The Namibian constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, which includes freedom of the press and other media. This provision forms the cornerstone of the democratisation of the Namibian socio-economic and political fabric essentially because as a democratic nation, Namibia knows that free expression of opinion and the free flow of facts, unhampered by governmental restrictions and censorship, is fundamental to intelligent action on the part of its citizens – and is also a social safety valve.
Executing functions that promote the freedom of expression, freedom of the press and media has been a challenge, not only in Namibia, but worldwide. The challenge is always the failure to recognise the simplest of facts that journalism is not just a profession. It is the exercise of the occupation of the right to free expression available to every citizen of our republic.
That right, being available to all, cannot in principle be withdrawn from a few individuals by any system of licensing or professional registration, but it can be restricted and confined by rules of law that apply to all who take part or are afforded the opportunity to exercise the right by speaking or writing in public. The profession demands that news stories are, at all times, accurate, balanced and devoid of comment, conjecture and falsification by distortion, selection or misrepresentation. In other words, facts should rule supreme in all news stories.
It is a truism, however, that truth is an elusive target. Journalists do not deal in absolutes, neither absolute truth nor absolute objectivity. This is so because news is by nature fragmentary, only a paragraph or two of a 24-page speech may be featured in a story. However, the search for truth must be pursued in the full awareness that, like the perfect vacuum, it will remain beyond the journalist’s grasp.
The search for truth calls for an open mind devoid of prejudices and adherence to the highest standards of journalism. Facts should be balanced in order to weigh the truth. The journalist of today has a responsibility to report facts as accurately, objectively, and disinterestedly as is humanly possible. The journalist who respects himself/herself and the journalism profession gladly accepts this responsibility. The honest, self-disciplined, well-trained reporter seeks to be a propagandist for nothing but the truth.
While it is a serious mistake to overvalue or undervalue propaganda, it is an equally serious mistake to assume that everything in the media is “propaganda’’— propaganda that is self-seeking, deceitful, or otherwise improperly motivated. The channels of communication can, of course, be used for propaganda. They can be used for “bad” propaganda and they can also be used for “good” propaganda. And they can be utilised for material that is not propaganda at all. This week provided us with two examples of how news can be turned into propaganda and incitement.
Firstly, there was a report of a looming Armageddon at the Swapo Party, where we were told that party functionaries threatened industrial action after their request for better salaries and benefits was not responded to. The “news” told all and sundry about how much Swapo owns and how much the party spent on two musicians during its 2014 national election rallies, and made commentary that did not help the reader to understand what these “poor wages” are.
No figures were mentioned to indicate by how much these party functionaries are underpaid. In short, there was no story about the salaries and benefits of Swapo functionaries but a commentary on how the rich Swapo Party is mistreating its functionaries.
Secondly, when the NBC shelved Talk of the Nation for professional reasons, in line with the requirements of having a balanced and representative panel on the show, the media latched on the “news”. Again, instead of reporting on why the show was shelved, the media went into fifth gear, accusing State House of interference; insinuating that the shelving had to do with the so-called Agenda 2017; that the presence of one panelist in the name of our former prime minister, Citizen Nahas Angula, jolted State House to cancel the show; and three names were bandied together as potential challengers to President Geingob at the 2017 congress.
In essence, commentary and conjecture took the place of news, with the aim of tarnishing the image of the Geingob Administration.
Reports of this nature impose a responsibility upon media consumers, and it is with them that the responsibility of judgment ultimately should and does lie. The media should confirm and report news as is, and weed out propaganda that isn’t news.
It is up to the media consumers to evaluate the news as presented and make their own judgment. That is the citizen’s responsibility and his/her privilege in a democratic society. News propaganda is covertly packaged as credible news, but without sufficient transparency concerning the news item’s source and the motivation behind its release.
Transparency of the source is one parameter critical to distinguish between news propaganda and pure news. We are subjected to a media culture where pity is called compassion, flattery is called love, propaganda is called knowledge, tension is called peace, gossip is called news, and auto-tune is called singing. Today, a rumour is a social cancer: it is difficult to contain and it rots the brains of the masses. However, the real danger is that so many people, including the media, find rumours enjoyable. That part causes the infection. And in such cases when a rumour is only partially made of truth, it is difficult to pinpoint exactly where the information may have gone wrong.
• Dr Charles Mubita holds a PhD in International Relations from the University of Southern California.