[current issue] [back issues] [submissions] [links] [staff] [mail us]

Media coverage of the Zimbabwe 'land crisis'


by Jo Harvey 

All Rights Reserved © Jo Harvey and Deep South
Deepsouth v.6.n.3 (Spring 2000)

 
[previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]


 
What are the reasons for such strong differences between the Britain and the United States coverage of the Zimbabwe crisis? Why did Britain's coverage heavily focus on the personal plight of the white farmers and families with such heavy sentimental rhetoric? Chomsky and Hermann tell us that in a propaganda model, "we would expect the news stories about worthy and unworthy victims to differ in quality." They further suggest that, "[w]e would anticipate the uncritical acceptance of certain premises in dealing with self and friends - such as that one's own state and leaders seek peace and democracy, oppose terrorism, and tell the truth." (p.34). Clearly Britain needs to divert attention away from the fact they are implicated in the 'Zimbabwean Land Crisis' due to compensation issues and their Imperial past with Zimbabwe. They do so by focusing the issue on the personal plight of the farmers, while also appearing as moral crusaders. They do so in the following ways.
 
 

(Post) colonial interests still remain. Britain continues to demand that Zimbabwe should hold fair and Democratic elections. Britain's colonial past heritage and the complicated issue of compensation over land reform appear to continue Colonial rhetoric that purportedly ended decades ago. Britain outwardly condemns Zimbabwe's President for the violence. What is most striking is how British Government (through press releases) continues to oppose the violence, yet does not actually take any action in the issue of land compensation or political intervention. The London Times stated that, "Tony Blair yesterday condemned what was happening as 'barbaric and disgraceful', but ruled out early action to suspend Zimbabwe from the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister gave warning in the Commons against overreacting to the 'utterly unacceptable' situation." (20 April 2000). One indeed wonders if these public condemnations were meant to hold? Furthermore the a history of Britain's barbaric Colonial past is never an issue in this "utterly unacceptable situation." 
 
 

Chomsky and Hermann argue that the media tend to choose "worthy victims" who will be featured "prominently and dramatically" in news coverage. Furthermore, they argue that these victims will be humanised and "their victimisation will receive the detail and context in the story construction that will generate reader interest and sympathetic emotion." (p.35). This is precisely the situation in the British press as we have seen with The Stevens' family stories, the Olds' and other farmers. They also state that in contrast, "unworthy victims will merit only slight detail, minimal humanisation, and little context that will excite and enrage." The war-veterans, which appear to be used as pawns by the government, are given little investigation. They are usually referred to as "so-called" war veterans and are given little airtime to state how they have lived on hard and unfertile land for years after fighting in a bloody war. They are not named or given identities but rather lumped together as one militant mass.
 
 

The United States media clearly do not take the same angle as Britain in excessively humanising 'worthy victims' or placing heavy judgement on their reports. Arguably, this is the US version of the story where little historical interest drives the news item. But could this possibly be not just lack of interest but rather their own political agenda behind the coverage? The BBC's United Nations' correspondent Mark Devonport stated in an interview that Kofi Annan and the UN considered the issue to be a bilateral affair between Zimbabwe and Britain especially in relation to the compensation issue. However, Devonport also suggested that the UN didn't want to pick a fight with Zimbabwe at that present time because the UN is involved in a peace effort in the neighbouring democratic republic of Congo and Zimbabwe is one of the governments that have soldiers involved in that conflict."(BBC World News, 19\4\2000). Devonport reported that the UN was handling the situation "cautiously".
 
 

In what then, did New Zealand cover the 'Zimbabwe Crisis'? From which perspective did New Zealand assume? Britain? US? From my analysis, I would argue that we took the British angle. In fact, all of TVNZ ONE's and TV3's 'Zimbabwe coverage featured reportage from the BBC. Our news source for our country's newspapers was the British news distributor 'Reuters'. This naturally meant we were bombarded by what I have suggested is the British "humanist" approach to the Zimbabwe story. TV3 newsanchor John Campbell for example was always fittingly stoic and sympathetic in demeanour. Moreover, the 'Zimbabwe Crisis' was placed top priority on numerous occasions. On the 19 April TV3 News placed this story first and, effectively, aired two items concurrently on the issue. They then played more BBC footage later in the programme where 'experts' debated the issue. On the 19th the 'Zimbabwe crisis' was ranked above the Philippines air disaster which was placed eighth while the Ethiopian famine coming in at a distant nineth place.
 
 

It was not, however, just a case of airing BBC coverage and the practice of prioritising the news that identifies this type of reporting as "humanist." New Zealand further produced their own items on 'Concerned Kiwis' and produced items on the countries' expatriate Zimbabweans. TV3 News aired on the 19 April 2000 an item, which introduced us to Tracey Hellman. As we watched her in a classic and cosy living room setting watching footage of Zimbabwe on television, the camera juxtaposed the image of the television with Tracey's desperately worried eyes and clasped hands. Her dialogue told of her family in Zimbabwe, especially aunts and uncles who live on farms who she was "praying for." In this same item we also met 'Shelley Grieve of Onehunga' who was organising an appeal in response to the footage she watched the night before on Maria Stevens. Bruce Short, who was given the title of 'concerned kiwi,' told us of the plight of his friends who "didn't know whether to leave the country, save what they have there, or get out."
 
