By Parkie Mbozi

Recently the IBA issued a warning to broadcasting stations against using social and online media as sources of news and agendas. This was ostensibly in reference to the Seer 1 story which has gripped the country. In its statement dated 1 February, 2020, the IBA Director General Josephine Mapoma is quoted as having warned that some social media stories could “compromise the unity and security of the nation.”
Ms. Mapoma further said that the Authority had observed “with concern the growing tendency and excitement by some broadcast stations to rely on unverified social media stories” and that the IBA expected broadcasting stations to be professional and avoid deliberate moves aimed at ignoring conditions for which their licenses were issued. Broadcasting stations “have a duty to abide by the IBA Act and other broadcasting regulations”, the statement further read.

The mandate of the IBA to scrutinize and censure erring media houses is not in contention. What is highly questionable in this instance is the Authority’s interpretation of the series of events and subsequent media frenzy around the matter. The IBA is blaming the media houses for picking the issue from social media and, in its interpretation, escalating it by either continuously making reference to it or providing platforms for debating it in some cases in what it describes as laisse faire attitude.

Notwithstanding the professional obligation for the media houses to analyse and sieve the raw material they receive and subsequently publish or broadcast, in this case blaming them for picking the Seer 1 story from social media and escalating it as a diary idea is not wholly justified. For starters, one of the long-held media theory is that they reflect or are a mirror of society. In this particular case the media were simply seamlessly reflecting the discourse and frenzy that had gripped the nation over the Seer 1 story, the evidence of which was the reactions of the top government officials on the subject.

Instead of killing the story Sumaili somewhat escalated it with her revelation that government was taking the matter seriously and doing something about it.

The second principle we can use to discern the media reactions is what is called agenda setting, with its various forms. One form, media agenda-setting, presumes that the media have an agenda that they ‘sell’ or impose on the audiences or society at large, “That is, if a news item is covered frequently and prominently, the audience will regard the issue as more important”. It further argues that, “media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.”

Conversely, public agenda setting, the second form, implies that the media reverberate and are influenced by the public’s agenda. I would argue that this was the case on the Seer 1 issue. The public set and escalated the Seer 1 agenda. The media cannot be said to be culpable for running with the public agenda especially when that ‘public’ includes high ranking public officials, including an official government spokesperson. If the same media did not cover the statements by the government officials, they would be accused of dereliction of duty, or worse still repudiated in the case of government-controlled media. As the saying, what goes around comes around.

For instance, in an article titled, “Sumaili washes hands on Seer 1: I can’t confirm if anyone got his power”, News Diggers dated 31 January 2020, quoted National Guidance and Religious Affairs minister Reverend Godfridah Sumaili as having told a press briefing in Lusaka, on 28 January 2020, that it was difficult for her to confirm or deny claims by Nigerian prophet Andrew Ejimandu, popularly known as Seer 1, that he gave some members of the Patriotic Front party and government some “powers” to win the 2016 elections. “First, I can’t confirm that he didn’t give something to somebody; these are personal transactions; they are usually done in privacy. So I can’t confirm but I just want to say something that he has acknowledged that the powers that he uses are powers from the darkness,” she is quoted.

Instead of killing the story she somewhat escalated it with her revelation that government was taking the matter seriously and doing something about it. “Obviously, we have to work as government; we have to work as Ministry of National Guidance and Religious Affairs; we have to work with the Ministry of Home Affairs; we have to work with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure that something is done because he cannot not just stand there and start demeaning our governance and even accusing people of having taken his things.” Other statements came from the likes of Given Lubinda (Justice Minister), Nkandu Luo and Stephen Kampyongo (Home Affairs Minister) and others.

Therefore from an agenda-setting trajectory, to a large extent the media were simply responding to and reflecting the agenda set by those in the high levels of our society who dealt with the matter. They were mere messengers of the message and national agenda and discourse.
The IBA also repudiated the mainstream broadcast media for sourcing news stories from social media. News Diggers (30 January 2020), also reports that, “the authority has also noted the high levels of laissez-faire attitude among some broadcasters, leading to more Phone-in programmes that are heavily dependent on issues from social media.”

