THE EXISTENCE OF CENSORSHIP

IN NEWSROOMS IN SWAZILAND

A REPORT FOR THE MEDIA INSTITUTE OF

SOUTHERN AFRICA – SWAZILAND CHAPTER

WRITTEN BY RICHARD ROONEY, UNIVERSITY OF SWAZILAND

 2

ABSTRACT

This research project concludes that there is widespread censorship in

newsrooms in Swaziland. It highlights seven main areas where this
censorship is manifest.

A total of 16 media practitioners were interviewed and asked to identify how

much censorship existed in Swaziland. They were then questioned about their
own personal experiences of censorship.

The research offers both quantitative and qualitative evidence to support its
conclusions.

The Swazi monarchy and the poor state of the Swazi economy are identified
as the main causes of censorship in Swaziland.

About the author

Richard Rooney is associate professor and head of the Department of

Journalism and Mass Communication at the university of Swaziland,
Kwaluseni. He has published many academic research articles in books and
journals across the world. Most recently he has published research on
Swaziland media and governance, the Swazi Constitution and media
freedom, and media regulation in Swaziland in the 21st century. Before
coming to Swaziland, Rooney taught in universities in England and Papua
New Guinea. He was a journalist in the UK for fifteen years and his journalism
has appeared in more than 60 publications. Rooney publishes the weblog,
Swazi Media Commentary, at www.swazimedia.blogspot.com
 3

INTRODUCTION

There is a long history of censorship of the media in Swaziland. Some of this

censorship we know about because it has become public in some way. But
there is suspicion that a lot of censorship is taking place that we do not know
about.

There have been unsubstantiated reports about the existence of censorship,

be it imposed or self-censorship, in newsrooms in the kingdom. Journalists
themselves, when defending themselves in various forums against
accusations of sub-standard journalism and lack of investigative journalism in
Swazi media, have often complained of censorship in newsrooms.

The African Media Barometer Swaziland report published by MISA in 2007

also highlights the fact that censorship may exist in newsrooms in Swaziland.
It states: ‘Self-censorship is common across all media. There are four key
areas where the media exercise self-censorship: the monarchy and traditional
authorities, culture, media owners and advertisers.’

MISA’s vision is of a southern African region in which the media enjoy

freedom of expression independent from political, economic and commercial
interests and a region where members of society, individually or collectively,
are free to express themselves through any media of their choice without
hindrance of any kind.

In pursuit of this vision, MISA Swaziland seeks to advocate against any form
of censorship in newsrooms in Swaziland. Therefore, the objectives of this
research are to:

1. Establish if censorship exists in newsrooms;

2. Establish the scale of censorship prevailing;
3. Identify the forms of censorship prevailing and its possible causes.

It is hoped that the findings of the research will help MISA Swaziland chapter
to develop an effective strategy against any form of newsroom censorship.

An interview format and questionnaire were used in the research. These had
two main objectives. One was to try to quantify how much (if any) censorship
was taking place in the media and Swaziland. The other was more qualitative.
If censorship existed the research wanted to be able to collect real examples
of what media practitioners identify as censorship.

As a guide two definitions were given to respondents at the start of the

interview. These definitions were as follows.
 4

Censorship
Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of material which may be
considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by someone
outside of your organisation (i.e. imposed by a censor).

Self-censorship
Self-censorship is the act of censoring one’s own work out of fear or
deference to the sensibilities of others (e.g. advertisers, government, media
owners) without an authority directly pressuring one to do so.

This research report is divided into six sections.

Section one: gives a brief overview of the media landscape in Swaziland,

highlighting its relatively small size and the dominance of the state in
broadcast media.

Section two: gives a brief historical perspective of censorship in Swaziland.

There is a long inglorious history and doing justice to its detail would require a
report of book length. To give the reader a flavour of the situation, some
notable ‘highlights’ from the year 2007 are given.

Section three: outlines the methods used in the gathering of information. The
researcher used structured interviews with 16 media practitioners and in this
way generated both quantitative data and information about personal
experiences of censorship.

Section four: offers the data collected. It proves to the satisfaction of the
researcher that there is censorship in Swaziland and that it is widespread.

Section five: presents the experiences of the practitioners. It is intended to

add texture to the raw data presented in section four. Respondents talk
candidly about their experiences both of imposed censorship and self-
censorship.

Section six: concludes the report and contends that the monarchy and the
financial poverty of Swaziland are the two main causes of censorship in
Swaziland.
 5

SECTION ONE: THE MEDIA LANDSCAPE IN SWAZILAND

For those unfamiliar with the media landscape in Swaziland, this section gives
a brief overview. Swaziland is a small, relatively poor country, and it follows
that the media industry is also small and lacking in finances.

The majority of Swaziland’s broadcasting news media are state controlled.

There are two free-to-air television stations in Swaziland, the Swazi TV and
Channel Swazi. Swazi TV is the state broadcaster and still dominates
airwaves. Two acts of parliament have resulted in a monopoly by state owned
radio and television. Broadcast licensing is the prerogative of Swaziland Posts
and Telecommunications, which has the sole authority to issue licenses.

Swazi TV has one channel with multiple national repeaters. The government
allowed Channel Swazi, a pro-establishment medium, to begin operating
domestically in 2001.

King Mswati III supported Channel S, to show that his regime was democratic
and respected human rights, but its offices were raided by police after it
screened a report deemed too critical of the King. Any hint of independence at
Channel S was immediately reined in by the authorities.

There are two radio broadcasters in Swaziland: the Swaziland Broadcasting

and Information Services (SBIS) and Voice of the Church, a private Christian
radio station which is a local franchise of TransWorld Radio. Voice of the
Church is the only privately owned radio station in Swaziland. The SBIS is a
state-run national radio service with one siSwati language channel, one
English-language channel, and one information services channel.

There are two principal players in the newspaper sector that have been in
control for the past 35 years. The first is the Loffler family based in Namibia
that owns African Echo, the holding company of the Times of Swaziland
(published weekdays), Swazi News (published Saturday) and the Times
Sunday. These newspapers, the first of which, the Times, was established in
1897, are the only major news sources in the kingdom free of government
control.

The second major player is the corporation Tibiyo Taka Ngwane, which is
controlled by the Swazi Royal Family and owns the Observer Media Group,
which publishes the Swazi Observer and its companion, the Weekend
Observer.

One independent monthly comment magazine, the Nation magazine,

manages to continue publishing despite government opposition and a small
circulation. A free government produced newssheet, Swaziland Today has
very little credibility.
 6

SECTION TWO: CENSORSHIP IN SWAZILAND - BACKGROUND

The media are not free in Swaziland and dissenting journalists face
harassment if they try to report on matters deemed unacceptable by ruling
elites in the kingdom. There are a number of cases in the past when
newspapers and magazines have been closed down for transgressing these
rules. Individual journalists have also lost their jobs or have had their careers
stunted for showing dissent.

There is not enough space in this present research report to detail the many
cases of censorship that have taken place in recent years, but to give an
insight into the problem, here are some examples from the year 2007, as
published by the Media Institute of Southern Africa in So This is Democracy
2007? The State of Media Freedom in Southern Africa.

The Swazi House of Assembly set up a Select Committee to investigate

Mbongeni Mbingo, the editor of the Times Sunday, following a commentary
piece he wrote in his newspaper criticising the House Speaker for not allowing
a debate to take place on possible amendments to the kingdom’s
Constitution. He was cleared.

The Swazi Parliament increased the existing fines on journalists and media
houses who published articles deemed to be critical of or offending against
Parliament or MPs. MISA Swaziland called these measures blatant
discrimination ‘likely to scare the already docile Swazi press which cannot
freely report on issues due to a litany of restrictions, laws and constant
intimidation from authorities.’

The Minister for Health and Social Welfare, Njabulo Mabuza, banned health
workers from talking to the media in response to a number of stories that had
been published highlighting the impact in the kingdom of a critical drug
shortage.

The Times of Swaziland Group of Newspapers was forced into publishing an

abject apology to King Mwasti III after the Times Sunday ran a news
commentary sourced from the international news agency Afrol News which
blamed the King for many of the kingdom’s economic ills. The publisher was
summoned to the Royal Palace and told to issue a public apology or his
newspapers would be closed down. The apology was swiftly forthcoming.

King Mswat III’s chief executive officer Bheki Dlamini barred journalists at a
press conference from asking the King questions relating to the recently-
formed Swaziland Police Union, whose formation had shaken the Swazi
establishment.
 7

SECTION THREE: METHODS USED IN THE RESEARCH

A total of 14 current Swazi journalists and two former Swazi journalists

undertook structured interviews.

