https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/2025/06/03/a-media-policy-without-media-freedom-is-just-a-media-control-strategy/ *_PLEASE SHARE_* *A media policy without media freedom is just a media control strategy* _BY Tendai Ruben Mbofana_ *ZIMBABWE keeps going round in circles—if not hurtling backwards.* On the surface, the recently launched Zimbabwe Media Policy appears to be a progressive and much-needed step toward professionalizing and modernizing the country’s media landscape. President Emmerson Mnangagwa and his administration have framed this policy as a visionary blueprint aligned with Vision 2030, promising a vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable media sector. But beneath this polished veneer lies a deeply troubling framework—one that prioritizes state control, suppresses press freedom, and reinforces an authoritarian grip on information, rather than fostering a genuinely independent and democratic media environment. For years, Zimbabwean journalists and media houses have operated under a cloud of intimidation, censorship, and political interference. *_To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08_* Many had hoped that this new policy would mark a true break from the past—a moment when government would finally embrace the media as a partner in development and democracy. Instead, the policy doubles down on familiar tropes: defending national interests, preserving sovereignty, and protecting Zimbabwe’s image. These phrases—repeated throughout the document—are not benign. They have long been used to muzzle dissent, criminalize journalism, and justify clampdowns on independent voices. The policy’s fixation with controlling the national narrative is unmistakable. Among its central objectives is the “unwavering defence of Zimbabwe’s image and sovereignty.” Yet, when journalism is expected to serve as a public relations tool for those in power rather than as a watchdog over public institutions, it ceases to be journalism at all. In countries where press freedom is curtailed, patriotism is often weaponized to persecute truth-tellers. We have seen this repeatedly in Zimbabwe. Journalists like Hopewell Chin’ono have been arrested multiple times for exposing high-level corruption. In a more recent case, investigative reporter Blessed Mhlanga was arrested in February 2025 and detained for 73 days after conducting interviews with war veteran Blessed Geza who had called for President Mnangagwa’s resignation. He was charged under Zimbabwe’s draconian Cyber and Data Protection Act for allegedly “transmitting messages that incite violence”—a catch-all charge increasingly used to target critical journalism. Mhlanga now faces trial and up to 10 years in prison. This is the climate in which the new media policy was crafted. Its silence on such violations is not accidental. It is damning. The policy’s much-hyped “co-regulation” model is misleading. The Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC)—the central body empowered to enforce the policy—is not independent in any meaningful sense. It is appointed by the President and has historically been aligned with government interests. The ZMC will hold sweeping powers: from licensing and accrediting journalists to overseeing ethical standards and disbursing the newly introduced Media Fund. With such centralised authority, the space for pluralism shrinks. Far from empowering the media, this structure tightens state control over who can speak and who is silenced. The Media Fund itself, which is to be financed by levies from registered media houses, is being presented as a support mechanism. But no clear safeguards are outlined to ensure equitable distribution. In a country where media houses critical of government routinely face economic marginalization, it is not far-fetched to expect that access to this fund will be based on political loyalty. Public resources intended to foster a vibrant media could easily be turned into tools of reward and punishment. Particularly worrying is the policy’s treatment of foreign journalists. They are now required to obtain security clearance, pay licensing fees, leave behind copies of their footage—especially on wildlife—and get prior approval to bring equipment into the country. These bureaucratic and opaque restrictions are not just inconveniences. They are deliberate barriers, aimed at deterring international coverage—especially of Zimbabwe’s more uncomfortable realities, such as political violence, economic mismanagement, and human rights abuses. Domestically, the policy outlines a range of penalties for violations of its vaguely defined ethical standards. These include the revocation of licenses, blocking of content, fines, legal suits, and even disqualification from media awards. Yet, nowhere are terms like “harmful content,” “unethical reporting,” or “incitement” clearly defined. Such vagueness is a gift to authoritarianism. It leaves journalists constantly guessing where the red line lies—and often leads to self-censorship as a survival mechanism. In Zimbabwe’s context, where the state routinely abuses the legal system