Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
IN NEWSROOMS IN SWAZILAND
ABSTRACT
The research offers both quantitative and qualitative evidence to support its
conclusions.
The Swazi monarchy and the poor state of the Swazi economy are identified
as the main causes of censorship in Swaziland.
INTRODUCTION
In pursuit of this vision, MISA Swaziland seeks to advocate against any form
of censorship in newsrooms in Swaziland. Therefore, the objectives of this
research are to:
It is hoped that the findings of the research will help MISA Swaziland chapter
to develop an effective strategy against any form of newsroom censorship.
An interview format and questionnaire were used in the research. These had
two main objectives. One was to try to quantify how much (if any) censorship
was taking place in the media and Swaziland. The other was more qualitative.
If censorship existed the research wanted to be able to collect real examples
of what media practitioners identify as censorship.
Censorship
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of material which may be
considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by someone
outside of your organisation (i.e. imposed by a censor).
Self-censorship
Self-censorship is the act of censoring one’s own work out of fear or
deference to the sensibilities of others (e.g. advertisers, government, media
owners) without an authority directly pressuring one to do so.
Section three: outlines the methods used in the gathering of information. The
researcher used structured interviews with 16 media practitioners and in this
way generated both quantitative data and information about personal
experiences of censorship.
Section four: offers the data collected. It proves to the satisfaction of the
researcher that there is censorship in Swaziland and that it is widespread.
Section six: concludes the report and contends that the monarchy and the
financial poverty of Swaziland are the two main causes of censorship in
Swaziland.
5
For those unfamiliar with the media landscape in Swaziland, this section gives
a brief overview. Swaziland is a small, relatively poor country, and it follows
that the media industry is also small and lacking in finances.
There are two free-to-air television stations in Swaziland, the Swazi TV and
Channel Swazi. Swazi TV is the state broadcaster and still dominates
airwaves. Two acts of parliament have resulted in a monopoly by state owned
radio and television. Broadcast licensing is the prerogative of Swaziland Posts
and Telecommunications, which has the sole authority to issue licenses.
Swazi TV has one channel with multiple national repeaters. The government
allowed Channel Swazi, a pro-establishment medium, to begin operating
domestically in 2001.
King Mswati III supported Channel S, to show that his regime was democratic
and respected human rights, but its offices were raided by police after it
screened a report deemed too critical of the King. Any hint of independence at
Channel S was immediately reined in by the authorities.
There are two principal players in the newspaper sector that have been in
control for the past 35 years. The first is the Loffler family based in Namibia
that owns African Echo, the holding company of the Times of Swaziland
(published weekdays), Swazi News (published Saturday) and the Times
Sunday. These newspapers, the first of which, the Times, was established in
1897, are the only major news sources in the kingdom free of government
control.
The second major player is the corporation Tibiyo Taka Ngwane, which is
controlled by the Swazi Royal Family and owns the Observer Media Group,
which publishes the Swazi Observer and its companion, the Weekend
Observer.
The media are not free in Swaziland and dissenting journalists face
harassment if they try to report on matters deemed unacceptable by ruling
elites in the kingdom. There are a number of cases in the past when
newspapers and magazines have been closed down for transgressing these
rules. Individual journalists have also lost their jobs or have had their careers
stunted for showing dissent.
There is not enough space in this present research report to detail the many
cases of censorship that have taken place in recent years, but to give an
insight into the problem, here are some examples from the year 2007, as
published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa in So This is Democracy
2007? The State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa.
The Swazi Parliament increased the existing fines on journalists and media
houses who published articles deemed to be critical of or offending against
Parliament or MPs. MISA Swaziland called these measures blatant
discrimination ‘likely to scare the already docile Swazi press which cannot
freely report on issues due to a litany of restrictions, laws and constant
intimidation from authorities.’
The Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health
workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories that had
been published highlighting the impact in the kingdom of a critical drug
shortage.
King Mswat III’s chief executive officer Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a
press conference from asking the King questions relating to the recently-
formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi
establishment.
