Monday 16th July to Sunday 22nd July 2001

SUMMARY

While The Herald (16/7) did not actually describe the accident as
murder in its initial report, the story did quote the Minister of
Information, Jonathan Moyo, as describing it as “…a callous,
premeditated, cold-blooded murder of the Ku Klux Klan type
of murders…”
Relying on unnamed sources, the state media reported the incident
as a deliberate act of racism arising out of the government’s land
reform programme and used this stance to cover the looting of
nearby farms by angry war veterans sympathetically.
The Daily News missed the initial story, and subsequent reports
confined themselves to events following the incident, as should
have been the case with the state-controlled media in coverage of
incidents involving a pending trial.
Notably, The Zimbabwe Mirror (20/7) ran a story quoting the
brothers of the dead man attacking the state-owned media for
politicizing the death of their brother.
But none of the media managed to provide a clear context to the
incident, and the state media’s coverage of it reflects the biased
and politicized pattern of its coverage of violence in other parts of
the country, particularly in Bindura where a by-election is due this
weekend.
The progress of the US Zimbabwe Democracy Bill was also a
subject of much debate during the week under review.

Odzi Settler’s Death.
In addition to allowing Minister Moyo to describe the death of the
Odzi settler as murder, The Herald (16/6) also employed
accusatory language to describe the incident, saying: “A
commercial farmer in Odzi…allegedly ran over a resettled
farmer…dragged him for about 20 meters under his truck
before dumping the body in full view of other settlers…”
The paper's heavily racist comment also clearly referred to the
incident as murder, likening it to racist murders that have taken
place in South Africa and the United States. And it noted that war
veterans had demonstrated remarkable restraint by not retaliating
"against the white commercial farmers," who, the paper
claimed, "seem bent on triggering another bloodbath that will
justify the imposition of sanctions…"
In this way, the paper not only perpetuated the prejudice against
the white farmer involved in the killing before his trial, but also
managed to suggest that most white farmers were inciting violence.
The next day, the news columns of the paper simply described the
incident as murder when it reported that war veterans had taken
over the farm belonging to the commercial farmer allegedly
responsible for the death “…as tempers flared following the
murder of a peasant farmer allegedly by a white commercial
farmer…”
The Herald (19/7) compounded this error by muddling the story of
the man’s remand with vague references to eye-witness reports
apparently not raised at the court hearing. It also referred to the
incident as murder in its headline, “Odzi murder slammed” of a
story about those condemning “…the brutal murder of a Mutare
man…”
Despite the fact that the same edition of the paper reported the
farmer as appearing in court facing a murder charge, the
accompanying story clearly sought comment from a number of
people on the basis that the farmer had already been found guilty.

ZBC’s coverage of the settler’s death was little better. While it did
not directly refer to murder, it used the incident to portray the
impression that it was the result of a racist attack and that white
farmers were generally violent and were harassing peaceful
peasants occupying their farmlands.
ZTV made no attempt to balance its initial coverage of the event the
previous evening or in its follow-up stories (16/7, 8pm) only quoting
settlers and war veterans. In one of its reports that night, it quoted
war veterans’ acting chairman, Patrick Nyaruwata, as saying that
his organization had received reports that other white farmers had
been harassing settlers on designated farms.
“…If the whites start fighting us, then we have to retaliate...” he
was quoted as saying, thus giving the impression that white
farmers were provoking settlers and war veterans. He was not
asked to provide examples or give viewers some idea of the scale
of the problem. Nor was independent opinion sought, or those of
the white farming community.
Similarly, the same report quoted the war veterans’ secretary-
general, Andy Mhlanga saying, “…This is now the time to show
the white minority that we are very, very angry about their
action. We urge all war veterans countrywide to make sure
that people in designated farms leave with immediate effect.”
ZTV did not subject this inflammatory statement to any scrutiny or
provide alternative opinion. Nor were the police consulted over the
legality of such a threat of summary eviction..
A similar impression was given by a report on ZTV’s 6pm and 8pm
bulletins two days later (18/7), in which a settler was allegedly shot
by a Nyabire farm security guard. The story contained a startling
revelation from war veterans’ spokesman, Andrew Ndlovu, saying
he had received a call from the President’s Office informing him of
incidents on other farms. ZTV never asked him why the President’s
Office should be contacting him about such incidents. Nor did it
ask the President’s Office whether it thought the war veterans were
a form of law enforcement agency supplementing the activities of
the police.
The Daily News missed the original story and concentrated on the
reaction of the war veterans following the incident (17/7) and
reported the incident itself in the barest detail, presumably because
the paper was aware of the sub judice reporting restrictions that
exist in relation to events leading to criminal charges. The Herald
also focussed on the war veterans' reaction (17/7) and both papers
stated that the commercial farmer was due to appear in court
facing a charge of murder.
The Daily News (19/7) carried a report of the white farmer's remand
hearing under a somewhat misleading headline, "Police, Court
Deny Odzi Farmer Right to Lawyer", which referred to the fact that
the lawyer was advised not to attend for security reasons: "'I
stayed away on the advice of the police and court officials,'
Ndlovu said. 'They feared that my presence might ignite an
already tense situation,’" the paper reported the lawyer as saying.
But the story also reported that the lawyer had attended the
hearing in the afternoon.
The next day (20/7) the same paper devoted a story and a front
page photo to the farmer's young black wife and in so doing
appeared to be using the fact to refute the state media allegations
that he is a racist.

