Fake News is about Journalism, Not Social Media

BBC recently had their Africa debate in Blantyre, Malawi. The debate was on whether “journalism in Africa is threatened by fake news”. The BBC said they had the debate in Malawi because Malawians are keen and royal listeners of BBC World Service. What came out clearly in the course of the debate was that Malawi was chosen because of events of September to October 2016 when Malawi social media was rife with rumours that the country’s President, Peter Mutharika had died in the USA where he was attending United Nations General Assembly.

The rumours of the president ill health and the supposed death, which was fuelled by lack of communication on whereabouts of the President weeks after the General assembly had finished, may have passed as news “news” on social media and some online “news” channels trying hard to be the first to break the news. Online it can be very difficult to distinguish genuine news sites from bogus ones.

When you consider the changing news environment and technologies that have enabled that change, you will appreciate that fake news is definitely a challenge, not just for media institutions trying to do honest job of gathering and reporting factual news and information but also for the public looking for credible information from journalistic institutions. This makes the debate on fake news timely and relevant.

Yet, like all cultural and communicative issues, it is important that the debate be define clearly: it is about the state of journalism. Social media may be part of the debate but fake news is about journalism, the profession, not social media – a platform. My worry is that most people are confusing social media. There are two related but critically different problems with this confusion.

In Africa, traditional media is a bigger problem than social media

Fake news is not new. Robert Darnton traces fake news – “dubious information”, as he calls it, to sixth Century AD. The difference today is that fake news has found new platform on social media where sharing of information is instant and has the magic of reaching across national boundaries. What is important is for news organisation to improve on fact-checking and educate people on how to identify false information.

Throughout human history people have hard to learn to separate facts from fiction. Situation may be different in the post-truth world where most people are guided by emotions, not facts – making fake news more appealing that factual reporting. Today folks would rather hear what they want to hear true or false, than face inconvenient objective information.

Yet, for most African countries, which the debate concentrated on, the main culprits when it comes to fake news are state controlled media. If not peddling outright lies in favour of those in power then it is the cardinal sin of omission. Theirs is not journalism that speaks truth to power, it is not journalism that is aimed at uncovering incompetence or corruption in the corridors of power. Omitting critical and factual information in journalism must be recognised as fake news.

Fake news on official news organisations such as state or public broadcasters is more harmful than social media, more especially in places like Africa where majority of people across the continent still rely on broadcasting for news – not social media. Moreover, this study shows that majority of citizens in the post-authoritarian African states trust more in government-owned media institutions than any others.

… don’t let governments in

As previously agued, oppressive governments across the continent that are uncomfortable that internet has provided an open forum for free expression would happily use the fake news argument to control social media. In 2016 there were 50 internet shutdowns across world, majority of these cases happened on African content.

To avoid this, fake news must be defined for what it is, not tying it to specific platforms. Increasingly, governments are developing the trend of calling anything they don’t like fake news. This is a dangerous trend that me must avoid at all cost.

The fears about fake news are real, we must find a way of preserving good ethical journalism that is a backbone of our society. Yet, we must avoid the lazy thinking of simply blaming social media, which could let in autocratic governments to control a tool that has provided so much free space for freedom expression and providing checks and balances to those in power.

Even With Access to Information, Malawi Needs Whistle-blowers

On 6^th August 2016 one of Malawi’s two dailies, The Nation newspaper reported that Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs had started an exercise that would result in all public servants taking oath of secrecy in all government Ministries, Departments and Agencies. The Justice Ministry did not speak to the media but the then Minister of Information and Civic Education, Patricia Kaliati confirmed of the development to the newspaper, telling the newspaper that Malawi government was trying to “bring about sanity and dignity to the civil service.”

It is not a public knowledge whether this has yet been effected but Kaliati then emphasised that this was a “normal” exercise, which indicates the eagerness of the government to see this being put into operation. Kaliati argued that this was a routine thing as “every officer when taking office takes an oath of secrecy.” Even ministers, added Kaliati, “also take the oath of service and allegiance and that is normal.”

The motive here is to criminalise whistle-blowing, while at the same time ensuring that spokespersons and public relations officers whose job is to airbrush and sanitise information is the first and last call for journalists, civil society organisations, academics and members of the public looking for government held information. Kaliati sought to defend this by questioning why would anyone want to get information from a driver or a Principal Secretary when the Information Minister is a government’s spokesperson.

