JOURNALISM & PATRIOTISM: TWO SIDES OF THE LOCAL CURRENCY COIN

So the European Union says sanctions it imposed on Zimbabwe might be lifted, if a credible constitution referendum is organised. The US on its part says its restrictions would be removed only if there is a peaceful election. My question is, 'Who cares?' Zimbabwe has survived the worst that these sanctions could have been envisioned to bring.

So why should an African media outlet just rush to publicise what new conditions the western powers have given, for lifting the sanctions against Zimbabwe, without at least inviting discussion on whether there could be other hidden reasons, or if actually it's a realisation that Zimbabwe can as well trod on without EU or US support?

In my opinion, there is a fatal folly of the African press, reporting these developments, in the same vein as western media houses, which reinforces the domineering practise and attitudes towards Third World countries.

Similarly, is it fair for a media house in Africa to report widely that the American government has warned its citizens against travelling to the same country, where the same media house is based, due to an imminent terror attack?

That question is usually examined as an afterthought, long after the contents have been published or broadcast.

Such rash editorial decisions are mostly hinged on a blatant commodification of news, without the benefit of dissecting underlying factors or related implications of disseminating sensitive information.

Double edged travel advisories

If, in the above example, the media house is owned by Americans or caters for a clientele that is significantly American, or with substantial interests in American affairs, then it can probably not be faulted for rushing to the press, with 'gory' details of negative travel advisories.

But a media house based in Africa and majorly serving local consumers, must re-examine the elements of public and state interests, as it crafts news stories from travel advisories from 'external powers.'

It's contradictory for African media houses to deliberately seek to champion local, regional or continental concerns and at times even boldly pointing out cases of these western powers lording over developing countries, only for them to be among the first to pander to strategic interests of the same powers?

It will be interesting to examine in retrospect, how South Africa's decision to still import crude oil from Iran, will be covered by African media outlets.

I indeed at times see journalism and patriotism, as being two sides of the local currency coin.

DEATH NEED NOT BE ILLUSTRATED BY DEAD BODIES

Uganda's capital city Kampala, has just been rocked by a deadly twin-terrorist attack, with more than seventy people perishing. For the average person to appreciate the gravity of these attacks, the media need not illustrate it with dead bodies.

And yet the images splashed in the Ugandan media seem to negate this very central tenet of journalism ethics. Indeed, very, very disturbing pictures have been posted on the Internet.

And it is hard to believe there is any good that can come out of placing some of these images on social networking sites, even as a way of spurring beneficial debate.

The carnage was horrific and many Ugandans are in mourning. Posting such images online will surely aggravate the trauma of the victims' relatives or anybody, who can recognise them.

I have made it a habit of complaining about the way the western media is fond of showing dead bodies, when reporting about conflicts in Africa or other developing countries, and yet seem to apply another ethical standard, when covering stories of dead people in their own or fellow industrialised states.

I once entered into a heated argument with a TV producer of NHK of Japan, when I was in Tokyo, after seeing close-ups of dead bodies in a documentary the channel had produced about the Darfur conflict in western Sudan.

And in my MA classes here in the UK, many a times have found me castigating the western press for their penchant for double standards. My favourite example being the way dead bodies were splashed across international channels after the 1998 terrorist attacks in Nairobi because the live images were being received and relayed unedited.

But comparatively, every care was taken to avoid showing people jumping from the twin towers after the September 11 attacks in America, despite the images being in the possession of TV networks, as they happened.

It is thus quite devastating for me to see Africa's own media being insensitive to its own people, whether covering their lives or deaths.