[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).
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).
