The Namibian – is it biased, subjective, anti-government?

RECENT statements by prominent political leaders in Namibia have called into question the role of the media in this country.

Former President Sam Nujoma, in February, expressed concern about the media “inciting the public or … spreading falsehoods” (The Namibian, 23/2/05). Other prominent personalities engaged in a call for the media to be accountable include the newly appointed Minister of Information and Broadcasting (“The media need to become more professional and accountable” – The Namibian, 14/4/05) and the Minister of Presidential Affairs, Dr Albert Kawana.At a recent induction meeting for new parliamentarians, there were even suggestions by members that certain media give more coverage to the opposition party than to the ruling party.There have been calls for boycotts on certain publications by, amongst others, the Swapo Youth League, and, of course, there remains a continued advertising and purchase boycott on The Namibian by the Government.The publication which so bravely fought for Namibia’s independence has itself become the target of severe criticism and economic strictures.Meanwhile the NBC revels in praise and support from the highest level (“Parliamentarians praise for NBC”, The Namibian, 8/4/05) Summarised, the concerns regarding the media include: * The fact that they are unaccountable.* They are biased and give prominence to the opposition over the ruling party.* Certain media have a ‘hidden agenda’ to publish and broadcast negative stories that might damage the Government and destabilise the country.* Certain media distort what is said by politicians.* The media promote hate speech and racial discrimination in the country.All comment, particularly regarding the media, is highly subjective.Politicians in particular are never going to be happy with the way in which their speeches are covered.Editors have to make tough decisions as to the ‘angle’ they are going to take from that speech, and will never have enough time or space to cover it completely.Regarding the ‘unaccountable’ nature of the media, it must always be remembered that there are strict laws in the country regarding the reporting of events.In particular, the law of defamation of character allows an individual, including a politician, to sue for damages if they are reported in an inaccurate manner or quoted as saying something they did not say.In addition, the law of sub judice protects the legal process from reporting that may in any way influence the neutral proceedings of a court.The Constitution also contains an entire article (Article 23) dealing with the combating of racism and apartheid, and, again, the laws of Namibia have proved themselves able to combat the instances so far where the media have overstepped these guidelines.The Windhoek Observer was sanctioned for publishing an advertisement glorifying former Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, and Die Republikein for listing a classified advertisement of a property to be let to ‘whites only’.Finally, our laws still require journalists to reveal their sources if compelled by a court.The only journalist to be jailed since independence (Hannes Smith of the Windhoek Observer), fell foul of the court in this regard.Indeed, it is interesting to read that in the United States it is these very laws that the media regard as being prominent in restricting the freedom of the press.So to continually call for the media to be ‘accountable’ is in fact merely underlining the right of the citizen (including the politician) to ensure that they are correctly and accurately reported.A newspaper that accuses an individual of a crime they did not commit will be prosecuted under the sub judice rule.A TV station that quotes a politician as saying something she did not will have to pay a heavy penalty in financial damages to that individual.Even the Code of Ethics for Namibian media, launched by MISA Namibia, merely underscores the above.For instance, calling on the media to engage in ‘accurate reporting’ (‘ascertain … the reliability of the contents of any article written …for publication’) is common sense for any editor, otherwise they would be sued.Similarly, it is a foolish editor that will not take immediate steps to rectify a mistake in a publication or transmission (‘it shall be rectified without reservation or delay’), as this will assist them in defending any action for harming an individual or organisation.In order to try to gain some empirical evidence on media coverage of Government events in Namibia, research was conducted over a one-week period (11 – 15 April 2005) with a comparison between coverage on NBC TV (taking the main 20:00 English news bulletin each evening) and The Namibian.In the case of NBC TV, the length of time for both the introductions to the story as well as the video material itself was counted.In the case of The Namibian, it was also noted when a photograph accompanied the article.Stories included for the research were those which referred to the President and First Lady, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and their deputies, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.This excluded coverage of Regional and Local Councils and other Government officials.In addition the focus was on the main editorial content of the news, and excluded the Oshiwambo section, the letter pages, the Youth and Motoring supplements in The Namibian, and excluded the sports news and weather on NBC TV.The bulletins and newspapers were analysed to find out the length of time/space given to the story, as well as its prominence.In addition, an attempt was made to analyse the stories in terms of their perspective.Were they positive regarding Government affairs, neutral or negative? Examples of a positive story would be the Minister of Information and Broadcasting giving an award for best communicator (The Namibian, 13/4/05, including photograph), a neutral story would be the President urging a public campaign regarding the carrying of weapons (NBC TV 14/4/05), and a negative story would be