Smart Partnership and freedom of press debate
Aug 10, 2009
CHARLES Mwanguhya, of a local media house issued a harsh judgment, on the five Heads of States who attended the Munyonyo Smart Partnership conference that took place between July 26 and 28.
By Kintu Nyago
CHARLES Mwanguhya, of a local media house issued a harsh judgment, on the five Heads of States who attended the Munyonyo Smart Partnership conference that took place between July 26 and 28.
He accused them of suffering from what he termed “the Mugabe syndromeâ€. He defined the syndrome as “the extreme hate for the media especially global networks CNN and the BBC.â€
The concerned Heads of State were King Mswati of Swaziland and presidents Yoweri Museveni, Robert Mugabe, Jakaya Kikwete and Rupiya Banda.
To me the, Munyonyo Smart Partnership conference was most intellectually stimulating, creative and engaging. It was characterised by informality. The high and mighty interacted freely, without formality, and constraining protocol with other participants, referred too as “smart partnersâ€.
The organisers showed creativity when the Heads of State “press-conferenced†the journalists. This was a case of the “hunter’s being huntedâ€
Mwanguhya erroneously states that all the attending Heads of State were rabid haters of the free press. However to the best of my recollection, most of the attending countries enjoy the freest and most vibrant press in the world. For instance Uganda, Tanzania, Botswana and Zambia.
Regarding Uganda’s experience with press freedom, one finds that the unrestrained freedom of our press may even have promoted contradictory anarchic traits. We have more FM radio stations than our cities, municipalities, town councils and districts lumped together each with their own editorial policy.
I am certain that the freedom of our media has been influenced by the liberal disposition of President Museveni, whom ironically Mwanghuya refers to as a media hater.
Contrary to what Mwanghuya wrote in his article titled: “An account of media and presidents at the Smart Partnership meetingâ€, the attending Heads of States did not hold a singular view on the debate about press freedom. In any case, it was more of a frank discussion, than a press-bashing exercise.
And their concern related not with the quest to be portrayed positively for the sake of it, but rather the need to have objective reporting on issues African. This, in this unequal and unjust global political economy, in which Africa at this juncture, and for the past five hundred years, has been firmly placed at the margins by the dominant Western powers.
Differently put, they were really calling for a free Western press that reports the African reality objectively. A situation that in turn would foster a qualitative political, economic and social interaction with the broader world, in a manner that would in turn enable the transformation of our continent, as was demanded by the theme of the Munyonyo meet.
The more radical of the views expressed on this subject were from Zimbabwe’s Mugabe. Views incidentally most well received by the quite diverse attending audience. That is judging from their applauding when the veteran pan Africanist stood to ask his questions to the press corps, this in addition to the spontaneous clapping that followed his questions.
Mugabe’s well presented inquiry focused on the fact that leading western media agencies, notably the BBC and CNN had editorial policies that were biased against him and his government. And as such what was expected of the “foot soldier†reporter? Could he or she report objectively, on a story involving President Mugabe and ZANU-PF and expect to retain his/her salary?
Fortunately this question was responded too by a Dlamini, a young, courteous and cerebral editor of a leading Swaziland daily.
Dlamini noted that in reality a media house’s editorial policy constrains the room for manoeuvre of both its journalists and editors. And this, may actually undermine the very tenets of the freedom of the press.
The debate was re-ignited by Zimbabwe’s new and youthful MDC Deputy Prime Minister Prof. Arthur Mutambara. He argued that the promotion of internal democracy, within African countries, and the emergence of a democratic ideology, therein, would render the western media houses to report positively on Africa.
This view point was, however, qualified by the other, more experienced Heads of State. Zambia’s Banda inquired as to which ideology communist China had, and yet it was given the most positive coverage by Western media houses, simply because the West’s wants to access Chinese markets and capital.
On his part, president Kikwete, stunned participants when he informed them that most leading Western media houses operate with mercenary instincts when reporting African issues. It is the reporting of doomsday stories that is the norm. While good news is usually bought by African governments who are coaxed to pay for expensive “supplementsâ€.
Summing up the debate and concurring with his visiting colleagues, President Museveni was of the view that the negative reports from the Western media houses should be ignored. For he recollected that in the past China, India and Malaysia had received negative reporting, but this did not stop them from qualitatively transforming their economies.
Members of the media fraternity were not only on the receiving end. Actually in the course of their interaction with the Heads of State most concurred with their informed views, regarding Africa’s marginality in the dominant Western Press. And they did provide positive contributions in this candid discussion. For instance, Bukedde’s Ahmed Kateregga argued well that African states are partly to blame for Africa’s marginalisation in the global media arena. For Africa had ignored their own media agencies. For instance Uganda, had ignored the Uganda News Agency and regional ones as the Pan African News Agency. Kateregga called for African states investing in national and regional media houses, to enable the true African story to be told, as Al-Jazeera does with the Arab story.