The Zimbabwe Democracy Bill
The Herald (16/7) reiterated ZBC's allegations in its bulletins the
previous evening that - according to eye-witnesses - the Odzi
farmer involved in the death of a settler had boasted that he had
wanted to kill 15 settlers to "celebrate" what he thought was the
passing of the Zimbabwe Democracy Bill by the US Senate.
It is impossible to tell if this was the state media exploiting the
weaknesses in The Zimbabwe Standard's original story (reported
here last week), but the claim certainly highlighted the inadequacy
of the early reports on the progress of the Bill.
Following up the Sunday story, The Daily News (16/7) reported the
comments of an International Crisis Group, but then compounded
the confusion initiated by The Standard by reporting that the
Democracy Bill had received "…approval by the US Congress…"
Despite the fact that the daily also appeared to correct its mistake
by virtually repeating The Standard's explanation, it made matters
worse by stating that the stage was set for "the proposed law to
sail through the House of Representatives."
So, had it been approved? Unfortunately the private press was
unable to clarify the matter. That could only be obtained from the
state owned media. Responding to The Standard’s inaccurate
headline of the day before, Zimpapers (16/7) and later, the state
broadcaster, quoted Zimbabwe’s ambassador to the U.S., Simbi
Mubako, (Radio and TV 16/7, 8pm) and the visiting black American
politician, Andrew Young, (20/7, 6pm and 8pm) saying that the Bill
had not yet become law and explaining the Congressional
procedures the Bill needed to pass through before it did. (These
were: approval from the Senate’s full foreign relations committee,
the Senate itself, the House of Representatives, a conference
between the House and the Senate, and finally to the American
President.) Mubako and Young both gave the impression that the
Bill was still a long way from becoming law, but the state-owned
media failed to ask either of them for some estimate of the time it
would take for the Bill to pass through all these legislative stages.
Coverage of the progress of the Bill in the private Press clearly
suffered from a lack of understanding of the American Congress’s
legislative procedures and provided the Minister of Information
(Jonathan Moyo) with an opportunity to attack The Daily News and
The Standard. The Herald (18/7) reported him accusing the two
papers of “…spreading false and malicious news against
Zimbabwe with the hope of promoting chaos, social
breakdown and conflict.”
However, the state Press also lacked any dispassionate analysis
of the Bill’s likely effects or clarification of its passage through
Congress.
The Herald (18/7) carried an excessively lengthy, one-sided
defence of the government’s “good governance” record by Mubako
under the heading, Why Sanctions Are Not The Answer. The article
discredited itself in the second paragraph by claiming that the title
of the Democracy Bill was “…a misnomer because there was not
and has never been a crisis of democracy in Zimbabwe since
the advent of majority rule…”
The Herald (21/7) carried a second attempt to peddle state
propaganda in another opinion piece headlined, US: Why Try to
Protect Past Injustices?, which completely ignored the present
injustices taking place in Zimbabwe.
In an effort to correct its errors of the previous week, The Standard
(22/7) quoted a US political consultant as saying that the Bill was
“on course” and that, in fact, the full Senate Foreign Relations
Committee had approved the Bill “unanimously”, and not the sub-
committee, as the paper had reported originally. This seemed to
have moved the Bill further down the legislative pipeline, but the
story failed to enlighten its readers on this matter. The paper also
reported that the Bill could be approved by the US Senate in
September but didn’t explain where it would go from there.
And while an inside opinion piece fulminated on why the
government should be so upset about the Bill if it was allowing
democracy to flourish in Zimbabwe, the unattributed article also
attacked Moyo, describing him as a “heartless mercenary” for
defending the indefensible. This article, under a ‘national news’
logo, should have been clearly identified as an opinion piece. Nor
should it have reported that, “Elsewhere, in the current issue of
The Standard, a US Senator reiterates that the Bill was
approved by the committee…”
Only Ed Stewart, described in The Standard’s front-page story as a
“US political consultant”, was reported to have said the Bill had
been passed, not a Senator…further compounding the confusion
already in the minds of the paper’s readers.
The Standard also published the Bill in full without providing any
explanation of its content.

