The past
week was eventful in many ways but top of the list is President Joyce Banda’s
remarks on why she thinks the media played a role in the death of her
predecessor, Bingu wa Mutharika.
The
statement created excitement among avid followers of current affairs. And the ensuing
debate has been dual-faced. One horde has sounded alarm saying the First
Citizen was not supposed to highlight the country’s media in such a manner
while another contingent sees nothing wrong in how she presented it.
However,
having followed the issue from the day it was reported in Daily Times and the
debates and analyses that followed I choose to believe that what the President
did does not amount to an offence to the media or oppression of freedom of
speech.
For all we
know, Joyce Banda administration has stayed on track in ensuring that the media
is operating in a conducive environment without hindrances from the Executive
arm of government. That is why within her first year in office she repealed
draconian laws including Section 46 of the Penal Code which directly affects
media freedom.
The
statement made at Sanjika is only reflecting how our media operates with
selective perception when it comes to issues that really matter to Malawians.
My problem
is that we might be failing to see the whole picture in regards to the event
which facilitated those remarks.
The
President’s meeting with MISA representatives was centred on an agenda of informing
her about Table Mountain Declaration and asking her to consider putting her
signature on it to signify her government’s commitment.
Going by
that arrangement, President Joyce Banda performed her duties quite well as per
her diary. As things stand, she has promised the media body that she will look
at the document and give it the consideration it deserves.
Take note
that remarks following the presentation of the document ranged from President
Banda promising the media that she is their trusted friend and ready to work
with them always. She commended the media on the role it plays in the fight
against corruption which is one of the focus areas in her governance policies.
In the same
spirit of openness, the President also thought it was wise to point out some anomalies that
if rectified can bring about meaningful and constructive engagement between
government and the media.
This is
where issues of the media and Bingu’s death come in. A President just like any
other human is built up to be affected by information that is deliberately packaged
to cause harm to character.
So when our
President says that sometimes the media loses focus she is not speaking from a
blank. She has read the trends and saw what I see.
On
occasions, our media becomes obsessed with the Presidency thereby forgetting to
highlight on other equally important issues that affect common people on daily
basis.
For
instance, some developmental and constructive issues have been pushed to the
hind so as to create space for sensational pieces that are only aimed at maximizing
sales.
I don’t
think the President is asking for too much when she questions why her meeting
with US President, Barack Obama, was hidden at some inside page with little
prominence. And does the media need to be told how and why TIME Magazine 100
Most Influential Persons is a global story that also carries more weight when
one of the persons happens to be one of your own?
Does it make
sense to have a newspaper column that always talks ill of the President? Of
what use is that kind of writing? Can
it be natural that a column can just take the position of hitting out at the
President? When criticising the President weight more in favour of being a norm
and habit does fairness and objectivity, which are the norms of journalism,
retain their credence?
An agreement will have to be sought that some of the
writings that appear in the newspapers are self-serving as opposed to serving
the interests and nobility of journalism.
Having said
that I for one can relate to the President’s disappointment towards some of
these tendencies that turn blind to good initiatives only to focus on what they
term wrong deeds without offering alternatives if this country is to move
forward.
So when she
relates Bingu’s death to media conduct she is speaking on behalf of the
Presidency no matter who is going to rise to the mantle a hundred years from
today.
Infact she is not the first person to say this. The
report of the Commission of Inquiry into the death of President Mutharika makes
a similar suggestion that the pressure from the media, among other sources,
contributed to the stress that may have triggered the heart attack.
Put it another way, where does this notion come from
that the media is beyond reproach and, thus, must not be criticised? If the
media believes it is entitled to criticise the President and her government, is
it not fair and correct that the President and her government are also entitled
to criticise the media?
Just what makes the criticism of the media against the
President rightful and the criticism of the President against the media
muzzling? Should it not follow that those who criticise others, must not close
their doors to criticism from others?
Bad stories
which are bent on destroying characters can destroy the health of our leaders
as they are always under pressure to explain themselves.
Thus coming
from a background that Bingu died of cardiac arrest, it should not surprise
those in the know why heart disease is not compatible with stress of any kind.
Did the media contribute to stress on the former leader through some damaging
stories? Absolutely yes.