The writer is a presidential adviser
CHARLES Mwanguhya, of a local media house issued a harsh judgment, on the five Heads of States who attended the Munyonyo Smart Partnership conference that took place between July 26 and 28.
He accused them of suffering from what he termed “the Mugabe syndromeâ€. He defined the syndrome as “the extreme hate for the media especially global networks CNN and the BBC.â€
The concerned Heads of State were King Mswati of Swaziland and presidents Yoweri Museveni, Robert Mugabe, Jakaya Kikwete and Rupiya Banda.
To me the, Munyonyo Smart Partnership conference was most intellectually stimulating, creative and engaging. It was characterised by informality. The high and mighty interacted freely, without formality, and constraining protocol with other participants, referred too as “smart partnersâ€.
The organisers showed creativity when the Heads of State “press-conferenced†the journalists. This was a case of the “hunter’s being huntedâ€
Mwanguhya erroneously states that all the attending Heads of State were rabid haters of the free press. However to the best of my recollection, most of the attending countries enjoy the freest and most vibrant press in the world. For instance Uganda, Tanzania, Botswana and Zambia.
Regarding Uganda’s experience with press freedom, one finds that the unrestrained freedom of our press may even have promoted contradictory anarchic traits. We have more FM radio stations than our cities, municipalities, town councils and districts lumped together each with their own editorial policy.
I am certain that the freedom of our media has been influenced by the liberal disposition of President Museveni, whom ironically Mwanghuya refers to as a media hater.
Contrary to what Mwanghuya wrote in his article titled: “An account of media and presidents at the Smart Partnership meetingâ€, the attending Heads of States did not hold a singular view on the debate about press freedom. In any case, it was more of a frank discussion, than a press-bashing exercise.
And their concern related not with the quest to be portrayed positively for the sake of it, but rather the need to have objective reporting on issues African. This, in this unequal and unjust global political economy, in which Africa at this juncture, and for the past five hundred years, has been firmly placed at the margins by the dominant Western powers.
Differently put, they were really calling for a free Western press that reports the African reality objectively. A situation that in turn would foster a qualitative political, economic and social interaction with the broader world, in a manner that would in turn enable the transformation of our continent, as was demanded by the theme of the Munyonyo meet.
The more radical of the views expressed on this subject were from Zimbabwe’s Mugabe. Views incidentally most well received by the quite diverse attending audience. That is judging from their applauding when the veteran pan Africanist stood to ask his questions to the press corps, this in addition to the spontaneous clapping that followed his questions.
Mugabe’s well presented inquiry focused on the fact that leading western media agencies, notably the BBC and CNN had editorial policies that were biased against him and his government. And as such what was expected of the “foot soldier†reporter? Could he or she report objectively, on a story involving President Mugabe and ZANU-PF and expect to retain his/her salary?
Fortunately this question was responded too by a Dlamini, a young, courteous and cerebral editor of a leading Swaziland daily.
Dlamini noted that in reality a media house’s editorial policy constrains the room for manoeuvre of both its journalists and editors. And this, may actually undermine the very tenets of the freedom of the press.
The debate was re-ignited by Zimbabwe’s new and youthful MDC Deputy Prime Minister Prof. Arthur Mutambara. He argued that the promotion of internal democracy, within African countries, and the emergence of a democratic ideology, therein, would render the western media houses to report positively on Africa.
This view point was, however, qualified by the other, more experienced Heads of State. Zambia’s Banda inquired as to which ideology communist China had, and yet it was given the most positive coverage by Western media houses, simply because the West’s wants to access Chinese markets and capital.
On his part, president Kikwete, stunned participants when he informed them that most leading Western media houses operate with mercenary instincts when reporting African issues. It is the reporting of doomsday stories that is the norm. While good news is usually bought by African governments who are coaxed to pay for expensive “supplementsâ€.
Summing up the debate and concurring with his visiting colleagues, President Museveni was of the view that the negative reports from the Western media houses should be ignored. For he recollected that in the past China, India and Malaysia had received negative reporting, but this did not stop them from qualitatively transforming their economies.
Members of the media fraternity were not only on the receiving end. Actually in the course of their interaction with the Heads of State most concurred with their informed views, regarding Africa’s marginality in the dominant Western Press. And they did provide positive contributions in this candid discussion. For instance, Bukedde’s Ahmed Kateregga argued well that African states are partly to blame for Africa’s marginalisation in the global media arena. For Africa had ignored their own media agencies. For instance Uganda, had ignored the Uganda News Agency and regional ones as the Pan African News Agency. Kateregga called for African states investing in national and regional media houses, to enable the true African story to be told, as Al-Jazeera does with the Arab story.
The writer is a presidential adviser