the Ministry of Fisheries investigating possible poisoned fish (NBC TV 15/4/05).The categories themselves present quite a challenge for the researcher, for it involves a matter of perspective.When the Speaker complains about irresponsible MPs (NBC TV, 12/4/05), this is obviously a negative story, and puts the Government and parliamentarians in a bad light.But the media, as is often the case, are merely reporting the facts about what was said by the Speaker.Should the media suppress these remarks merely because they happen to portray Namibian politicians negatively? The interesting aspect about these categories is that what might be perceived by some as negative, and, for this research, are regarded as such (“Ministry of Gender Affairs investigates mismanagement”, The Namibian, 12/4/05) could, by some (including the President) be regarded as a positive story – exposing as it does possible corruption at the high ranks and the active steps being taken to rectify the situation.In the final analysis, the findings were that the media (both The Namibian and NBC TV) give ample coverage to statements by Government officials, and both report in a fair and unbiased manner.In addition, although both gave much coverage to the ruling party, no coverage whatsoever was given to any opposition party during the week under review.Finally, despite perceptions to the contrary, The Namibian had slightly fewer negative stories during the week than NBC TV (20% as opposed to 21%).Obviously, more research into the above needs to be conducted.A thorough analysis of several random weeks throughout the year will give more weight to the results, and in addition methodology needs to be considered that will give a fair rating to stories regarding their prominence in the paper or bulletin, as well as the impact of photographs in a newspaper story.Furthermore, the scope of the research can be widened, to include other publications and also NBC radio news.However, there is no doubt that the so-called gap in coverage and balance between The Namibian and NBC TV is smaller than commonly perceived.No doubt this is because, at most events, both organisations will be invited and both will send journalists to cover.In addition, the vast majority of events (launches, workshops, speeches, etc) are fairly standard in nature, and contain no great revelations.These come through investigative journalism, where the media play a role “as the fourth pillar of democracy and watchdog to disclose corruption and other evils in society.”(Minister Nandi-Ndaitwah, The Namibian, 14/4/05).This is what, as journalists, we need to continue to encourage and support, to ensure that the media play that vital role.The stories will not come easily.A journalist has been defined as someone who arrives at a place where they are not wanted and asks the questions that nobody else dares to ask! But journalists need to continue to go to those places and ask those questions, otherwise that fourth pillar of democracy will become eroded, and, without that pillar, democracy itself might collapse. Tabled Comparisons of Coverage between NBC TV and The Namibian NewspaperOther prominent personalities engaged in a call for the media to be accountable include the newly appointed Minister of Information and Broadcasting (“The media need to become more professional and accountable” – The Namibian, 14/4/05) and the Minister of Presidential Affairs, Dr Albert Kawana.At a recent induction meeting for new parliamentarians, there were even suggestions by members that certain media give more coverage to the opposition party than to the ruling party.There have been calls for boycotts on certain publications by, amongst others, the Swapo Youth League, and, of course, there remains a continued advertising and purchase boycott on The Namibian by the Government.The publication which so bravely fought for Namibia’s independence has itself become the target of severe criticism and economic strictures.Meanwhile the NBC revels in praise and support from the highest level (“Parliamentarians praise for NBC”, The Namibian, 8/4/05) Summarised, the concerns regarding the media include: * The fact that they are unaccountable.* They are biased and give prominence to the opposition over the ruling party.* Certain media have a ‘hidden agenda’ to publish and broadcast negative stories that might damage the Government and destabilise the country.* Certain media distort what is said by politicians.* The media promote hate speech and racial discrimination in the country.All comment, particularly regarding the media, is highly subjective.Politicians in particular are never going to be happy with the way in which their speeches are covered.Editors have to make tough decisions as to the ‘angle’ they are going to take from that speech, and will never have enough time or space to cover it completely.Regarding the ‘unaccountable’ nature of the media, it must always be remembered that there are strict laws in the country regarding the reporting of events.In particular, the law of defamation of character allows an individual, including a politician, to sue for damages if they are reported in an inaccurate manner or quoted as saying something they did not say.In addition, the law of sub judice protects the legal process from reporting that may in any way influence the neutral proceedings of a court.The Constitution also contains an entire article (Article 23) dealing with the combating of racism and apartheid, and, again, the laws of Namibia have proved themselves able to combat the instances so far where the media have overstepped these guidelines.The Windhoek Observer was sanctioned for publishing an advertisement glorifying former Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, and Die Republikein for listing a classified advertisement of a property to be let to ‘whites only’.Finally, our laws still require journalists to reveal their sources if compelled by a court.The only journalist to be jailed since independence (Hannes Smith of the Windhoek Observer), fell foul of the court in this regard.Indeed, it is interesting