7
Practitioners within the media industry were asked to volunteer their time to
take part in the research but some declined. The sample, therefore, is self-
selected. Interviews took place during April 2008.
Of the total 16 respondents, 15 were from the print media and one was a
former radio journalist. It is perhaps not surprising that those who declined to
be interviewed in a research project about censorship were mainly from the
state-controlled broadcasting sector in Swaziland.
One incident during the research process sheds some light on state
broadcasting in Swaziland. One senior journalist at state-controlled SBIS
radio agreed to meet with the researcher but then declined to be interviewed.
The journalist said permission would need to be sought from the management
of the radio station before an interview would be forthcoming. Even though the
interview was seeking the personal experiences of those who were being
questioned, and not statements on behalf of the media organisation, the
journalist felt unable to take part without the expressed permission of seniors.
The researcher was directed to also seek the permission of the Minister of
Public Services and Information before making further requests of SBIS. The
researcher declined the invitation and subsequently nobody from SBIS was
interviewed. This encounter speaks volumes about the state of censorship at
SBIS.
Of the 16 respondents, 11 had the rank of news editor or above, four were
reporters and one was a self-described ‘media activist.’
It is unfortunate that of the 16 respondents, only one was a woman. This does
not reflect the general gender balance within the Swazi media, which is closer
to a ratio of 50:50, especially among junior ranks.
The majority of those taking part had already achieved lengthy careers in
Swazi journalism and had experience working at one or more media houses.
All interviews were recorded on the understanding that once the interview was
transcribed the recording would be wiped.
9
This section gives the responses to these questions in four tables of data.
This is essentially a ‘quantitative’ approach to try to measure how often
imposed censorship or self-censorship is (or is not) taking place.
TABLE 1
In Table 1 we can see that in all questions a half or more than a half of the
respondents indicated knowledge of censorship or self-censorship.
A total of half the respondents (8) said they ‘often’ toned down or avoided
certain angles.
TABLE 2 (Self-censorship)
Of the ten scenarios offered the following scored higher in the ‘never’ column
than in the ‘often’ and ‘sometimes’ columns combined. This suggests that
these categories are far less important factors in self-censorship.
11
Table 3 rearranges the results of Table 2 as a log table to see which of the
reasons offered were more likely to result in self-censorship. Where there is a
tie between the reasons the reason with the more respondents answering
‘often’ is placed higher.
TABLE 3 (Self-censorship)
Category Number
Of
n = 16 respondents
(v) Fear of offending monarchy 16
(i) Fear of offending/damaging advertisers 15
(iii) Fear of libel suits 14
(ii) Need to protect financial interests of 11
news organisation
(x) Fear of alienating a source(s) 11
(vi) Fear of breaking cultural taboos 10
(viii) Fear of offending friends/associates 8
of owners and / or editors
Of this list of 11 groups only four scored more in the ‘often’ and sometimes’
column combined than the ‘never’ column.
12
The results in Table 4 confirm that the main causes of imposed censorship
are the monarchy and advertisers.
Table 4 also shows that media owners / parent companies try to influence
decisions. In the interview with respondents it emerged that the attempts at
influence might not be censorship as such, but a more general involvement in
day-to-day decision making at the media houses. Owners might be consulted
(either at their own insistence or at the editor’s initiative) when there was a
story being considered for publication that might be deemed to be problematic
in some way.
The names of two individual business people were given to the researcher as
people who did on occasion try to influence the newspapers. One has a very
high reputation as a source of news stories and journalists shy away from
reporting bad things about him. Another businessperson claims to be close to
other influential people in Swazi society who might be able to cause damage
to the newspaper if bad reports are published.
Fear of monarchy and the power it has over the kingdom and media houses
within it is by far the main cause of censorship in Swaziland. This is both
censorship imposed by King Mswati III (Table 4) and self-censorship (Tables
2 and 3). The King has threatened to close down titles that offend him and in
recent history has done exactly that. There are also high levels of self-
censorship around the King and the Queen Mother, since editors, aware of
threats made in the past by the King, do not want to get themselves into
trouble. Because of their ownership structure, the Swazi Observer and its
companion title, Weekend Observer, are generally accepted to be ‘the King’s
newspapers’.