Is Malawi really committed to providing access to information?

What Kaliati said seven months ago is more relevant today with the enactment of Access of Information (ATI) Bill into law. That ATI is now guaranteed is a big deal for Malawi. No doubt about it. And all the people and institutions that have doggedly fought for it over the years must be congratulated. But to understand what this actually means in practice it is important to look at it from historical perspective.

American dissident, the late Howard Zinn argued: “if you don’t know history it is as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, anybody up there in a position of power can tell you anything, and you have no way of checking up.” As Malawians and those concerned are celebrating the enactment of ATI into law, Kaliati’s perspective makes you wonder: is the government really committed to provide access to information, or the enactment of ATI into low is a mere window dresser, just another piece of “good” public relations?

These are pertinent questions, especially given the fact that Kaliati emphasised that the oath of secrecy by public officials would remain intact even when the ATI bill became law – perhaps unconstitutional given that the republican constitution is the supreme law of the land but what Kaliati said shows the stance of the government insofar as government’s commitment to provide public’s access to information is concerned.

Kaliati said: “only responsible persons would have authority to release information to members of the public or media and not anybody else.” Of course there has to be a formal channel of accessing information and I know the ATI law provides for this but these “responsible persons” are surely not through government spokespersons and public relations officers.

What now?

Malawi journalism needs to adjust according to the changing times. The question of news sourcing is hardly discussed. Yet, it is crucial for journalism. Emily Bell, C.W. Anderson and Clay Sirky argued that journalism that really matters “exposes corruption, draws attention to injustice, hold politicians and business accountable for their promises and duties. It informs citizens and consumers, helps organise public opinion, explains complex issues and clarifies essential disagreements. Journalism plays an irreplaceable role in both democratic politics and market economics.”

For this to happen journalists have to go beyond the usual “he said, she said” reporting, which heavily relies on formal sources of information such as spokesperson and public relations officers. In Malawi journalists and public relations officers comfortably call each other as “colleagues”. Perhaps this is because the vast majority of spokespersons and public relations officers in Malawi started out in journalism before joining public relations where remuneration and conditions of service are considerably better.

Yet, journalists and public relations officers are not colleagues. The relationship between these is similar to that of a cat and mouse, whereby the job of the cat is keep the mouse out the house – the job of public relation officers and spokespersons is manage the kind of information that journalists can and cannot get from their institutions. Now that ATI is law, it should be easier for journalists to get information – bypassing gatekeepers. Yet this can only happen if journalists appreciate the cat and mouse relationship between them and public relations people.

We must appreciate that even with access to information granted, whistle-blowing remain very important for accountability and transparency. Journalists and those seeking public information still need whistle-blowers. You can only demand information if you know what is going on – you need tips from those with inside information. Whistle-blowers are paramount, good journalism thrive on this – not just access to information. This means that contrary to what Malawi government thinks, journalists must speak to drivers, Principal Secretaries and other civil servant – and whistle-blowing has to be encouraged and whistle-blowers legally protected if Malawi government is indeed committed to transparency and accountability.

Malawi Presidents and Press Rallies

Writing in 2000, Francis Nyamnjoh, professor of anthropology at University of Cape Town made the following observation on African media: “An examination of most legal frameworks in Africa, even after the liberalisation of media in the 1990s, reveals a craving to control that leaves little doubt of lawmakers perceiving journalists as potential troublemakers who must be policed.”

He added:

“The tendency is for new laws [in Africa] to grant freedom in principle while providing, often by administrative nexus, the curtailment of press freedom in practice. Although strongest in Francophone Africa, this use of derogable and claw back measures by the state to limit the right of the expression and press freedom is common through out the continent.”

I reflected on this following the recent fallout between media institutions in Malawi and Malawi government, led by the country’s two paramount media bodies, NAMISA and Media Council of Malawi. The media, mostly private owned are against the presence of political party officials and supporters, often in large numbers, at presidential press conferences. The role of these party members at presidential press conferences is not officially defined but these party members jeer and intimidate journalists who supposedly ask difficult, embarrassing or awkward questions. In essence, jeering journalists for doing their job.

The latest of such case was President Peter Mutharika’s press conference held at State House in Lilongwe to brief the country on his official trip to United Nations General Assembly.