to read that in the United States it is these very laws that the media regard as being prominent in restricting the freedom of the press.So to continually call for the media to be ‘accountable’ is in fact merely underlining the right of the citizen (including the politician) to ensure that they are correctly and accurately reported.A newspaper that accuses an individual of a crime they did not commit will be prosecuted under the sub judice rule.A TV station that quotes a politician as saying something she did not will have to pay a heavy penalty in financial damages to that individual.Even the Code of Ethics for Namibian media, launched by MISA Namibia, merely underscores the above.For instance, calling on the media to engage in ‘accurate reporting’ (‘ascertain … the reliability of the contents of any article written …for publication’) is common sense for any editor, otherwise they would be sued.Similarly, it is a foolish editor that will not take immediate steps to rectify a mistake in a publication or transmission (‘it shall be rectified without reservation or delay’), as this will assist them in defending any action for harming an individual or organisation.In order to try to gain some empirical evidence on media coverage of Government events in Namibia, research was conducted over a one-week period (11 – 15 April 2005) with a comparison between coverage on NBC TV (taking the main 20:00 English news bulletin each evening) and The Namibian.In the case of NBC TV, the length of time for both the introductions to the story as well as the video material itself was counted.In the case of The Namibian, it was also noted when a photograph accompanied the article.Stories included for the research were those which referred to the President and First Lady, Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, Ministers and Deputy Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and their deputies, the Speaker and Deputy Speaker.This excluded coverage of Regional and Local Councils and other Government officials.In addition the focus was on the main editorial content of the news, and excluded the Oshiwambo section, the letter pages, the Youth and Motoring supplements in The Namibian, and excluded the sports news and weather on NBC TV.The bulletins and newspapers were analysed to find out the length of time/space given to the story, as well as its prominence.In addition, an attempt was made to analyse the stories in terms of their perspective.Were they positive regarding Government affairs, neutral or negative? Examples of a positive story would be the Minister of Information and Broadcasting giving an award for best communicator (The Namibian, 13/4/05, including photograph), a neutral story would be the President urging a public campaign regarding the carrying of weapons (NBC TV 14/4/05), and a negative story would be the Ministry of Fisheries investigating possible poisoned fish (NBC TV 15/4/05).The categories themselves present quite a challenge for the researcher, for it involves a matter of perspective.When the Speaker complains about irresponsible MPs (NBC TV, 12/4/05), this is obviously a negative story, and puts the Government and parliamentarians in a bad light.But the media, as is often the case, are merely reporting the facts about what was said by the Speaker.Should the media suppress these remarks merely because they happen to portray Namibian politicians negatively? The interesting aspect about these categories is that what might be perceived by some as negative, and, for this research, are regarded as such (“Ministry of Gender Affairs investigates mismanagement”, The Namibian, 12/4/05) could, by some (including the President) be regarded as a positive story – exposing as it does possible corruption at the high ranks and the active steps being taken to rectify the situation.In the final analysis, the findings were that the media (both The Namibian and NBC TV) give ample coverage to statements by Government officials, and both report in a fair and unbiased manner.In addition, although both gave much coverage to the ruling party, no coverage whatsoever was given to any opposition party during the week under review.Finally, despite perceptions to the contrary, The Namibian had slightly fewer negative stories during the week than NBC TV (20% as opposed to 21%).Obviously, more research into the above needs to be conducted.A thorough analysis of several random weeks throughout the year will give more weight to the results, and in addition methodology needs to be considered that will give a fair rating to stories regarding their prominence in the paper or bulletin, as well as the impact of photographs in a newspaper story.Furthermore, the scope of the research can be widened, to include other publications and also NBC radio news.However, there is no doubt that the so-called gap in coverage and balance between The Namibian and NBC TV is smaller than commonly perceived.No doubt this is because, at most events, both organisations will be invited and both will send journalists to cover.In addition, the vast majority of events (launches, workshops, speeches, etc) are fairly standard in nature, and contain no great revelations.These come through investigative journalism, where the media play a role “as the fourth pillar of democracy and watchdog to disclose corruption and other evils in society.”(Minister Nandi-Ndaitwah, The Namibian, 14/4/05).This is what, as journalists, we need to continue to encourage and support, to ensure that the media play that vital role.The stories will not come easily.A journalist has been defined as someone who arrives at a place where they are not wanted and asks the questions that nobody else dares to ask! But journalists need to continue to go to those places and ask those questions, otherwise that fourth pillar of democracy will become eroded, and, without that pillar, democracy itself might collapse. Tabled Comparisons of Coverage between NBC TV and The Namibian Newspaper * Robin Tyson is a Lecturer in Media Studies at the University of Namibia and Chairperson of MISA Namibia