13
The fear of libel suits does not always relate directly to censorship issues.
Respondents spoke about the way that people, aggrieved by what they have
read about themselves in the newspapers, will run to lawyers to threaten legal
action. Often, they do this to try to intimidate media houses to stop writing
about them. Respondents commented about the need to reform the legal
system in Swaziland and discourage ‘ambulance chasing’ lawyers from trying
to get income from bogus libel actions.
Many respondents confused the need to protect the financial interests of their
news organisations with a fear of damaging advertisers. When questioned
closely on their reasons for answering this category, most respondents
confirmed that they had not been pressured in the past to drop stories or tone
down angles because of a need to protect the financial interests of their news
organisations.
Most respondents said they did not worry about breaking cultural taboos,
except when the taboo concerned the activities of the monarchy, for example
during the annual Reed Dance ceremony or Incwala. It is this link to the
monarchy that makes respondents choose the ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ option
when answering this category.
This section presents some of the comments respondents made during the
interview. It is intended to put some ‘flesh’ onto the bare bones of the
quantitative analysis presented in section four. The interview was intended to
draw out from respondents some real examples of imposed censorship and
self-censorship in Swazi media houses. During the interviews, respondents
were constantly reminded to give only evidence about matters that they
personally knew about and not to offer hearsay evidence.
This section has been divided into sub sections, which follow closely the
questions used in Table 1 and Table 2.
There are varied experiences of this. Most examples concerned the King, but
there were also examples that centred around happenings at large
companies.
There seemed to be general agreement that all media houses had procedures
in place for decisions about what could and could not be published to be
made. The editor usually makes the decision, supported if circumstances
demand, by the editorial board and / or chief officer or publisher.
There was less agreement with state-owned media, where government could
have an input. The decision making process in such circumstances is less
transparent. In such media houses self-censorship by senior and junior
journalists may be more prevalent (journalists learn early in their careers what
will and what will not be acceptable within their news organisations).
Self-censorship by reporters
There were various experiences here. Senior editorial staff said this never
happened. The procedure would be that reporters would tell their editor what
stories they were working on and the editors would decide whether to pursue
them or not.
Some reporters detected written and unwritten editorial policies about what
would and would not be published. Some reporters do not write stories they
believe would not be in line with editorial policy.
Stories that editors feel have the potential to incite readers are toned down.
Comments that suggest ‘down with the monarchy’ are removed from stories.
Other stories that are toned down include ones about how ‘fed up’ Swazi
people are with conditions in Swaziland.
One respondent believed ‘we would have civil strife by now’ if such stories
were not censored.
Stories containing comparisons between the lavish lifestyles of the King and
ordinary people (or more generally the rich and the poor) in Swaziland are
also censored. These might include references to the King having ‘too many
luxury cars’.
Some toning down also takes place with other stories about royalty. One
respondent recalled that a story about members of royalty seen out shopping
was submitted to a newspaper. It contained comments from shop assistants
about what was purchased. These were removed.
Monarchy
One respondent said, ‘The biggest problem in Swazi journalism is the King –
who everybody tries to avoid.’
One problem identified by a respondent was the rule that ‘you don’t criticise
the King’. This led people to try to extend this to say you cannot criticise a
cabinet minister, because the King appoints him and to criticise a cabinet
16
minister, ‘indirectly you criticise the King’ for making a bad appointment.
According to the respondent, ‘It took a long time before media houses decided
it doesn’t work like that.’
Orders to media houses sometimes come directly from the King (rather than
from someone on behalf of the King). It would seem that these summons are
not made consistently across the media. The Times group seems to have
been called more often than the Observer.