The press conference was full of tension due to the President’s unexplained prolonged stay in America, a development that triggered rumors and speculation about his health. Yet, it is important to recall that such press conferences, or “press rallies” as others have called them are not peculiar to Mutharika government. Former president Joyce Banda held a similar “press rally” on her return from abroad when she anticipated tough questions from the media on what was then news revelations on cashgate in 2013. Before Mrs Banda the late president, Bingu wa Mutharika, held his own “press rally” as he returned from holiday in Hong-Kong in 2011.

So the trend is that these “press rallies” take place when state presidents are trying to avoid unwelcome questions – avoiding accountability. When faced with such a situation the tendency has, unfortunately, been to shift blame and portray journalists as troublemakers, as Nyamnjoh has observed. Meanwhile, these “press rallies” are not just aimed at intimidating and bullying the media into submission; it is also way of limiting freedom of expression while national legal frameworks permits it.

Noam Chomsky made a key observation on these tactics, arguing: “the smartest way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.” The government strategy is to allow journalists to come to the press conference in the spirit of freedoms of press and expression yet limiting them on what they can ask and say.

Unfortunately, the state machinery has completely misread the script. The once submissive local media that for 30 years of Kamuzu Banda’s dictatorship could only report what the governing authorities wanted has overcame the post-Kamuzu hangover. They now realise that they owe their allegiance to the nation, not the state and so demanding accountability and transparency is their key duty.

As it is, the onus is on the government to also realise that bullying tactics of the old will no-longer hold sway. Coercion is always futile in open societies where ideas work – this is why the government needs good public relations people in place. It should be clear for those who care to see that the genesis of the current standoff between the government and private media institutions as poor communication on the part of the government.

It is painfully clear that the Malawi government is oblivious to changes in communication systems and hence cannot adapt accordingly. Live broadcasting, especially television has been a game changer in political communication for some time now. The state machinery may not be aware of this, but live broadcasting is one of the key factors why from Bingu wa Mutharika, Joyce Banda to Peter Mutharika, presidential communication team always get agitated about press conferences.

A live press conference means that the public make up their own minds as the president respond to questions. The public does not have to wait for media institutions to repackage the information for them. In this case both the media and, crucially, the state lose control over information. This is difficult even for a heavily partisan state controlled institutions like Malawi Broadcasting Corporation to change people’s perceptions.

The odds here are against the state if intimidation is the way they want to go, as it seems the case at the moment. Instead of intimidating journalists and cursing freedom of the press and expression, the government could do well to have people in place who understand the increasingly changing communication environment. Being in control of communication no longer means having a spokesperson that can speak the loudest, it means understanding increasingly complex communication systems. Most importantly the government can just be honest, open and transparent – this way it doesn’t have to worry about media. As they say, it is better to light a lamp than to curse the dark.

Social Media is Alright

The question of whether social media should be regulated is steadily getting traction on the continent as well as here in Malawi. The issue gained even more attention in recent weeks following the arrest of Malawi Congress Party (MCP) members who were subsequently charged with treason over a WhatsApp group conversation.

What is fundamental here is a move to limit the space of unacceptable opinion and instilling fear in people that they are constantly being watched: panopticon. The equivalent of the Big Brother idea: Those in the Big Brother house always have this sense that they are being watched at all times even when no-one is watching, therefore, you must regulate your own behavior at all times. It is antithesis of democracy and civil liberties — an effective weapon for authoritarianism.

The ironic thing is that among the key features that social media has brought is the decentralized forms of communication. Social media is social equaliser, giving voice to the voiceless, letting common people whose voice is always represented into the mainstream media; the voice of the people who only make news when they are victims of hunger, domestic violence etc.

Yet, it is understandable that social media is making groups of individuals, government organisations and others uncomfortable. Changes in society always threaten the status quo—it has always been the case. Those in a position of authority and power always fear change and new developments because they must protect their own privileged position. An informed society is a very difficult society to manage and govern for those whose primary goal is to steal from the common folk.

It makes sense then when it is government calling for regulation of social media, they do not want decentralised networks of communication; they want the top-down traditional centralised systems of information flow in which they are in total control. Yet, it makes very little sense when it is journalists asking whether social media should be regulated or not. I have come across such conversation on social media. Journalists seriously arguing for social media regulations—something they should all be defending.

