Political Perspective

THERE’S no problem in my view, with taking up cudgels against Western media for consistently portraying Africa in a negative light.

But for African governments to pour millions into media to ‘help counter these negative and degrading perspectives’ is not the answer to the problem. In fact, it’s only going to exacerbate things when money which should be spent on the upliftment of African people, is instead wasted on media initiatives that not even Africans will take seriously.IN the wake of the launch of a new regional Sunday newspaper, brought into being after agreement between the Namibian and Zimbabwean Governments respectively, comes the news of the latest folly with the same two countries planning to launch a 24-hour television news channel, again with the stated intention of reversing the negative image of Africa.According to the two governments “it will tell the African story in its proper context from an African perspective and by Africans to help counter the negative and degrading perspectives currently being projected by the dominant Western and Euro-centric media”.We seem to be going backwards as far as media on this continent is concerned.The New Information Order, as it was euphemistically known, died a discredited death because while this may initially have been a genuine attempt for Africa and Africans to tell their own story, it was exploited largely by autocratic and dictatorial African governments to tighten their grip on the management and control of information (and thereby their people) on the continent.The Windhoek Declaration in 1991 provided a new way forward for a pluralistic ownership of media, most importantly the independent press, which had largely been in the vanguard of liberation from colonial rule, particularly in southern Africa.Now governments that cannot afford it, including our own and that of Zimbabwe, are back on the bandwagon of trying to control access to information, and this runs counter to all the positive developments, such as democratic constitutions and bills of rights, which have recently come into being for many countries on the continent.I largely agree with the assessments about Western media, their coverage of Africa, or lack thereof, leading to largely negatively portrayals of what’s happening here, and also their difficulties in understanding African issues.But governments won’t counter the adverse portrayals of the continent by initiating, owning and managing their own media.And to what purpose and at what cost? This they are not telling us.After all, if the Western media’s portrayal of Africa is skewed, one needs to change that image abroad.Africans know damn well the state of their respective countries and continent as a whole.They are not influenced by the Western-dominated media.So why are we churning out newspapers and expensive TV stations for their consumption? Africa should work on a more positive image for the continent and then perhaps Western media may change their tune.After all, how on earth does one portray Darfur in a positive light.And why would or should anyone do so? After all thousands are dead and dying there, and it’s a disgrace that should not be hidden from human view.Let’s take the two countries initiating this media frenzy.Namibia doesn’t have a negative image abroad anyway.It is seen in a fairly positive light, if it is seen at all, because we’ve never had much space on the international news agenda.Zimbabwe does have a negative image abroad.But it has a negative one at home as well and it is a rather sorry situation, all told.What should we do? Pretend all is well when it’s not? I question the motives behind these media initiatives.Governments have no place in media, and it is as simple as that.They are supposed to govern, and do this as effectively and transparently as possible.Perhaps it is in this area that they should concentrate their efforts.In fact, it’s only going to exacerbate things when money which should be spent on the upliftment of African people, is instead wasted on media initiatives that not even Africans will take seriously.IN the wake of the launch of a new regional Sunday newspaper, brought into being after agreement between the Namibian and Zimbabwean Governments respectively, comes the news of the latest folly with the same two countries planning to launch a 24-hour television news channel, again with the stated intention of reversing the negative image of Africa.According to the two governments “it will tell the African story in its proper context from an African perspective and by Africans to help counter the negative and degrading perspectives currently being projected by the dominant Western and Euro-centric media”.We seem to be going backwards as far as media on this continent is concerned.The New Information Order, as it was euphemistically known, died a discredited death because while this may initially have been a genuine attempt for Africa and Africans to tell their own story, it was exploited largely by autocratic and dictatorial African governments to tighten their grip on the management and control of information (and thereby their people) on the continent.The Windhoek Declaration in 1991 provided a new way forward for a pluralistic ownership of media, most importantly the independent press, which had largely been in the vanguard of liberation from colonial rule, particularly in southern Africa.Now governments that cannot afford it, including our own and that of Zimbabwe, are back on the bandwagon of trying to control access to information, and this runs counter to all the positive developments, such as democratic constitutions and bills of rights, which have recently come into being for many countries on the continent.I largely agree with the assessments about Western media, their coverage of Africa, or lack thereof, leading to largely negatively portrayals of what’s happening here, and also their difficulties in understanding African issues.But governments won’t counter the adverse portrayals of the continent by initiating, owning and managing their own media.And to what purpose and at what cost? This they are not telling us.After all, if the Western media’s portrayal of Africa is skewed, one needs to change that image abroad.Africans know damn well the state of their respective countries and continent as a whole.They are not influenced by the Western-dominated media.So why are we churning out newspapers and expensive TV stations for their consumption? Africa should work on a more positive image for the continent and then perhaps Western media may change their tune.After all, how on earth does one portray Darfur in a positive light.And why would or should anyone do so? After all thousands are dead and dying there, and it’s a disgrace that should not be hidden from human view.Let’s take the two countries initiating this media frenzy.Namibia doesn’t have a negative image abroad anyway.It is seen in a fairly positive light, if it is seen at all, because we’ve never had much space on the international news agenda.Zimbabwe does have a negative image abroad.But it has a negative one at home as well and it is a rather sorry situation, all told.What should we do? Pretend all is well when it’s not? I question the motives behind these media initiatives.Governments have no place in media, and it is as simple as that.They are supposed to govern, and do this as effectively and transparently as possible.Perhaps it is in this area that they should concentrate their efforts.