Many respondents referred to an incident in March 2007 when King Mswati III
ordered the Times Sunday to publish an apology for publishing an article
sourced from Norway that said the King was partly responsible for
Swaziland’s economic ills. The King also demanded that the features editor of
the Times Sunday be dismissed for allowing the report to be published. The
King also said that the newspaper must never again refer to him as a ‘dictator’
(even though the report did not use this word). The King said if his demands
were not met he would close down the Times Sunday and the other
newspapers published by its owner.
Another example, generally known in the media industry and cited by some
respondents, concerned the King’s first daughter (who was of adult age) who
willingly gave a media interview that the King did not like. The King
summoned journalists to see him and demanded to hear a recording of the
interview as proof that the interview really did take place. The King then told
the media that they would not be allowed to interview her again without the
King’s expressed permission.
Swazi media have interpreted this dictate to mean that they may not interview
any of the King’s children.
Another example cited was a report about one of the King’s wives going to
Matsapha airport to see off her daughter who was going on a trip. The King
was ‘livid’ when the report appeared and made his feelings known to the
media. He said the report had embarrassed him.
According to one respondent, the problem the media face now is what do they
do the next time the Queen is seen in public? If they report it, the King might
be offended and give them trouble. ‘So we don’t, we don’t want trouble.’
17
There are some areas about the royal family that are not covered by
newspapers, either because of direct censorship (i.e. King Mswati III has said
they must not) or through self-censorship (media houses fear the
consequences of upsetting the King).
One topic cited by respondents as being off limit was the national budget
where it relates to the royal expenditure.
King Mswati III in effect owns the Observer and Weekend Observer
newspapers and there is ‘an extra sensitivity’ at these newspapers when
reporting about the King and royalty. It is generally accepted throughout
Swazi media that the Observer is ‘the King’s newspaper’.
The person who at any time holds the position of ‘chief editor’ of the Observer
group is the person who would tackle royal assignments.
The Observer would also try to ‘correct the misconception’ that the King had a
lavish lifestyle.
A summary of respondents’ views in this area suggests that the Observer will
not report things that put the King and the Queen Mother in a ‘bad light’ or
publish something that ‘ridicules’ them. Among topics that will not be
published are reports of the activities of political ‘progressives’ and the things
they say during their demonstrations. The Observer might report that there
had been a rally and it might say police broke it up, but it would not report
details of the purpose of the demonstration. The Observer also shies away
from using the term ‘the ruling class’ in stories, unless readers confused the
term to mean ‘the King’.
The Observer will not publish stories that embarrass the King. One example
cited by many respondents was a car crash the King was involved in. The
story was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland, on 2 April
2008, but not published at all in the Observer. It was thought that publishing
the report would offend His Majesty.
The Observer will not report on the issue of polygamy as this may be
interpreted as a criticism of the King (who has 13 wives).
The Observer would not give advance reports of the King’s activities, for
example, a trip abroad, unless the King’s office had officially announced it. To
publish information known to the newspaper, but not officially announced by
the King, would be deemed ‘disrespectful’ to the King.
18
Away from the Observer, arguments sometimes take place within media
houses about how far they can go when reporting about the King. Caution
usually wins. Some journalists say they would prefer to see how far they can
go and ‘take a chance’.
Although media houses will keep stories about advertisers out of the media
there is a limit to what they will not report. For example, one respondent said
they would publish a story if a chief officer of an advertiser were accused of
rape.
There was a minority view that advertisers did not cause problems for media
houses because they understood that newspapers had a duty to publish.
Advertisers were satisfied if the media house gave the advertiser a platform to
give its side of the story.
Libel
The great time delay in getting cases to court could intimidate media houses.
One respondent said a case could take up to two years before it went to court.
Another said that lawyers, acting like ‘ambulance chasers’, tried to keep a
case going as long as they could. This guaranteed the lawyer an income,
when lawyers had very few other opportunities to earn.
Media houses sometimes settled cases, even those where they believed they
had not committed a libel, for fear of the huge costs involved. Libel insurance
to protect media houses was becoming prohibitively expensive in a climate
where claims for libel could be as high as E3 million.
This fear of the high cost if a case was lost has led to some stories being
dropped or angles in stories being toned down.
