), Beatrice
Mwape (p.10 Malawi bottom), Breeze FM (p. 22 bottom), Charles Muiru
Ngugi (p.28 bottom), Columbus Mavhunga (p. 11 Zimbabwe), DW Akademie (pp. 1, 4, 6 bottom, 7, 13 bottom, 27), Gwen Lister (p. 17), Hendrik
Bussiek (p. 30), Ibrahim Abubakar (p. 10 Nigeria), Julie Reid (pp. 1 – top
centre, 5, 21, 26, 27), Marie Segula (p. 29 bottom), Media Council of
Tanzania (p. 15), Prince Bongani Chikwebo (p. 10 Malawi top), quka /
Shutterstock.com (p.9), Rawpixel.com / Shutterstock.com (p.13), Reuben
Kyama (p. 11 Kenya) shutterstock.com (pp.1 – top right, 4, 6 –top, 9, 13
top, 20), Reuben Kyama (p.11 South Africa), Salmi Enkali (p.28 top), Uber
Images / Shutterstock.com (p.6), University of Pretoria (p. 2)
Copy editor and social media
Kyle James ([email protected])
The poster on the back page was created by Chaz Maviyane-Davies
(www.maviyane.com).
Layout
Hannah Williams ([email protected])
Additional support for printing was provided by Wordpress,
Namibian Media Trust and The Namibian.
Distribution supported by fesmedia Africa.
(Sierra Leone)
Emmanuel Abdulai
[email protected]
[email protected]
@saffaAbdulai
+23233647456
Peter Quaqua, Ndey Tapha Sosseh
[email protected]
[email protected]
+223 202959
+223 78394579
Member unions in Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape
Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea
Bissau, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger,
Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Togo
World Association of Community Radio
Broadcasters (AMARC Africa)
Alymana Bathily
[email protected]
[email protected]
www.amarc.org
@AMARCnews
@alymaab
+221 776370644
+221 338322713
The AFRICAN FREE PRESS is a MISA project
supported by DW AKADEMIE.

African Free Press - Windhoek Declaration 25th Anniversary

Transcription

Similar documents

Emerging African News

Saturday, June 16th 2:00 to 5:00 pm Tickets: $15

elf0916pg018small-2 - Roberta Annan Consulting

Sarah Berry

Ipana.. - Historical Papers - University of the Witwatersrand

concertation tour of the ncc in the west and northwest regions

Ozwald Boateng ``I AM PASSIONATE ABOUT WHERE AFRICA

A golden opportunity to A golden opportunity to

BLACK HISTORY MONTH 2014

239 - Parliament