Political Violence and the Bindura By-Election
Political violence in the countdown to the Bindura by-election
continued to receive considerable coverage in the week under
review. But most was piecemeal and biased depending on which
media was reporting the incidents. While The Daily News continues
to provide horrifying evidence of what appears to be a concerted
campaign of violence against opposition MDC supporters around
the country (16/7 with a picture), and in Bindura (17/7), Zimpapers
continue to report attacks on ZANU PF supporters by MDC youths
(The Herald 18/7).
MMPZ notes with concern that while the state media continue to
obtain unhindered comment from the police, the private Press,
particularly The Daily News, appears to be having difficulty seeking
information from the ZRP. In two of its stories (17/7) the paper
reported that the police had refused to comment. One sought a
police response to the claim by the MDC’s Bindura candidate that
the “application of the law by the police is selective because
MDC and Zanu PF members are treated differently.”
And the other sought police comment about police protection for
traditional chiefs. In that story Assist. Comm. Wayne Bvudzijena
was quoted as saying: “You know I don’t talk to The Daily
News.”
For what it’s worth, the police should be reminded that they are a
public institution and are obliged to provide information relating to
issues of public concern. Such partisan treatment of the media
exposes the bias of the police force and compromises its
reputation to carry out its duties “without fear or favour”.

As with the coverage of previous by-elections, media reporting
focused on political violence to the exclusion of the contesting
candidates’ campaign policies. Reporting in all media of the
Bindura by-election was limited to events rather than critical
election issues, possibly because the politically volatile conditions
have overshadowed the candidates’ campaign agendas.
There were piecemeal reports of what the candidates have to offer
in separate articles in the state owned press. The Herald (19/7)’s
article headlined, “Battle of two Elliots on next week” missed the
opportunity to profile the candidates. The spokespersons for the
two parties were interviewed instead of the candidates. ZANU PF’s
information secretary, Nathan Shamhuyarira, was quoted in the
article saying
“Giving land to the landless people is a distinctive
feature of our party’s achievements” and, “…the
revival of the youth brigades to instill discipline
and political consciousness among the youths.”
These were cited as some examples of the party’s campaign
policies. The MDC’s information and publicity officer, Learnmore
Jongwe was merely reported as expressing his hope for the party’s
success in spite of ZANU PF’s violence and intimidation
programme against the MDC.
It was only in The Sunday Mail (22/7) lead story, “Election fever
grips Bindura,” that Jongwe gave a brief outline of the party’s
policies for the constituency.

ZBC only reported (21/7, ZTV 6pm and 8pm) the Zimbabwe Council
of Churches statement denouncing violence and ignored the actual
incidents of political violence, especially in Bindura. All radio (22/7,
1pm) only made side reference to the violence in Bindura in a story
that was similar to that in The Sunday Mail, which accused MDC of
bussing hundreds of youths to Bindura to intimidate people. No
comment was sought from the MDC.
In any democracy the public broadcaster is obliged to provide the
electorate with balanced, fair and adequate information on the
candidates in any election and what they have to offer the
electorate.
In the Bindura by-election, ZBC, as the public broadcaster, is
mandated to cover both the ZANU PF candidate, Elliot Manyika
and MDC’s Elliot Pfebve. However, during the week under review,
the state broadcaster aired seven items on the ruling party’s
Manyika (Radio 1/3 and 2/4 had two stories each, while ZTV
carried three) and ignored Pfebve altogether.
On July 21 (ZTV, Nhau/Indaba and 8pm) ZANU PF’s Shuvai Mahofa
was shown presenting a $2m cheque to Manyika for projects in
Bindura. The footage also showed some women who were putting
on Manyika’s campaign regalia. The reporter did not analyse the
vote-buying implications of such a donation, which was made
barely a week before the election.

Ends.