Media houses often settled out of court to avoid the protracted hassle and
possible costs of pursuing a case to court. One respondent said settling out of
court was a dangerous move for media houses. ‘Once you settle, you open
the floodgates for everybody else.’
Another respondent said, ‘Settling for fear of going to court has reduced the
confidence of journalists and lowers the standards of journalism’. This led
newspapers to only go for soft targets (people who could not sue) and to
leave larger, more important, targets alone.
Sources
The media protect their own sources by not publishing harmful stories about
them, but this protection is not total. Some respondents revealed that they
would not publish the story in their own newspaper, but would pass it on to
another newspaper in the same media house, for them to follow up.
When a regular source wants to keep something out of the media, a certain
amount of negotiation takes place. There were a number of examples given
20
Sources often get their way, and many respondents revealed that they were
given ‘better’ stories in exchange.
Cultural traditions are said to be very important in Swaziland and there exists
a duality in the legal system between constitutional law and cultural and
traditional law.
Despite the apparent importance of culture, most respondents said that they
did not allow traditional leaders to interfere with the media’s work.
Some respondents said that there are no real cultural traditions in Swaziland.
‘We don’t respect that cultural leaders are sincere,’ one respondent said.
Other comments included, ‘To Hell with culture – nobody has authority to
challenge us.’ ‘Nobody’s practising culture in our country any more.’ ‘Women
in the villages are only doing it for survival, they don’t really give a damn.’ ‘I’m
here to break cultural taboos.’
The only area in which culture was respected by the media, concerned the
King. There are a number of things that culture dictates cannot be reported
about annual ceremonies concerning the King (e.g. the Reed Dance and
Incwala) and the media (reluctantly, according to respondents) censored
themselves. It was clear from respondents that there were many stories from
the Reed Dance and Incwala that were known to the media, that they would
like to publish, but did not, for fear of the consequences from the King.
Prime Minister
The Prime Minister tries to bully the media from time to time. ‘He gets to bully
us a lot,’ one respondent said. He will call editors and publishers and make
threats about stories that have been published or ones that he knows are
about to be published.
Swaziland remains a deferential society and there are still some ‘no go’ areas
for the media when it comes to government. It is considered disrespectful, for
example, to draw a cartoon of the Prime Minister. This limits the possibility to
21
Cabinet Ministers
Cabinet ministers tried to do bully journalists in the past, but it is believed by
journalists that this happens a lot less these days. One reason for this is
thought to be that Swazi society is small and senior journalists will have
known present day government ministers when both the journalist and the
minister were younger. This means that the journalists are not in awe of the
ministers
Members of Parliament
The media houses do not take notice of members of parliament. The
suggestion that media houses might be afraid of MPs elicited derisive laughter
from a number of respondents. ‘We can write anything and everything,’ one
respondent said.
Some MPs try to influence the media by befriending journalists and giving
them money or other ‘freebies’. By buying influence this way, the MP expects
that the journalists will not write anything bad about them in the future.
The main types of story that are avoided are those that touch on the
monarchy. In Swaziland many of the royal family’s activities must not be
reported. If a journalist transcends what is permissible there is a fear that an
order may come down from a ‘faceless’ person ordering the dismissal of the
journalist.
22
One respondent, echoing the example of the Times Sunday, said that
management can ‘sacrifice’ a journalist to keep the media house out of
trouble. ‘You always have that at the back of your mind.’
Some politicians will refuse to speak to journalists because they do not like
previous stories that have been published.
One method politicians use to get back at print journalists who they feel have
offended them is to use the airwaves of state-controlled radio, SBIS. It is
common for politicians to be given airtime to criticise the journalists who have
written about them in the newspapers. The ‘offending’ journalists are not
invited onto the radio station to give their version of events.
23
This research report had three objectives. The primary objective was to
establish if censorship existed in newsrooms. If it was found that censorship
did indeed exist, two secondary objectives were set. The first was to establish
the scale of censorship prevailing. The second was to identify the forms of
censorship prevailing and its possible causes.
