SHOULD PARLIAMENT APPROVE FUNDING FOR MALAWI’S STATE BROADCASTERS?

 

Denying state broadcasters funding is a threat to media freedom

 

BY BRIAN LIGOMEKA

  

The Constitution of Malawi guarantees the right to freedom of expression, media freedom, and access to information. Specifically, Section 35 of the Constitution states that “every person shall have freedom of expression,” while as Section 36 states that “the press shall have the right to report and publish freely, within Malawi and abroad, and to be accorded the fullest possible facilities for access to public information.”

 

It is a pity that despite these beautiful constitutional provisions, freedom of expression and media freedom are compromised by a number of factors ranging from insult laws to hostile dictates from regulatory bodies such as the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority and the Malawi Censorship Board.

 

The sad part of it is that the threats against media freedom continue to gain ground to the extent that Malawi is at risk of losing its envied position as one of Southern Africa’s most stable and open country. The risk comes as power-hungry politicians are increasingly using arrests, intimidation, lawsuits and archaic pieces of legislation against media practitioners to stifle press freedom and gag criticism. Such threats are resulting in media freedom is increasingly becoming a luxury rather than the right of people living in a democratic state.

 

While in the past the government and members of the ruling party were at the centre of accusations of violating media freedoms, this time around fingers have began to point at the opposition too. The opposition, taking advantage of its numeric strength in Parliament, is quickly establishing itself as the enemy of the media through a number of tactics one of which was their infamous rejection to approve the much-needed funding to state broadcasters.

 

I vividly remember that it was on September 11, 2007, when Parliament passed its K173 billion annual national budget with an allocation of only K1 each for Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC) and Television Malawi (TVM), for their 2007/2008 financial year. The K1 allocation is nominal, to satisfy the law that make it illegal to provide no allocation at all without holding a vote.

 

The opposition legislators claimed that the two state broadcasters were being used as propaganda tools by the current government and ruling party to castigate the opposition.

After unleashing that blow at the state broadcasters last year, one would have expected the opposition legislators to have been more rationale this year by pressing for ample funding to MBC and TVM but the opposite is true. The main opposition Malawi Congress Party has already threatened that the state broadcasters will not be funded. On June 2, 2008, MCP Spokesperson on Parliamentary Affairs Ishmael Chafukira said his party hoped that, having been denied funding in 2007, the MBC and TVM would endeavour to improve, but that, instead, the practices of the two broadcasters have deteriorated and, therefore, they do not deserve support from the national budget.

 

Chafukira’s remarks, in my view is a reflection of how irresponsible the opposition in Malawi is, considering that despite the subvention MBC and TVM had been using its meagre resources to continue broadcasting health, agricultural, environmental and other social programmes. The remarks also reflect the fact that most opposition legislators are busy serving their political masters instead of serving the electorate who voted them into power. If the opposition were serving the electorate, they would have realised the importance of the state broadcasters to the masses.

 

I am fully aware that the state broadcasters are not supposed to serve the political interests of the ruling party neither are they supposed to serve the political interests of the opposition parties; but instead should be serving the interests of the public. The question to be answered is: “Aren’t the state broadcasters serving the interests of the public by broadcasting health, educational, agricultural, environmental and other social programmes?”

 

The mere fact that there are few programmes such as Makiyolobasi and Mizwanya that irk opposition politicians does not necessarily mean that MBC and TVM are not serving the public well. Does it really make sense to reject funding for the two radios just because of less than three or so programmes at the expense of over 100 ‘innocent’ ones?

 

I have heard much noise and an avalanche of criticisms against Makiyolobasi Programme which is broadcasted on MBC. Personally, I don’t see why the programme should drive the opposition politicians crazy. Makiyolobasi is not supposed to drive the opposition mad because the journalists behind its production discredit it by labelling it as a radio cartoon. If the programme was a reality one, the opposition politicians perhaps would have been justified to get annoyed, but the programme is just about cartoons. Even if Makiyolobasi was not a radio cartoon, why should some politicians cry foul when all the programme does it to replay the statements uttered by people in public and other privileged places where journalists are allowed access.