Never mind the important question of who is to police the social media. But you must always be careful what you wish for, you might get it. It is a world of possibilities. There is a common defence slogan when journalists and their work is under attack—often from the powers that be: “do not shoot the messenger”. Journalists calling for social media regulation argue that there are a lot of lies and false stories on platforms such as Facebook and WhatsApp, yet these platforms are used by people, if anything, the blame lies with the users — not the platform. You do not shoot the messenger, remember?

People lie every day, all the time, including those in journalism and all the gatekeepers. How do you regulate a lie anyway? There were lies before social media and there will be lies whether social media is regulated or not. There are laws protecting innocent people from such lies, you do not need to regulate the media. Why would a journalist call for social media regulation? Surely, no journalist would be afraid of enlightened society.

If anything journalism in its traditional form of finding news, editing, fact-checking and report is important more than ever in the day of social media because those discussing issues on social media are not professional journalists.

Yet, this does not mean journalists have monopoly over information. The earlier journalists realise that no-one, including them, has monopoly over information the better. Instead of calling for social media to be regulated, we should instead be calling for more social media—it is good for democracy.

Never Expect Governments to Promote Freedom of Information

Hungarian-born American publisher Joseph Pulitzer noticed that “there is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle which does not live by secrecy.” He further observed: “get these things out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the press, and sooner or latter public opinion will sweep them away.”

It is a straightforward point: secrecy fosters corruption; only transparency can ensure accountability. This is a very important principle, especially as freedom of information (FoI) campaigner, Heather Brooke noted in her theses on Your Right to Know: A Citizen’s Guide to the Freedom of Information Act:

“Making government transparent and accountable to the public directly increases the efficiency of the public sector more than any number of government regulators or watchdogs … FoI also highlights problems way before they become catastrophic mistakes. A strong FoI regime means fewer regulators and public inquiries that eat-up public money.”

If there is one country out there that must take heed of these key principles it is Malawi. Corruption has been the country’s headline story for nearly three years now, following revelations of a systematic looting of public coffers where estimated US$31 million was stollen by civil servants, private contractors and politicians, a scum locally known as cashgate.

“Corruption bleeds Malawi economy”, writes Frank Jomo for African Arguments. It is politics that breeds and sustains corruption in Malawi. As I previously argued, there is unwritten rule in Malawi that successful business people align themselves with the ruling party–the de facto government in Malawi context–in order to protect their businesses and gain more contracts. This is why most business people connected with cashgate were at the time aligned with the ruling party, Joyce Banda’s People’s Party.

This not to say Banda’s party is the most corrupt; it just happened that her’s was the party in power when cashgate unravelled. In fact, the scandal perhaps unravelled on her watch because she was too naïve about it. National audit reports have since revealed that the looting of government confers go back to the tenure of her predecessor, Bingu wa Mutharika who was in office between May 2004 until his death in office in April 2012.

The current government, headed by Mutharika’s younger brother, Peter is reluctant to act on these audit reports implicating the government of his brother in which Peter Mutharika himself was a cabinet member, holding several ministerial positions. Meanwhile, Bingu’s predecessor, Bakili Muluzi also has a court case on alleged corruption committed while in power–between 1994 and 2004.

At times the story reads like fiction, yet this is Malawi, a peaceful and self-styled “God-fearing nation”. More than half of its estimated 16 million people live below the poverty line. The country ranks 173 of 188 on United Nation’s latest Human Development Index report of 2014.

There is no doubt self-enrichment is one of the reasons most people go into politics in Malawi. Successive governments have been reluctant to pass access to information law (ATI), an enabling law of the section 37 of the country’s constitution, which state:

“Subject to any Act of Parliament, every person shall have the right of access to all information held by the State or any of its organs at any level of government in so far as such information is required for the exercise of his rights.”

The current government promised to pass the necessary bill into law so that access to information can become a reality in Malawi. Two years into power, the DPP government now feels like passing the ATI bill is a foolish move–akin to a foolish dog that bites the hand that feeds it. Owing it to donor pressure, even though the president denied this, the bill has been gazetted ready to be discussed in Parliament.

Yet, The Nation newspaper has reported that the gazetted bill is not in its original form–as drafted and approved by the stakeholders. This observation has also been made in a MISA-Malawi and Media Council of Malawi joint report protesting against the watered-down Bill.
The MISA-Malawi and Media Council of Malawi joint report is “[an appeal] to the government to review its position on ATI and MPs to reject current version of bill.” the report notes “that the ATI Bill gazetted by the government on February 19, 2016 does not meet the following principles that underpin a good ATI law:

– Effective Enforcement
– Maximum Disclosure
– Minimum Exemptions
– Public Interest override
– Simple, affordable & quick access procedures
– Whistleblower Protection

Prior to the gazetting of the bill, President Peter Mutharika told ATI campaigners and stakeholders that he would not approve the bill unless some “inconsistencies” are removed. He argued that he wants a law that was in the interest of Malawians and not some other elements. The president’s statement is very instructive on what he meant by “inconsistencies”.