to silence dissent, this ambiguity is not oversight. It is intent. The emphasis on “professionalism” and “ethics,” though important in principle, is similarly dangerous when defined by a politicised regulator. Instead of empowering journalists to uphold voluntary standards through peer accountability, the policy hands the state the power to determine who qualifies as a legitimate journalist and what qualifies as legitimate journalism. This gatekeeping role undermines the very diversity the policy claims to promote. Even more glaring is the absence of robust protections for journalists. Although the policy mentions “whistleblower protection,” it fails to propose any legal or institutional framework to guarantee the safety of journalists—especially from the state itself. In a country where reporters have been assaulted, jailed, and followed, this omission speaks volumes. A credible media policy cannot afford to ignore the real dangers that accompany the profession in Zimbabwe. Likewise, the policy does nothing to address media capture—the process through which politically connected elites dominate the media landscape to control public discourse. There are no measures to promote transparency in media ownership, limit monopolies, or prevent political actors from bankrolling outlets. A case in point is The Daily News, once Zimbabwe’s most fearless independent newspaper under Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ), founded by Geoffrey Nyarota. After being bombed and shut down in the early 2000s for exposing government wrongdoing, it returned in 2011 under new ownership reportedly linked to politically connected business interests. Since then, its editorial tone has noticeably softened—illustrating how ownership changes can dilute media independence. Similarly, the country’s only two national commercial radio stations—ZiFM Stereo, owned by a company founded by ZANU-PF Politburo member Supa Mandiwanzira, and Star FM, run by the state-controlled Zimpapers—were licensed without a transparent process. No independent radio broadcasters have been granted similar access. This selective licensing reflects a broader pattern of restricting influential media platforms to those aligned with the ruling establishment, entrenching control rather than fostering diversity. Without such measures, media diversity becomes a myth, and the line between propaganda and journalism grows increasingly blurred. In contrast, democratic states provide more compelling examples of what real media reform looks like. In South Africa, media regulation is governed by a system of voluntary, peer-led bodies like the Press Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, independent of direct state control. Norway and Finland, consistently ranked among the freest media environments globally, protect journalists through strong press freedom laws and ensure regulators are independent and representative. In the United Kingdom, bodies like Ofcom and IPSO operate under robust parliamentary oversight and have no political appointments. Their function is to protect public interest, not government image. In these systems, the media are seen as a democratic pillar—not as a political threat to be tamed. Let us also recall the context in which Zimbabwe’s media policy emerged. Just last year, during the country’s general elections, independent journalists were at times barred from ruling party events, harassed by security agents, and branded “agents of regime change.” The public broadcaster, ZBC, once again operated as a mouthpiece for the ruling party. Independent platforms, especially online, faced cyberattacks and threats—often from suspected state actors. That this policy was introduced without addressing these systemic problems makes it clear that the aim is not reform, but reinforcement of control. The language of the policy is smooth and strategic. It speaks of “digital innovation,” “local content,” and “cultural sovereignty.” But what does innovation mean in a media space where journalists are jailed? What does inclusion mean when critics are excluded? What does digital transformation mean when the internet is throttled or surveilled at will? None of these lofty goals can be achieved in an environment that criminalizes truth-telling and punishes transparency. What Zimbabwe needs is not a media sector that parrots government narratives, but one that investigates, questions, and holds power to account. A media that gives voice to the ordinary Zimbabwean, not just the elite. A media that does not require state permission to tell the truth. Until the Zimbabwe Media Policy is fundamentally rewritten to place freedom, independence, and journalist safety at its core, it will remain what it truly is: a control strategy masquerading as development. And until those in power realise that a free press is not the enemy, but the lifeblood of democracy, Zimbabwe will continue speaking in whispers—while pretending to shout. *_● Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +26371566700 | +263782283975, or email: [email protected], or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/_*