 

If an MP shouts Agalu inu (you sons of a bitch!) in Parliament, whose proceedings are live on air, should the MP the next day stand up and declare that MBC does not need funding just because the station has replayed his Agalu inu (you sons of a bitch!) statement in Makiyolobasi Programme? Likewise should a former president who took hours castigating his political opponents at rallies which were broadcasted live on air, took offence today just because the station which was airing the rallies live has decided to rebroadcast part of the speeches in some of its programmes. 

 

Instead of looking at Makiyolobasi from a negative perspective, it is time politicians from both political divide look at it from positive perspective. From a positive perspective, one can easily see Makiyolobasi as a programme which cautions people to be careful with their tongues and utterances. The programme also admonishes politicians to practice civilised politics. If for instance one politician never shouted “agalu inu” in Parliament, Makiyolobasi would not have been replaying that statement.

 

Having outlined the lessons people can learn from Makiyolobasi, I should however quick to point out that the programme has its own ethical shortfalls in the sense that it quotes most people out of context and is biased as it only expose the follies of those in opposition leaving those in government who, for instance, have the audacity to declare on the radio and TV that “ma Taiwanese achita bwino kupita kwawpo amatidyera agalu athu.” (We are happy that the Taiwanese are gone back as they were eating our dogs) So though MBC through its Makiyolobasi is acting lawfully by re-broadcasting statements of opposition politicians, it is unethical for MBC to be re-broadcasting them out of context.

 

In my layman’s understanding, while the station is not broadcasting speeches it recorded in the past, MBC is unethical for quoting the speeches out of context and presenting without balancing them – thus acting lawfully but unethically. Having made that clarification, it should be noted that the law does not state that when MBC and TVM conduct themselves unethically, then its punishment should be the freezing of its funding. It is the duty of MACRA and not opposition MPs to regulate what is aired or not.

It is also important to point out that when it comes to political coverage, MBC and TVM have been unethical for sometime. I recall during the Malawi Congress Party regime, the same John Tembo whose party is busy denying MBC funding used the same station to describe the then opposition politicians who campaigning for the introduction of multiparty democracy as abongololo (millipedes).

 

Just few years ago, it is also the same station from where we heard former president Bakili Muluzi declaring that “manja a John Tembo ngozaza ndi magazi.” Strangely enough, during MCP and UDF regimes despite the highest levels on unethical political coverage of events at MBC, Parliament never denied the state broadcasters funding. One, therefore, wonders why has all of a sudden unethical coverage of political events at MBC and TVM should be penalised or corrected through the rejection of funding. The paradox of it is that the same people who were using the state broadcasters unethically during their reigns are the one who are against funding MBC and TVM today.

 

I entirely agree with the Chairperson of the Media and Communications Committee of Parliament Berson Lijenda, who is also an MP for UDF party who condemned his fellow MPs saying by denying MBC and TVM funding, the legislators were actually punishing the listeners and the employees, but not the political gatekeepers of the two stations.

According to Lijenda, it is strange that his fellow opposition MPs do not want to take advantage of their numerical strength to push for the amendment of the Communications Act, which gives government power to control the public broadcasters. In Lijenda’s wisdom, the best way would have been to amend the Communications Act so that the management of the stations starts reporting to Parliament as is the case with other institutions such as the office of the Ombudsman.

 

But the MPs never bought Lijenda’s suggestion and the reason for rejecting Lijenda’s proposition is obvious – those in the opposition would like to misuse and abuse MBC and TVM when they spring into power in the future. They know that if they change the reporting line of MBC and TVM management from the executive to the legislature, they may not have that chance to use the same for their propaganda.

 

The opposition MPs ought to realise now that the freezing of funding to the two broadcasters has done more harm than good. Innocent MBC and TVM employees, most of whom are not behind the so-called Makiyolobatic and Mizwanyaic programmes are denied their right to receiving salaries in good time as the two radio stations are struggling to raise money for both their operations and wages. Nowadays employees of the state broadcasters receive their salaries late just because of the political selfishness of opposition MPs, who are receiving their remuneration in time from the government.