Heather Brooke noticed that “one reason government officials hate openness is that it highlights their mistakes.” As for Malawi, this is not just about officials hiding their mistakes but also opening way for corruption and covering their tracks. As Brooke warns:

“You should not expect politicians to promote freedom of information. Why should they? They have vested interest in controlling the public’s access to information and thereby maintaining their grip on power.”

The onus is on the media and the civil society to continue their dogged work for the public good; must continue to ask awkward questions; must continue to dig, to unearth and then explain all the falsehood and deceits that the powers that be try to feed the unsuspecting public.

Will Malawi media safeguard its freedoms?

One famous Russian writer and playwright Mikhail Bulgakov once said: “I am a passionate supporter of [press] freedom, and I consider that if any writer were to imagine that he could prove he didn’t need that freedom, then he would be like a fish affirming in public that it didn’t need water.”

The media throughout the world, especially current affairs and journalism have fought and continue to fight hard for freedoms of the press, expression and access to public information, among other freedoms and rights. In Malawi, freedoms of the press and expression are guaranteed by the country’s Constitution while the battle for freedom to access public information is still on.

Today, African countries are voting more than in any other period in history. If voting is anything to go by, democracy is taking root in Africa. Consequently, most legal frameworks on the continent have liberalised media laws to make room for freedom of the media. This is also in line with Article 19 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

In honour of these freedoms, May 3 was set aside as World Press Freedom Day. This year, the day is being celebrated under the theme: ‘Let Journalism Thrive! Towards Better Reporting, Gender Equality, and Society in the Digital Age’. Here in Malawi, the celebrations organised by Misa-Malawi are taking place in Mzuzu.

Malawi journalism, like elsewhere, still has a lot of challenges though, which means May 3 must be a day to celebrate media freedoms as well as a moment of reflection on persisting challenges.

Francis Nyamnjoh, Professor of Social Anthropology at University of Cape Town (UCT), South Africa observes that examination of most legal frameworks in Africa reveal a craving by governments to control, which leaves little doubt that lawmakers still perceive journalists as potential troublemakers who must be policed. The tendency, he adds: “Is for new laws to grant freedom in principle while avoiding, often by administrative nexus, the curtailment of press freedom in practice.”

These issues are real in Malawi as seen through the struggle to have Access to Information Bill debated in Parliament and passed into law. The bill was drafted 15 years ago and Malawi is now with a fourth president yet the bill is still gathering dust. However, it is important to point that these obstacles are visible mostly because they hinge on national legal frameworks. Thus, it is easy to accuse the government of abusing power and stifling democratic freedoms.

Less pronounced are equally pertinent issues of media’s overreliance on corporate world for funding—through grants and advertising. Powerful national and multinational corporations throughout the world wield more power than central governments. This is not new, USA’s The Nation Magazine observed this as far back as May 1873 in its editorial: ‘The Growth of Corporate World and Decline of Government Power’. Emerging from a dictatorship where there are no media freedoms, it is easy to see why Malawi media fraternity is much more concentrated on legal frameworks rather than corporate influence.

Corporations are making obscene profits at the expense of poor Malawians. Media have to question and explain these issues. It is not enough to report on profits declared and tax paid by corporations and their various donations across the country.

These donations are only a drop in the ocean, banks and mobile phone companies are making over 100 percent profits in this country—reported by the media of course through the dreaded ‘he said or she said’ way, with little critical analysis. Corporations pay public relations officers to do their bidding. Journalism must not do the same. Even in Malawi, journalists and PR folks are fond of calling each other ‘colleagues’.

Earlier this year there was a media ‘controversy’ when President Peter Mutharika gave K50 000 to each journalists he hosted at Sanjika Palace. These were senior journalists, some of whom hold managerial positions within their organisations. Some of the journalists returned the money because they felt pocketing it would have implications on their public image and trust.

