Saturday, April 14, 2007

Rant

The diatribe on Zim seems to have quietened down a bit in the past couple of weeks. Except for mine.

I'm wondering why the media haven't explored the reason for the failing of the two day strike called recently in the country. Beatings, arrests, court appearances continue - the situation hasn't improved or changed - so why no reporting?

It's easy to become cynical and (more than) irritated by how Africa is reported. Many people talk of the laziness journalists exhibit in reporting on an event/ civil war/ election in Africa or the personalities themselves. There's little context - historical or political - and a sort of despairing shaking of the head and the tinge of 'Look how badly the children are behaving.'

Newspaper commentary is amongst the worst.
One recent example: "This is a story of war and bunfights. Start with the party thrown by Robert Mugabe to mark his 83rd birthday. Herds of cattle were slaughtered and drums of beer imported for a banquet that filled a football stadium. Outside, the people starved and the morgues filled up....In Zimbabwe, the hangover of excess and brutality goes on."

None of this is untrue and it's supposed to be a dramatic opening but we've heard all this sooooo many times. Where's the sense of the complexity of Zim these days? Yes the bald facts are that Zim is in meltdown, Mugabe has lost touch with many of the wants and needs of his voters. His hold on to power has become a thing of ego and repression.
But surely there are other ways to comment and discuss this huge issue. Surely the journalist needs to ask - What or who enabled him to reach 83 and still be president? Why this show of power by Mugabe on the day to mark this grand old age? Who is he trying to impress - Zimbabweans or the region, China even? Who is he trying to provoke? He knows the economy is in serious trouble and he's hated by many. Anyone wondered who's having the last laugh?

The same journalist goes on. Apparently beefing up existing sanctions with travel bans and freezing assets will stop "dignitaries from buying their shoes at Gucci and having their varicose veins fixed in Harley Street". The height of outrageous behaviour obviously.

But British Airways can continue to run direct flights to Zimbabwe, British companies can continue to operate in the country (however unstable it may be). That's OK.

Rant over.

No comments: