In what other ways
did the British demonstrate their imperialistic and ideological position
on the "Zimbabwe crisis" in the media? How did they manage and organise
this news-event while claiming objectivity? Both Pierre Bourdieu and Pierre
Sorlin stress to the importance of the news presenters. Sorlin shows how
news presenters must "embody a particular ideological presence that does
not mess with the sense of truth" and represent "specific values" (Sorlin,
131). The BBC presenters all successfully played their specific values.
Reporters such as Ben Brown at the scene of the farms nodded his head in
sympathy with the farmers and appeared appropriately grave in sentiment.
Once back to the studio anchor Clarence Mitchell assumed the appropriate
facial expression as the latest developments dictated a serious response.
Although this news-media
theatricality is worthy of an Academy Award, Chomsky and Hermann state
that "at all costs, the media needs to appear objective."5
It is precisely these theatrics that are culturally accepted as 'objective'.
The greatest of the objective - the one who is apparently the least
biased is the "expert." This key figure is the trained specialist who will
purportedly "present the truth at hand." Chomsky and Hermann argue that
"the mass-media themselves also provide 'experts' who regularly echo the
official view." (p.24). If we follow Chomsky and Hermann these experts
are those who are trained with a particular ideology. For example, On the
19 April 2000, TV3 News aired BBC footage of a report where a 'Dr
Deborah Potts' ("Zimbabwe Expert") was filmed in her office where she explained
the situation to us non-experts at home. She was on hand to make sure we
understood "Mugabe is an astute politician; he has known all along that
one of the things that his constituency wants, his electorate wants, and
let's remember most of them are rural peasants, they want more land". She
appeared authoritative surrounded by official folders and a computer situated
in her 'learned environment.'
During the week of my analysis
(17 April 2000), Britain's television coverage of the 'Zimbabwe crisis'
led news programming. From this coverage I observed that from the period
the 18 -21 April, the Zimbabwe story was relegated to a secondary
when stock market concerns led the news. Aside from this short divertissement,
the 'Zimbabwe crisis' led the news hour and was given extremely in-depth
coverage which included usually two items that usually followed in sequence:
1) Incorporation
of footage from the Independence struggle, and
2) a general history
lesson on the issue.
The occupations of
farms and the death of two white farmers were consistently deemed more
important in British coverage than, say, news items such as the Philippines
aeroplane crash, which left all 131 passengers and crew dead. This story
rated second on 19 April to 'the Zimbabwe crisis' on Sky News, while
it ranked third after Zimbabwe and the Elian Gonzales case on BBC World
News 20 April. The Zimbabwe news event was placed above such items
as 'the Ethiopian Famine crisis, Mexico droughts, Kosovo refugees on trial,
and the release of Lebanese prisoners by Israel.
How did the United
States media present their coverage of 'The Zimbabwe crisis'? Were there
major differences in their styles of reporting and placement of coverage?
I found the answer to both of these questions as yes. The United States
television media reports accessed during my analysis (17-19 April) did
not dwell upon the personal traumas of the war veteran victims as much
as the British press. They were extremely economical in their language
and the rhetoric did not drip in sentiment. The visuals in the US reports
did not use camera zooms to linger on David Stevens' widow's children who
were presented as innocently playing in the BBC footage. CBS reporter,
Tom Fenton's CBS story on the farmer's murders did not even merit mention
of the farmers' names.
Fenton's opening
dialogue did not project heavy humanist sentiment or blow by blow accounts
of their injuries. Rather he stated factually, "This white- owned cattle
farm was burnt to the ground this morning." He went on to explain, "Its
owner fought off his black attackers for two hours but was shot in both
legs and then in the head. He's the second white farmer to be murdered
this week; the first was beaten to death and left on a lonely back road.
His wife couldn't believe it had happened." (CBS News, 19\4\2000).
This item is heartless
in comparison to report of the same event by Britain's Sky News
Reporter James Forlong. He stated sadly, "But when they came (the war veterans)
for Martin Olds, this was not to occupy his property, this was to cause
murder and mayhem. The house was set ablaze while he was still inside.
Bullet holes in the window bare witness to the ferocity of the attack on
the building and its desperate occupant." (Sky News, 19\4\2000).
The editorial placement
of 'The Zimbabwe Crisis' news item was the most apparent difference between
Britain and the United States coverage. While Britain's media clearly situated
this story as top priority, CNN for example placed the story in eighth
place (18 April). Stories deemed more important in US news reports were
the stock market concerns, anti-capitalist protestors in Washington, a
Bolivian state of emergency, the Elian Gonzales case, and even an item
on computer chip dangers. On the 19 April CBS News situated 'the
crisis' in eighth place. Stories on Global Warming, storms on the US West
coast, the stock market, and, once again, Elian Gonzales took priority.