Some donated the money to various causes while others kept it. But it does not matter who did what with the money. The point is, the money rightly polarised opinion because Mutharika is a politician, a public figure and the money was rightly seen as buying favours. Some of the journalists who received the money argued that they could not be bought by K50 000.

They are right. Studies have shown that most senior reporters are well paid; it is junior reporters who get peanuts. So, perhaps, Mutharika miscalculated the move or indeed he did not mean to bribe the senior scribes.

The furore that the money caused is understandable, yet journalists do not question corporate donations and sponsorship. Corporate world, like politicians, are interested parties. They too crave favourable coverage from the media. Their public image matters too, if not much more than politicians. When we talk about media’s watchdog role, it is not just politicians at question, private sector as well.

As professors of journalism, Emily Bell, Clay Shirky and Chris Anderson from Columbia Journalism School, New York University and The City University of New York, respectively noticed in 2012:

“Journalism exposes corruption, draws attention to injustice, holds politicians and businesses accountable for their promises and duties. It informs citizens and consumers, helps organise public opinion, explains complex issues and clarifies essential disagreements. Journalism plays an irreplaceable role in both democratic politics and market economies.”

The importance of this quotation is its emphasis that journalism is not just there to keep politicians on their toes, but business and commercial interests too. The genuine worries about politicians’ money within journalism must also apply to the corporate world.

Misa-Malawi is hosting a Press Freedom Day gala with sponsorship from the corporate world. Airtel has donated K3 million and there are various awards sponsored by corporations and business interests. Misa-Malawi may not be financially independent. Yet, one wonders if such donations and sponsorship should not also be questioned, as it was rightly the case with Mutharika’s money? As press freedom is celebrated, is it not important that we also reflect on these pertinent issues engulfing the industry?

It is important that freedoms of press and speech are guaranteed and guarded by the country’s legal frameworks. Yet, it is equally important to realise that such freedoms are endangered by powerful corporations, more so that media institutions are mainly dependent on corporate world for survival.

I do not have solutions to these issues, but it is important that the media fraternity in the country recognise and open up to these pertinent issues.

Media content is not just shaped by regulations, it is also shaped by ownership and economic interests, giving corporations enormous power on media content. Restrictive media regulations do not only hamper free press and freedom of expression, it also stifles democracy and good governance. The same is the case with unguarded corporate influence. Such corporate influence is what economist Noreena Hertz called ‘Silent Takeover’, in her 2000 thesis on Global capitalism and the death of democracy. Will Malawi media stand firm and guard its freedoms from monied corporations?

Malawi media at 50: Achievements and challenges

July 2014 is gone. A month that was littered with reports, essays, comments and analysis reflecting on Malawi’s 50th independence anniversary, time will tell whether any of it will help change direction of the country for the better. Conspicuously missing from these reflections is the media, the very vehicle that has carried these messages to the masses.

This dawned on me on 6th July after Gracious Mulinga, a Chancellor College student working with Chanco Community Radio, sought my views on Malawi media in the 50 years of the country’s independence. It is undisputable fact that media, particularly news media is integral part of any state. This is one of the reasons the media is referred to as the fourth estate of the government.

The history of Malawi media is as complex as the country’s political environment. It cannot be fully tackled in a single column entry such as this but there are significant pointers that provide a comprehensive understanding of the profession, just as the rest of the articles analysing various sectors of the economy.

Any analysis of Malawi media must take into account the fact that the country two distinct dispensation in its 50 years of independence. The first 30 years of dictatorship and so far 20 years of multiparty democracy. Media does not operate in a vacuum; they resemble and act in tandem with political environment of the day. This means Malawi has also had two distinct political environments in the last 50 years.

The often cited argument by the latter day leaders of Malawi is that the local media must be grateful for whatever freedom they enjoy today because there was no such a thing as freedom of the press under Kamuzu’s reign, as if there were any freedoms to speak of. Notwithstanding the latter point, the observation is correct but the argument is wrong.

You cannot expect media freedom in a dictatorship where civil liberties and personal freedoms are curtailed. This something that must be expected in democracies. Demanding kudos for providing media freedom in a democracy is, frankly, preposterous. Communications scholar, Dennis McQuail, observed that there has always been a tetchy relationship between mass communication and the conduct of politics in every kind of regime.

He noted that in totalitarian or authoritarian societies ruling elite use means of communication to ensure conformity and compliance and stifle state dissent while in democracies the media have a complex relationship with sources of power and political system in their quest to inform the citizenry on matters of national interest, as the media ought to.