Table 3 is a log table that attempts to rank each of these areas by importance.
We should be cautious about being too ‘reductionist’ in this analysis. Not too
much should be read into the suggestion that the monarchy ‘scored’ one point
more than advertisers and advertisers one more than a fear of libel suits. The
manner in which the information was gathered and the thought processes
involved in answering the questions, suggests to the researcher that positions
in this log table might not be stable and that a similar research undertaken
(even with the same participants) sometime in the future might result in
slightly different log positions for some categories.
What the research can say with some confidence is that when taken as a
whole the seven categories that make up Table 3 collectively give an accurate
picture of the state of newsroom censorship in Swaziland. So should we
attempt to use the analysis in this research to inform ourselves about how to
tackle censorship we should not be sidetracked into arguing the log table
positions per se. What is important to take away from this analysis is the
overall conclusion that there is censorship and that this censorship is
widespread. The experiences recounted by practitioners in section five offer
ample support for this conclusion.
The first part of the third objective (to identify the forms of censorship
prevailing) is largely answered under the second objective (above). The
second part of the objective (… and its possible causes) leads the researcher
to identify two main areas that impact on censorship in Swaziland. The first is
the position of the monarchy in a kingdom that is non-democratic. The second
is the poor state of the economy and the financial circumstances in which
private media in Swaziland must operate.
public, that the King can (and will) close down publications if he wishes. This
power was demonstrated most recently in March 2007 when a threat was
made to the Times Sunday. The media in Swaziland generally take such
threats seriously.
Because there is a constant fear of retribution from the King, media houses
are cautious about what they write about the King and his immediate family.
The Swazi Observer and the Weekend Observer are quite open about their
relationship with the King and will publish nothing that reflects badly on him.
This policy is taken to extremes sometimes as in the case of the car crash in
which the King was involved. The Observer did not report the incident
because it was felt to do so would ‘offend’ His Majesty (in some undefined,
and possibly indefinable, way).
There may be some hope. Many respondents stated that they would not
publish information about the King’s finances (even though it was publicly
available in national budget statements), nor would they publish material that
suggests that the King’s lifestyle is at variance with the general population in
Swaziland. The King himself is also said to have told the Times Sunday
directly that it must not call him a ‘dictator’.
One magazine in Swaziland has broken these ‘rules’. The Nation magazine
has in 2008 published articles that directly challenge the position of the King.
The April 2008 edition gave detailed information about the money the King
receives from the Swazi taxpayer, through the national budget. It also
included a scathing commentary about the gap between the King’s wealth and
the general poverty of Swaziland.
In June 2008, the Nation published two articles based on the documentary
‘Without The King’, which detailed the grievances that ordinary people in
Swaziland have against the King. It also went as close to calling the King ‘a
dictator’ as it is possible to go without actually using the word.
At the time of writing (June 2008) the Nation has not faced retribution for
these articles. This suggests that there might be more scope than the Swazi
media generally believe for robust reporting and commentary about the
monarch.
Many of the 30 percent of the population who are not officially ‘poor’ are not
well off. They have little disposable income to spend after the basic
necessities of living are paid for. This means that these people are not
attractive to advertisers, for the simple reason that they do not have money to
spend on the goods and services that advertisers want to sell.
What this means is that there is a very small section of the Swazi population
who have enough income to support the private media houses, either by
buying the paper or buying goods and services advertised.
Swazi media need every advertiser they can get and this gives a potential
power to the advertiser. A threat to withdraw vital funding from the media
house has to be taken seriously and this compromises editorial content.
One can sympathise with the media house in this regard. The main concern of
a privately owned media house (as with any commercial organisation) is to
make a profit. Editorial integrity comes a long way behind. When the publisher
of the Times Sunday decided to obey the King’s order to apologise about a
perfectly legitimate news story (that had been published widely outside of
Swaziland), he was almost certainly making a commercial judgement.
The next step is for those who are concerned about the existence of
censorship to take up the challenges that this research report implies.