 

Furthermore MPs should realise that the broadcasters have no other alternative after getting only K1 in this year’s budget but to survive the financial heat by going into business full time at the expense of social responsibility. According to Information Minister Patricia Kaliati, the two institutions have intensified their marketing campaign by abandoning some of their social responsibility as they are focussing on business for survival.

 

As legislators are preparing to meet for the 2008/09 budget deliberation after the mediation talks are concluded, it is important for them to refrain from rejecting funding to the state broadcasters. The MPs should instead explore avenues that will enable two broadcasters to continue fulfilling their mandate to the public.

Despite their reservations on some programmes, the legislators should remember that MBC and TVM are the only two broadcasters with nationwide frequency coverage and hence play a big role in informing, educating and entertaining the public. If they are financially strangulated, the state broadcasters cannot carry out programmes for the public. Let legislators, media regulators and other stakeholders endeavour to create an environment for the two broadcasters to operate independently, without interference. That can only be done by funding MBC and TVM as rejection of subvention to the two institutions has not improved everything in the past year.

 

 

 

 

Don’t spend taxpayers’ money

in promoting hate journalism

 

BY PETER BANDA

 

Let me start by pointing out that almost every book of mass communication and journalism does not mince words when it comes to defining and describing journalism as the art of gathering and disseminating information accurately and professionally to the masses. This definition simply emphasizes the fact that reporting accurately is the only way of practising professional journalism, be it print, online or broadcasting.

 

In modern world, where the media is regarded as the fourth estate of government after the executive, the legislature and the judiciary, professional news gathering and dissemination is important in the entrenchment of democracy, development, politics, and economy.

 

As some media scholars have observed with its first obligation being to tell the truth, and its first loyalty being to the citizens, journalism plays an important role in society. Through a rigorous process of verification of facts, journalism serve as an independent monitor of power, while at the same time provides a forum for public criticism and compromise. Just like in many other occupations, professional integrity is the cornerstone of journalists’ credibility hence the need for journalists not just to commit themselves to ethical behaviour but to be practically ethical when executing their core duty of seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.

 

Media ethics which guide journalists is very important because journalism has enormous influence on society and therefore ought to be practised in a responsible and accountable manner. It is only ethical journalists who understand that everything which a journalist does has an ethical dimension that succeed in their profession. While open societies and democracies, put much emphasis on press freedom, journalists should always bear in mind that press freedom has a twin partner in the name of responsibility and accountability. It is therefore dangerous for any journalist worth his name to be working while paying a blind eye to ethics.

 

It is interesting to note that the Media Council of Malawi Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (1994) reading in part that “journalists have a responsibility to provide the public with accurate information.  They should also conduct themselves with propriety all times when performing their duties.”

 

It is a pity that despite the Media Council of Malawi Code of Ethics advocating for ethical and professional conduct some media houses have thrown their ethics to the dogs. Unfortunately, some of the media houses that have taken the notorious path of unethical journalism are state broadcasters Television Malawi (TVM) and the Malawi Broadcasting Corporation (MBC). This is contrary to their mandate of offering a form of public service broadcasting intended to serve the diverse needs of the viewing or listening public, as they receive a large chunk of their funding from state subsidies which is from the public who pay various taxes to government.

 

The rationale for giving subsidies to the state media is to allow them produce and broadcast articles that serve members of the public professionally and including those on social responsibility basis. Such programmes include those on religion, agriculture, health and education which cannot be produced without such subventions as the mass media marketplace has become tremendously competitive, and as such, it is difficult for a public service broadcaster to survive amongst commercial interests.

 

Regrettably, some of the new unethical and propaganda programmes that are being produced and broadcasted by the state media are not in public interest and do not in anyway reflect the needs and aspirations of Malawians. The programmes are pure propaganda material aimed at promoting the political interests of one political grouping while demonising political players. The contents of such programme have irked many people and stakeholders including the Malawi Communications Regulatory Authority, Malawi Electoral Commission, political parties, media scholars and professionals.