Lack of media freedom under Kamuzu was cruel but in line with the regime of the day. In 1993 we voted against Kamuzu’s authoritarianism and media laws were liberalised in line with the new media environment. The implication of having one party state is that everyone shares ideology of that part by default. Under Kamuzu, the role of the media was simply to report on what Kamuzu and MCP hierarchy had to say and wanted reported. No need for media pluralism.

On the other hand, media pluralism is a must in democratic societies. They must take into account and try to represent as much diverse views and opinion as possible. In democracies, the media act as a connective tissue between citizens and their elected representatives. Traditional liberal media theory asserts that the media must provide a platform for public discourse and facilitate the formation of public opinion.

This must include the provision of space for the expression of dissent without which the notion of democratic consensus would be meaningless; media in democracies have a duty to inform the electorate to allow them to make informed decisions as they choose their leaders; media in democracies have a duty to promote transparency and hold public office holders and corporations into account. The list is endless.

These are among some key areas where analysis of today’s Malawi media must base on. Malawi media have made some great strides, especially providing checks and balances. Malawi has a small but vibrant press that is always willing to publish exposés and guard against abuse of power.

The worrying thing is the missing link between what is exposed in the press and any necessary action from respective stakeholders. This is manly because within the corridors of power media practitioners are still considered as troublemakers and not partners in guarding against corruption, abuse of power and agents of what is called good governance.

The notion of troublemakers may partly be rooted in the fact that the local media sometimes come across as overzealous in our pursuit politicians while we let corporation exploitation unchecked. Politicians are easy targets. For instance, statistics show that Malawi is one of the most expensive mobile phone rates but this is never questioned. Recently I read on Consumers Association of Malawi’s John Kapito pointing out that services from our mobile phones services are not good either.

Alongside poor understanding on its role as a watchdog, this owes it, in part, to political economical of the media. Everywhere in the world media are never entirely free from political and economic interests of the powerful. Tune in to any national radio or open newspapers, you will be greeted with mobile phone companies adverts, they are everywhere. I do not know how much local media make from it but I am sure it is substantial. It is often unwritten rule but only a fool bites a figure that feeds.

This is not limited to corporations. Government and its subsidiaries are perhaps biggest advertisers and they interfere. In 1999 Sam Mpasu, then a cabinet minister in Bakili Muluzi administration admitted to Article 19 that Muluzi administration had a policy of withdrawing advertisements from media organisations that were antagonistic to the ruling party interests.

In 2010 Bingu wa Mutharika government borrowed this policy to deny The Nation newspaper advertising revenue, as he saw the newspaper as hostile to the administration. These threats are real because media organisations thrive on advertising revenue, which most, if not all, news organisations would fold.

The increasing number of broadcasting stations and freedom to publish, online and offline somewhat obscures these points and paints a rosy picture of media pluralism in the country. Yet, this is not entirely the case. Media pluralism itself is often challenged by deeply underlying cultural and religious issues. Media pluralism does not only point to a big number of broadcasting and publishing houses but also diversity and range of views carried.

It was much easy for most Malawians to accept political changes but most people, including the media are reluctant to accept some cultural changes in our midst. Using phrases like Malawi is God fearing nation, national culture and tradition, Malawi has remained intolerant to subcultural and minority groups. Much of the reporting reflects these societal traits.

As I noted earlier, media workers do not live in a vacuum, they belong to the same societies they report on and it is not difficult to see why most of the media content appear to reflect on what reporters think the general public or the majority of the audience and readers wants to hear and see. It is not uncommon to hear media organisations boasting that they report what people want.

Fine, but not enough. Yet, it is also the role of the media to report what people need, and sometimes this means confronting uncomfortable truths and confronting received and accepted wisdom. The local media can do much better on this later point.

As much as media democracy is a game of majority, media content must not only reflect the perceived view of the majority. Media must always seek to dig and report the truth even if it means confronting majority views and going against the grain. To pity minorities against majority is equal to mob justice, not democracy.

It is not enough for the media to only present views of the prominent people such as cabinet ministers, senior men and women of religion etc. a balanced report must also seek and include views of minorities and subordinate groups. Give equal access to all groups, big and small, only this would we have honest and fair discourse on all issues of national importance from which equitable policies could be formed. As a media fraternity, let us build on our gains to promote an equitable and fair Malawi for all.