To put it into perspective, the Authority was referring to what is known as intermedia agenda setting. It is defined as “a dynamic and routinized process of news diffusion, where coverage of one media outlet is influenced by the agenda of other outlets” (Vliegenthart & Walgrave, 2008). In simple terms, it a process whereby a media organization or system picks news (diary) ideas from another (opinion-leader’) news medium or systems (e.g. social media).

While intermedia is as old as the journalism profession itself, it has become more pronounced over the last decade of social media and growth of online-only newspapers. It is one of the fastest growing fields of scholarly research. Empirical data so far unanimously shows that social media are a growing source of news ideas and narratives for mainstream media.

The Authority is right to suggest that mainstream journalists ought to exercise news judgement in dealing with social media news. However, the already high use and omnipresence of social media platforms makes it harder for media houses to resist the reality of intermedia agenda setting.

Empirical data asserts that one of the conditions when mainstream media find it hard to resist the influence of social media agenda setting is when an issue in the spotlight is “inherently more obtrusive than others” (Soroka, 2002; Zucker, 1978) and observable or followed by more people and thus making independent reporting hard. More so if high ranking opinion leaders in society are among the followers and debaters of a story, as was the case with the Seer 1 story.

The media’s closing argument would be that the Seer 1 story hit the Zambian news market through a video on social media. It was then picked from there and escalated by the public officials through official statements that made news for the mainstream media. According to the age-old criterion for news value judgment, the mainstream media are exculpable for covering the story as it evolved and grew. In the bigger scheme of things, the whole saga also speaks to the need to allow the media, regardless of their ownership, to develop their own interpretative capacities, which is a requisite virtue of journalism, Case closed.

The author is a media and communication researcher and scholar.

By Guess Nyirenda Executive Director OPERATION YOUNG VOTE

Introduction

Operation Young Vote (OYV) notes and appreciates the mammoth mandate bestowed on the Electoral Commission of Zambia (ECZ) by the Republican Constitution, Electoral Process Act and the Electoral Commission of Zambia Act among other legislation. The ECZ, established by article 229 of the Constitution and the ECZ Act is mandated to among other things:organize elections and referenda, conduct and supervise voter registration, regulate the conduct of voters and candidates, accredit observers and party agents, delimit electoral constituency boundaries, conduct voter information and education, adjudicate disputes of an administrative nature and establish and maintain cooperation with political parties and other stakeholders.

While we acknowledge that the ECZ requires improvement in one or so area, we note on the other hand that the institution has gone an extra mile beyond that which is stipulated in the laws mentioned above in terms of its mandates. World-over there are benchmarks used as best practices in almost all areas and the elections and the electoral process are not exceptional.

The fact that Zambia is a multiparty democracy coupled with the legislation provided entail that all institutions, individuals and stakeholders especially the ECZ prioritize the welfare of all and common good through upholding the basic principles of democracy. Among the tenets of upholding these principles is the ensuring that conditions that promote democratic elections are made to thrive. Some of the conditions that qualify an election to be democratic are:
1. Proper administration of the electoral process – this is to ensure full and successful participation by the citizens, candidates and political parties; and
2. Accountability in managing the electoral process – the entire electoral cycle (the pre, during and post-election period and all their related programmes and activities) is open for all to see.

In our engagement with the stakeholders in the electoral process particularly and the citizens of Zambia in general, through you the press on whether or not the ECZ is right on its decision to stop sponsoring stakeholders to monitor the printing of ballot paper abroad, commencing with the ballot papers for the 2021 elections to be printed in Dubai.