 

Just recently, the controversial programmes by the state broadcasters were also highlighted in pastoral letter issued by Catholic Bishops that they promote hate-filled messages. The bishops said they are concerned with some programmes on the state media and cited Makiyolobasi, Mizwanya and Kuganizira Dziko as some programmes that are contributing to “political intolerance and demonisation of certain individuals in our society.” The bishops in their Pastoral letter made this appeal: “We therefore call upon the concerned parties to consider seriously curtailing such programs or giving them a different direction and orientation.” But has the state media listened to the bishops’ appeal? The answer is a big no.

 

The above mentioned programmes which are one-sided slants continue to pour derogatory remarks, scorn and insults at the opposition leaders day in and day out creating an impression that they are political demons. All this is happening when Malawi is on the road to the 2009 general elections whose destination is that several aspirants including those in opposition will contest the polls. It is a known fact that the duty of the media—both public and private—is to ensure that contestants battle on a level playing field by giving their audiences balanced information to help them make informed choices and decisions, I am sorry to say this is not the case in Malawi. While Macra which regulates what should be aired and what should not has previously been swift to act on private radio stations for airing programmes perceived to promote hate messages, the broadcasting regulator has failed to take Makiyolobasi and Mizwanya sacred cows to task.

 

Even Parliamentary Committee on Media failed to bring to a negotiating table the management of the two state broadcasters, while it is common knowledge that Parliamentary committees usually summon organisations and government departments under their jurisdiction to appear before them to account for their activities and present their problems and successes. Unlike other government ministries, departments and statutory corporations which have been cooperating with various Parliamentary Committees, the state broadcasters have been rebuffing the Media Committee of Parliament with all sorts of disparaging and belittling responses.

 

Just imagine when the Media Committee of Parliament called the MBC, it received a note to say the corporation could not afford to travel to meet them since Parliament had failed to approve its subsidy.  MBC Director General Patrick Khoza said: “We told them that we have no resources to travel from Blantyre to Lilongwe to meet them as Parliament refused to approve our funding from government. I don’t know why they want to meet us; maybe they want to ask how we are starving.

 “The committee offered to fund the DG and his deputy but we told them that they have to fund us including the MBC board but even if they accept to do so, I don’t think they have any right to summon us. We have been operating on our own resources and why would they need us to account for that?” he wondered.

 

If Parliamentary Committee does not have a right to summon MBC management, then does that committee have a right to champion the need for MBC to receive funding from government? One thing that MBC management forgets is that whether they like it or not, it is Parliament and not the Executive that approves subventions to statutory corporations.

Honestly speaking, the state broadcasters which have been rebuffing the Parliamentary Committee on the Media should not expect backing from the same committee on the need to have their funding endorsed by Parliament.  Is it justified that state broadcasters should continue receiving funding from government yet they don’t want to submit reports to Parliament through the Media Committee of Parliament? Should the state broadcasters continue receiving funding so that they can produce hate programmes like Makiyolobasi and Mizwanya whose purpose is to soil the integrity of opposition figures?

 

The observation by many commentators is true that the state media has sunk to its lowest levels professionally as “bootlicking, gossip and the new format of shameful reporting have emerged at MBC.” Even the Media Council of Malawi once describing the controversial programmes as “deplorable and unethical” as programmes such as Makiyolobasi, Mpungwe Pungwe Pandale on MBC and Mizwanya fail to adopt a balanced approach in their presentations.

 

“The current programming is of course deplorable. It is not ethical, but this is a deep seated problem that we are working on,” Badwin Chiyamwaka was quoted as saying recently.

 

It is against this backdrop I feel that Parliament should continue rejecting votes for MBC and TVM until the two broadcasters divorce propaganda from its schedule of programmes. If they want to carry on with their propaganda, let them pay for the price by not receiving government subvention which is from the taxpayers’ money. It is immoral to continue funding stations that promote propaganda and hate speeches.

 

 

 Both articles first appeared in The Sunday Times of Malawi