Download - Media Institute of Southern Africa

MALAWI
State of the media in Southern Africa 2002
threatened to crack down on any form of dissent and demonstrations against his
third term bid. Ten days later, Muluzi bashed the Daily Times for editorialising
a statement issued by the PAC, which contradicted his claim to having founded
this committee. ‘What is the Daily Times’ motive?’ he asked in a manner indicating
that he and the UDF would not tolerate anyone or any media house that
tried to accommodate views that are contrary to his party’s stand.
• On September 23 MBC started recording and airing what were supposed to be
the views of the public on the third term issue. Nine out of every 10 interviews
broadcast in this programme favoured the idea of Muluzi being given a chance
to run for office for a third term. But I am told in confidence by researchers at
MBC that these recordings were manipulated by the bosses who only chose to
air views favourable to the ruling clique.
• The truth on the ground was that out of every five people interviewed, four
were totally opposed to Muluzi’s bid for a third term. Is freedom of the media
only that which favours one side - the ruling side - as MBC and TVM kept on
demonstrating through their biased one-sided broadcasts on important political
affairs?
• On September 29 the National Media Institute of Southern Africa (NAMISA),
the Malawi chapter of MISA, learned that The Nation newspaper owned by
first vice president of the UDF and cabinet minister, Aleke Banda, had slapped
a ban on coverage of third term issues through a management directive. Members
of staff complied for fear of losing jobs. This anti-media freedom development
meant readers of the newspaper lost a reliable source of information on
this topical issue. Later on October 23 a journalist working for The Nation,
Gedion Munthali, was roughed up at parliament for trying to verify accusations
that a parliamentarian from Blantyre, Fidson Chisesele, was betraying the wishes
of his constituents by daring to support the third term for Muluzi. The Nation
ignored this incident in its coverage of events at parliament.
The list can go on and on. In my view these incidents and many others recorded
by MISA and reproduced in this book are a glaring testimony of the dire state of
the media in Malawi. Unfortunately, efforts to sensitise media practitioners in
the country as well as the general public about the need to protect the rights of
media workers to access information freely and disseminate it without let or
hindrance, do not seem to be having any real mark on society. The best NAMISA
has done so far is issue statements condemning ‘so’ and ‘so’ for violating media
freedom. These statements, while necessary to alert the general public about
gross violations of media freedom in the country, do not mean anything to politicians
and decision-makers in government who are impervious to such revelations.
Worse still, the statements do not even get printed or broadcast by media
houses on whose behalf NAMISA is fighting. How pathetic!
It is time that NAMISA started flexing its muscles and being seen to be biting
where a situation warrants action and not mere verbiage. For instance, when
Munthali of The Nation was allegedly harassed by a UDF parliamentarian,
So This Is Democracy? 55