 

The New Zealand Government clearly had an interest in this issue and its representation due to the fact that New Zealand is a member of the Commonwealth. John Campbell announced, "A crumb of comfort tonight for the victims of Zimbabwe's violence and their friends and families living in New Zealand. Foreign affairs minister Phil Goff said New Zealand would consider taking in refugees if the violence and intimidation continue." (TV3 News, 19\4\2000). Similar to actions taken on the recent events in Fiji and the Solomon Islands, New Zealand presented itself as caring, willing to take action, yet not willing to commit ourselves to anything. We would only 'consider.'
 
 

New Zealand's news footage incorporated a lot of New Zealand's Government officials portrayed negotiating in the International sphere. We needed to show that as part of the Commonwealth we were willing to express our views and be publicly involved. However, at the same time, we needed to go along with Britain's hegemonic policies to enable this. New Zealand Government and media appeared to engage with what Chomsky and Hermann refer to as 'mass- media sourcing'. That is, the media's need for news material and the Government's reciprocal situation worked hand in hand to manage and distribute material to one another. Chomsky and Hermann discuss how these institutions provide media organisations with press releases, organise press conferences, and photo opportunity sessions (p.22). 
 
 

In fact, a press conference and photo opportunity was aired on TV3 on the 20 April 2000 when New Zealand's Prime Minister Helen Clarke met with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a historical meeting. Naturally, after the obligatory handshakes were over, the top of their agenda included their statements on the 'Zimbabwe Crisis.' TV3 News stated they were "extremely lucky" to supposedly be allowed access to this event.
 
 

In this same news item, Helen Clarke went on to give her and her Government's strong reaction to the 'Zimbabwe Crisis.' She stated, "I think the Commonwealth has to be urging Mr Mugabe to haul in the thugs and to move to elections as quickly as possible. And we will want to contribute observers to see that the election is fair." However, after making this statement Helen Clarke had to change her view to be more in line with Britain's Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short. Short stated "well, if things are very bad inside a country, it's limiting what outside countries can do." Clarke's next statement to the press was "I think Clare Short was right in saying, in the end Zimbabweans have to sort this out, if they have an opportunity for an election they can sort it out." (TV3 News, 20\4\2000).
 
 

Balancing Bias

 

The appearance of objectivity is always the key; especially if the information received is always from the same source. The New Zealand media were aware of this and with their British media coverage produced in Britain, the New Zealand media needed to address the saturation of the humanist approach and excessive coverage of the killing of two white farmers. This was to also address the issue of the Western media supposedly being racist. Chomsky mentions "keeping the debate in perspective" (p.24), and TV3 held such a debate on the 19 April 2000 which dealt with these concerns and also managed to have the resolution predetermined.
 
 

John Campbell chaired a debate between Ravi Palat, a sociologist Senior Lecturer at Auckland University, and Chris Laidlaw, the former High Commissioner to Zimbabwe. John opened the debate by posing the question why the west was so shocked and interested in the deaths of two white farmers while the deaths of thousands in Rwanda, and the current killings in the Congo received minimal coverage. John further revealed that, until this day he "didn't even know there was a war in the Congo." (TV3 News, 19\4\2000). Ravi Palat criticised the coverage as a portrayal of "a racial event when the real issue of colonialism is about land." John at this point appeared to understand from where Palat was coming, but for those people at home who would be "utterly shocked and appalled" at what he stated, asked him to clarify that he was not condoning the violence. This effectively led the debate back to Campbell's key ideological concern, to have Palat confess what had happened to the families was appalling. Later, when Chris Laidlaw addressed the question of the media's coverage of the deaths of two white farmers, he unwittingly exposed his Eurocentric and imperialistic ideologies.6 He stated, "The world will always focus on a plight, the plight of white people no matter where they are because most of the worlds viewers are [white]." (TV3 News, 19\4\2000.)
 
 

The 'Zimbabwe Land Crisis' issue is an incredibly complex issue and I'm sure there were many political possibilities I was unable to explore. However, the small area I focused my investigation on (that of' the projection of ideologies in what it supposed to appear to be an objective medium), I found there were incredible biases and ideologies at work. The placement, management and organisation of an item in the media are an extremely powerful tool and propaganda model. Sorlin was correct to say that, "the media has the powerful ability to shape public attitude" (Sorlin, P, 103). Perhaps more importantly and disturbing is, as Said argues, "Imperialism still casts a shadow over our time" (Said, 9).  
 
 

[previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 ]
 


6 Chris Laidlaw was the New Zealand High Commissioner to Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia from 1986-1989.