Summary

As noted in the introduction above, the ECZ is a very important institution where the conduct and administration of the electoral process in Zambia is concerned. The ECZ, among its mandates is that of establishing and maintaining cooperation with political parties and stakeholders, without which none of the conditions that qualify an election to be democratic would be promoted let alone achieved. Indeed our conviction as OYV that the mandate of ECZ of establishing and maintaining cooperation with political parties and stakeholderscannot be achieved without engaging and consulting the stakeholders is justified. We believe it is inevitably critical and significant to engage and consult with stakeholders whenever drastic changes are made to the traditional ways Zambia has administered activities in the electoral process before public announcements are made to avoid creating unnecessary uproar and conflict.

The mandate and responsibility of the ECZ, at whatever level must be used to actualize the aspirations and common good of political parties, candidates and players in the electoral process particularly and generally and most importantly, the citizens.
In the wake of the decision by the ECZ to NOT sponsor stakeholders (political and civil society representative) to monitor the printing of ballot papers for the 2021 Presidential and General elections, it is inevitable that no stakeholder endevours and chooses to mislead themselves and others.

OUR CONVICTION ON THE SPONSORING OF BALLOT PAPER PRINTING MONITORS

From the outset on the matter, it must be made clear that there is no denial/prevention by the ECZ for and of the stakeholders to monitor the printing of the ballot papers for the 2021 elections. The ECZ has noted budgetary constraints and sustenance of the idea of sponsoring players to monitor the printing exercise. It is an unarguable fact that the tasks that areahead of us as a country generally and the ECZ particularly, of overhauling the entire voters’ roll to begin registering all voters anew, conducting of voter information and education among others are so overwhelming that every Kwacha channeled to such. As stakeholders, we must, while there is still enough time begin to mobilize funds from elsewhere and not the treasury so that we participate in this very important exercise of monitoring the printing of ballot papers. Complaining and on insisting to have ECZ continue to sponsor stakeholders using tax payers is not helping at all. We are champion the idea of austerity measures to save resources, on politicians in government. This point would be a good starting point for all stakeholders to experience the austerity measures.

Apart from the fact that the matter is unstainable, it is also a recipe for electoral conflict and anarchy in thatthe criteria of who those chosen to travel will always be questioned as political parties and other stakeholders have their own interests to serve. Remember the case of someone carrying a ballot from the prohibited place in some previous exercises.

As OYV we are of the conviction that the best practice where the window to monitor the process is still accessible, we must all use it by sponsoring ourselves in the same manner we send monitors and party agents for Civil Society Organisations and Political Parties respective to monitor the electoral process and elections locally.

We however want to appeal to the ECZ to enhance its mandate of establishing and maintaining cooperation with political parties and stakeholders through robust engagement and consultations. While we know that it is not mandatory for the ECZ to sponsor stakeholders to monitor the process of ballot paper printing from anywhere, we feel, to have avoided eyebrows and suspicions rising on the matter, behind the curtains talks could have been embarked upon. This would have made stakeholders not only understand but also own the decision announced by the ECZ.

ECZ should have applied the doctrine of winning/graduating someone from the usual, i.e. the way a baby is stopped from breastfeeding.

Conclusion:

A decision has been made and they is no law that has been broken by the decision, however the most important part – the Continued Accessibility to Monitoring the process – which is a best practice is still available and must be utilized to the full.

It is very possible that political parties including the ruling party and other stakeholders can mobilize funds to sponsor their representatives to monitor the process in Dubai for the 2021 elections ballot paper printing and beyond.

Recommendations:

With the foregoing OYV recommends the following:

1. That the ECZ should endevour to engage and consult stakeholders on all matters pertaining to the Electoral Process and Elections to avoid unnecessary Electoral Conflict – this goes to say that even on this already made decision it would be great if the ECZ engaged stakeholders to make them appreciate the why and the how;
2. That Political Parties, Politicians and Stakeholder must try at all costs to restrain their members and themselves respectively to blow this matter out of proportion as the most critical of monitoring the printing process has been retained save for the sponsorship;
3. That all of us as stakeholders, political parties, CSOs, the media and citizens have a duty and responsibility to build the ECZ – and we must endevour to do so.

May God bless us all. Have a pleasant week ahead of you, I thank you all.