Zim Guardian is Zanu PF propaganda tool

DEAR ITAYI GARANDE—I am extremely concerned that you purport to run a balanced publication, but of late I have noticed that you are only printing anti-MDC articles which makes me believe that you are working in cohorts with the government of Zimbabwe to discredit the opposition. If true, this would be very regrettable as I feel you are one of the most credible and refreshing sources of information.

For instance, yesterday you had three opinion pieces that were critical of the MDC and their moves, but none criticising the ruling Zanu PF party and the violence they have perpetrated in the country.

Although I commend you for balancing the stories themselves, I notice that there are stories that you have effectively excluded from reporting; like the death of MDC activist Tabitha Marume, who was shot and killed last week.

This story, in my opinion, should have made it to your ‘paper’ if you were a serious about bringing change to Zimbabwe. The scant attention you gave to the ‘Ship of Shame’ was also very noticeable.

It is sad that the only independent media we have is the same media that is perpetuating the existence of the dictatorship in Zimbabwe. How anyone can think Zanu PF is a relevant party today is beyond belief.

I think as an editor, you have a responsibility to make sure that the news reaches the people, news that is not contaminated by your sentiments and your own opinions about what is going on back home.

I can bet you will not respond to my email. You have not published comments I have posted on the articles because they have been supportive of the MDC, or anti-Zanu PF. But, in case your guilt conscience takes over, please publish publicly for the benefit of all your readers whom I suspect, by now, are all Zanu PF apologists.

Many thanks

Revesai Matambanadzo

Editor responds:

Firstly, let me say that I was taken aback when you decided to address your email to me, as an individual, rather than in my capacity as the editor of The Zimbabwe Guardian. Nonetheless I will attempt to respond to your sentiments—as an editor.

As you asked me to respond using this medium, regrettable as it is, I shall do so.

There so many things you mention in your email, I do not know where to start.

1. You say that we print ‘anti-MDC articles’. I do not know exactly what you mean, but if you are talking about people’s opinions, we have no control of that. What happens is that if you print more anti-MDC opinions in one day, people think you are anti-MDC and they start sending anti-MDC articles and before you know it, that’s all you receive.

2. You also say that we did not report the story of “MDC activist Tabitha Marume, who was shot and killed last week.” I can tell you that we only report news that we can verify, that is not to say we doubt the news. I have seen many websites that break the law everyday by publishing material that is unverifiable and potentially breaks the law.

As you can imagine, the editorial team is based in London, U.K., so we can’t always verify the information we receive. Can you imagine if we published a story that your mother had been killed by Zanu PF thugs and days later it turns out to be untrue? We have a duty of care to our readers, and a legal responsibility to report facts, not falsehoods.

I have seen many Zimbabwean online publications that “get away with murder”. The notion that online publications are immune from prosecution is not true anymore as many jurisdictions include internet law into their systems. What might be obvious to everyone might not be so obvious legally. There have been successful indictments for online slander in various jurisdictions across the world.

The Zanu PF government could easily start filing all these allegations that are being made against them and many individuals could find themselves charged with various offences under various sections of the Zimbabwean law on return back home. For all we know, they might be doing that as we speak.

I read recently on one website that there are groups in Zimbabwe that are documenting allegations of murder committed by ‘Zanu PF thugs’. But, I also thought the flipside was true, Zanu PF might be documenting their own evidence, which includes many people who are perpetuating and fomenting violence through hate literature and false reporting. There are no givens at law and many individuals might become answerable for what seemed like a simple call for ‘the death of President Mugabe’.

3. You can’t blame the Zimbabwe Guardian for not reporting stories that we do not have facts for. An example is the Gift Tandare story last year—which we reported—but which was used by many people as a pretext, unfortunately, to further their own interests.

MDC said they were attending a ‘peaceful prayer meeting’ and the police pounced on them and shot Tandare. We know Tandare was killed but the circumstances—from a reporting, or legal, point of view—are not so clear. We have to weigh the evidence and have enough facts to report accurately. The MDC said they were attending a prayer meeting. They had no history—in their ten years of existence—of organising a prayer meeting. Even after that event, they never organised another prayer meeting. As an editor, who is not in Zimbabwe, reporting such a story is a huge challenge because of its sensitivity. We have to respect the dead and their surviving families.

Consider the following article titles to have an idea of what I mean:

‘Real War vets disgusted by post election violence’. — Who are the real war vets, and who decides that? Will this not offend other people excluded from this list, who fought in the war?

‘Proof that the MDC won the presidential poll’ — Who provides that proof? How about irregularities, human errors, etc?

‘Guide to Mugabe’s operational campaigns’ — What are operational campaigns? Who has provided that guide?

‘Snipers assembled to snuff out MDC officials’ — Who knows they are snipers and who provides that information? How authentic is it?

‘Zanu pays thugs to kill MDC officials’ — Is it Zanu, Zanu (Ndonga) or Zanu (PF)? Who are the thugs? Which officials are to be killed? Is this fact or opinion?

This is just a handful of examples of opinions passed off as fact and they create unnecessary anxiety in our community and border on slander and could lead to possible indictments. Passing off opinion as fact is not responsible.

4. Because of the difficulties of verifying the authenticity of stories we tend to allow more opinions as they do not depend on fact, but are nevertheless, useful in organising society and some of them carry useful pointers.

As a society—we have been obsessed with anti-Zanu PF propaganda—to a point where we lose our minds. This has fomented hatred of the party, which is a grave danger to the social fabric of Zimbabwe. Arguments that Zanu PF itself is like that are inexcusable. The law is non-discriminatory — one who murders a murderer is a murderer.

If 43 per cent of the population supported President Mugabe at the elections, and half of the House of Assembly belongs to Zanu PF, aren’t they still relevant in Zimbabwe? Should we then not allow half of the Zimbabwean population the right to express themselves? These are hard questions, which will make one unpopular, but should be addressed, nevertheless if our country is to move forward.

I hope more news outlets and blogs come out that are unashamed to call themselves pro-Zimbabwean—without being party political. Then one day maybe people will get the real picture on events, instead of being fed a steady diet of distortions and hidden-agenda type news.

Itayi Garande

Editor—The Zimbabwe Guardian