My research
project is an investigation into the coverage of an international news item.
I chose to focus my study on the recent 'Zimbabwe crisis.' What I was particularly
interested in was how this story was produced, delivered, and ideologically
consumed. In other words how the story was shaped, organised and presented
to the viewer with a certain ideological value while still 'appearing' to
be objective.
Theoretically,
this project turns to Noam Chomsky and Edward Hermann's theories to illustrate
the organisational principles of the media while also referring to Pierre
Bourdieu and Pierre Sorlin. In this way, I charted the placement and prominence
of the Zimbabwe stories in different national media to see what, if any,
considerable differences were measurable. This analysis served to indicate
the importance of the story determined by the amounts of media coverage
the story received.
My investigation
examined the perspectives of the story from three different geopolitical
positions. After review of this international coverage, the following questions
emerged: Does Britain's television coverage and The London Times
articles appear less objective to the issues raised in the coverage
of the 'Zimbabwe crisis' than, say, the United States? Were there major
differences due to Britain's colonial past with Zimbabwe that would suggest
a "less objective" slant? Furthermore, how did New Zealand (a country whose
news coverage is dependant upon both UK and US news sources) present the
Zimbabwe story? Did New Zealand follow the United States line of coverage
or did we side with Britain's perspective (what are the implications, in
other words, New Zealand as a member of the British Commonwealth)?
While I had hoped
to gain a perspective into Zimbabwe's media coverage of 'The Crisis' (I
was unable to access 'Zimbabwean Broadcasting) and due to time restrictions
I was unable to conduct a thorough and fair investigation into their perspectives
and coverage. I did, however, gain access to articles from The Zimbabwe
Independent which will serve to pose some contingent, rather than final,
conclusions.
Pierre Sorlin states
that the media has "the powerful ability to shape public attitude".1
This is indeed its major drawingcard. Following Sorlin's position, the
key ideological position projected in the coverage of this event is Imperialism
and the humanist values that uphold behind it. As Edward Said suggests,
cultural attitudes in the present, for reasons that are partly embedded
in the imperial experience, have re- emerged "the old divisions between
coloniser and colonised."2
He goes on to argue that this "has entailed defensiveness, various kinds
of rhetorical and ideological combat, and a simmering hostility that is
quite likely to trigger devastating wars." I believe this relates to the
Zimbabwe crisis in the following ways.
During the week of
my close analysis of the Zimbabwe situation, black war veterans who fought
for independence from Britain in the 1970's were occupying the farms of
white farmers who (until this day) own most of Zimbabwe's fertile- farming
land. In April of 2000, the imperialist tensions came to a head when violence
and mayhem broke out while Zimbabwe's President, Robert Mugabe, simultaneously
condoned the anarchy because, he believes, the land is part of what the
black's fought for in the independence struggle. The land was initially
to be redistributed after the signing of 'The Lancaster House Agreement,'
which granted Zimbabwe independence from Britain. However, redistribution
has been stalled several times in the last two decades due to disagreements
from Britain and Zimbabwe over the terms of compensation funding and resettlement
policies. Mugabe is not ordering the squatters to leave and appears to
be stirring up racial violence. He has in fact outwardly named the white
farmers "the enemy." Murder and rape now frequently occur in this former
British colony.
As the Western media
present it however, Mugabe has stirred the violence in order to save his
own political hide. There is some truth to this and as recent election
results have proved Zimbabwe people wanted a new Government. Crippling
fuel shortages and unemployment is on the increase under Mugabe's administration.
In February 2000, Mugabe lost a referendum that would have awarded his
administration the authority to confiscate white-owned farming land without
paying compensation. Accusations of corruption in governmental departments
are also rife. The Western media portray Mugabe's strategy as one which
brings up old issues of land struggles so as to appeal to voters. Furthermore,
this is seen as a move to win more from the rural sector. Mugabe thus becomes
as a moral crusader in the voter's eyes. The press also suggested that
the President was attempting to hold off the next election, it was widely
believed that he was hitting out at white farm owners, as they appeared
to support the Opposition 'Movement for Democratic Change' (MDC) party.3
[next
page 1 | 2 | 3
| 4 ]
1
Sorlin, P, Mass Media: Key Ideas, 1994, London and New York:
Routledge. Pg. 103
Further
references to Sorlin listed as (Sorlin)
2
Said, Edward, Culture and Imperialism, 1994. New York: Vintage.Pg
17.
Further
references to Said listed as (Said).
3
Swain, J and Tom Walker, 'Mugabe's Mayhem' in The Sunday Times,
23\4\2000.
|
