PROPAGANDIST and anti-Zimbabwean and anti-African media will never recover from its role as Chief Sycophant for Western governments after the signing of the unity agreement in Zimbabwe.
Journalists who demanded that President Robert Mugabe be removed from office with the help of Western governments are now left in the cold and their role as apologists and propagandists for the West’s regime change agenda in Zimbabwe has hit a brickwall.
The same journalists today fight hard to discredit the unity deal signed by President Robert Mugabe, PM Morgan Tsvangirai and Deputy PM Arthur Mutambara by nitpicking on issues that are not important in an effort to defend to the hilt Western attempts at regime change.
Some of these journalists who have completely lost their identity and their sense of patriotism, ruined Zimbabwe's reputation, and lost forever the hearts and minds of the Zimbabwean people.
No decent or sensible person can have confidence in journalists who take partisanship to such extreme lengths as to defy their own existence.
There is plenty of room in journalism for arguments over issues and policies. But so many solid years of propaganda is beyond the pale.
Some of these journalists not only lied through their teeth, but also sought to destroy everyone who uttered a word against the West, on behalf of their Western employers (financiers).
Any government should regard practising journalism without accreditation as a serious offense. Some reports by misguided journalists have bordered on treason and many journalists have been left with egg in face by the recent unity deal, as their predictions of the end of a Mugabe era were thrown on cold water.
Because they have failed to give the public real information, as contrasted with Western propaganda, some of these journalists have quickly shifted positions to save their skin, or denounced the deal as justification for previous positions.
Many of them should now ask themselves – and those who have not joined in supporting the unity deal – why the mighty Western apparatus and its legions of Zimbabwean propagandists and sycophants feel so threatened by a few expressions of unity, a few facts, and simple ethical statements from Zimbabwe’s new leaders. Could it be that they know that their edifice of lies will come crashing down if Africans are allowed to chart their own path and define their own destiny?
Zimbabwe’s media will blow its great chance to help in rebuilding the country and thus lose credibility by not supporting African (Zimbabwean) solutions to African (Zimbabwean) problems. Instead, they will remain political partisans who fight against truth. “Justify regime change and Western points of view at all costs” is their operative rule.
The function of a journalist is to speak truth to power and to hold accountable those with power, not to twist the truth and seek government (leadership) change. Abandoning this role is what our current crop of journalists and wannabe-journalists have done acting as Chief Sycophant for Western governments.
ADVERTISEMENT
ARTICLE ATTACHMENTS
READER OPINIONS
Mabhunu Muchapera • mabhunumuchapera2008@yahoo.com Subject: Phillip is right Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:03:47 • Phillip is right. I am a Zimbabwean living in Zimbabwe. Even though i voted for MDC it is true that the media coverage of zimbabwe was biased. The violence talked about was not country-wide. It was mainly in parts of Mtoko, Chipinge but not as reported. Mugabe's speeches were so exaggerated that you would immediately notice the political affiliation of the journalist. Yes, Mugabe is too old to be still ruling but whose problem is it? Ask Madhuku and the NCA for the answer. Who came up with the 50 1 rule, again ask Madhuku. If you bring a case against Mugabe, i tell you, u will run out of facts if u overrely on the newspaper articles. They did not want change, just like the people who are making money in the deteriorating economic environment.
Mhofeti yemukoneti • pasizw@yahoo.co.uk Subject: Pro-Western Journalists Tue, 16 Sep 2008 16:31:05 • I think the point that Philip is making is a valid one because of my understanding of what pro something is all about. One would assume that when it comes to interests of Zimbabwe and any other country, the normal default position is that of his country. It's not about wrong or right as some of us would want to argue that they stand for the truth, you can try convincing the Americans or the British about this. In an incident regretful or shameful you can rest assured that the overwhelming opinion of journalists is always pro American or British. They may not necessarily be on the right side of things but they report an unfortunate incident as regretable, shameful and something to draw important lessons from and never to be allowed to happen. So my point is I acknowledge that we are struck with awe when it comes to western way of doing things BUT our journalists, surely, must not duplicate the western ones but stand for the decent and lawful side that every country has. That means truth can be reported responsibly without provoking readers or hearers to take sides on your say so not the facts of the matter.
DREADS • na. Subject: MISREADING THE EVIDENCE. Tue, 16 Sep 2008 13:00:26 • I THINK THE BOOING WAS NOT AN EMBARRESSMENT TO THE VISITING HEADS OF STATE - IT WAS EVIDENCE TO THEM THAT WE NOW HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN THE NEW ZIMBABWE!
Omuhle • n/a Subject: n/a Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:37:21 • Phillip, the very same arguments you raised cna be said about the pro-Mugabe/ZANU PF media. How can you not see there are two sides to every coin. To use a few examples - in your own words:
No decent or sensible person can have confidence in journalists who take partisanship to such extreme lengths as to defy their own existence. Now did you stop to consider state journalists who denied their very own grandmothers had been killed by the youth militia andwar vets. Denying their own existence as well in the process.
What about - Some of these journalists not only lied through their teeth, but also sought to destroy everyone who uttered a word against the West, on behalf of their Western employers (financiers) - we also had stat emedia lying to us before the elections that Mugabe would get a certain percentage, that there was no violence, that white farmers were on the borders waiting to re-enter and take their farms.We also had other journalists attacked and denied their freedom because they printed stories that didn't toe the line.
I could go on forever but I'm not here to discredit your story or approve it. My point is shouldn't we stop the trend of proving the side we support in all this is right and the other is wrong? If they can work together and pull the country out of the quagmirem why can't the media?
I see you are trying to squeeze good points out of this agreement for your side and the one good point you seem to have latched onto (infact all state and zanu pf media has) is that Mugabe is still president therefore the west have failed in removing him from power. Well I won't argue with this but I can only hope you guys see this development as bringing an end to the problems in our country. Clearly Mugabe who you so want to remain in power couldn't help us out of the situation, despite having friends like Ngueso, dos Santos and Ahmadinejad with loads of fuel to give us, the Chinese with their shipments of weapons and others. We still endured years of hardships and no end in sight to these.
Do not look to prove you won the fight when all around you there are people counting their losses in human life and resources. We should now unite for a single purpose and if you continue on this route, sooner or later the unity will collapse. Show some faith and if you are really the patriot you claim to be, put your journalistic weight behind this initiative and help out.
CLARABELLA, MANCHESTER • na Subject: CALL IT A WRAP PLEASE Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:03:03 • Can Gerry Jackson now call it a wrap and bow out gracefully, please.
there must be more more serious business to attend to than her destabilizing our country, a country she was never born in.
Is it true that she was deported from Zimbabwe?
Calvin Gumede • calvin80@walla.com Subject: Re: Mugabe ruined agreement with poorly-prepared speech Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:33:13 • i think Robert Mugabe ruined the unity agreement himself. how does one explain his version of democracy and booing that ensued. this was an embarrassment to the African leaders that were present and it shows he has no genuine claim to the throne.
samas • n/a Subject: n/a Tue, 16 Sep 2008 07:00:57 • Mugabe is on his way out. If you dont read between the lines you are partisan. Mugabe is going to be sidelined from all international functions, forums etc. Mugabe is too old to continue his old ways of clinging to power.
SUBMITYOUROPINION
Please make sure you fill in all sections for your post to be submitted. Use n/a if not submitting details. The submission code below is case-sensitive. Also make sure you get confirmation that your comment has been submitted.