Practitioners within the media industry were asked to volunteer their time to
take part in the research but some declined. The sample, therefore, is self-
selected. Interviews took place during April 2008.

Of the total 16 respondents, 15 were from the print media and one was a
former radio journalist. It is perhaps not surprising that those who declined to
be interviewed in a research project about censorship were mainly from the
state-controlled broadcasting sector in Swaziland.

One incident during the research process sheds some light on state
broadcasting in Swaziland. One senior journalist at state-controlled SBIS
radio agreed to meet with the researcher but then declined to be interviewed.
The journalist said permission would need to be sought from the management
of the radio station before an interview would be forthcoming. Even though the
interview was seeking the personal experiences of those who were being
questioned, and not statements on behalf of the media organisation, the
journalist felt unable to take part without the expressed permission of seniors.

The researcher was directed to also seek the permission of the Minister of
Public Services and Information before making further requests of SBIS. The
researcher declined the invitation and subsequently nobody from SBIS was
interviewed. This encounter speaks volumes about the state of censorship at
SBIS.

Of the 16 respondents, 11 had the rank of news editor or above, four were
reporters and one was a self-described ‘media activist.’

It is unfortunate that of the 16 respondents, only one was a woman. This does
not reflect the general gender balance within the Swazi media, which is closer
to a ratio of 50:50, especially among junior ranks.

The majority of those taking part had already achieved lengthy careers in
Swazi journalism and had experience working at one or more media houses.

Swaziland is not a democracy and some people have genuine fears of

victimisation if they express themselves on controversial matters. For this
reason all information was given to the researcher on the condition of
anonymity.

Before interviews began, some respondents expressed concerns that they

would be able to be identified from the specific examples of censorship
practice they gave.
 8

This is a genuine concern and therefore special care had to be taken in

writing the narrative of this report and in some instances detail has
deliberately been deleted or obscured to protect the source.

All interviews were recorded on the understanding that once the interview was
transcribed the recording would be wiped.
 9

SECTION FOUR: RESEARCH FINDINGS

During the interviews, respondents were asked to comment on a variety of

questions and asked to give a response to each in terms of whether the
incident at the centre of the question happened ‘often’, ‘sometimes’ or, ‘never’.

This section gives the responses to these questions in four tables of data.
This is essentially a ‘quantitative’ approach to try to measure how often
imposed censorship or self-censorship is (or is not) taking place.

TABLE 1

n = 16 Often Some Never

times
1. To your own knowledge does your organization get 4 6 6
ordered by someone outside of your organisation not
to pursue or publish a story that was deemed to be
newsworthy?
2. Have you yourself been ordered not to write 6 2 8
newsworthy stories?
3. To your own knowledge do journalists in your news 3 8 5
organization deliberately self-censor particular stories
that are newsworthy by not writing them at all?
4. To your own knowledge do journalists in your news 6 5 5
organization tone down or avoid certain angles in a
newsworthy story?
5. Have you ever toned down/avoided certain angles 8 3 5
of a newsworthy story?

The questions in Table 1 asked respondents to use their own personal

knowledge when answering. They were discouraged from giving anecdotal
evidence about what they had heard from other people.

In Table 1 questions 1 and 2 refer to examples of imposed censorship.

Questions 3, 4 and 5 refer to examples of self-censorship.

Table 1 reveals that high levels of imposed censorship and self-censorship

operate in Swazi media houses.

In Table 1 we can see that in all questions a half or more than a half of the
respondents indicated knowledge of censorship or self-censorship.

On imposed censorship a total of 10 out of 16 respondents said their

organisation was ordered by someone outside of the organisation not to
pursue or publish a story that was deemed newsworthy ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’.

A total of eight respondents had personally been ordered not to write a

newsworthy story.
 10

The questions (3, 4 and 5) on self-censorship suggest that there is a higher

level of self-censorship operating in Swazi media houses than imposed
censorship. A total of 11 respondents answered ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ to
questions about journalists in their own news organisations ‘deliberately’ self-
censoring by not writing a story at all or by toning down certain angles. The
same number of respondents said they had personally toned down or avoided
certain angles in newsworthy stories.

A total of half the respondents (8) said they ‘often’ toned down or avoided
certain angles.

TABLE 2 (Self-censorship)

To your knowledge how often do journalists in Swaziland (not necessary

only at your own news organization) avoid newsworthy stories or angles in
stories because of:
n = 16 Often Some Never No
times answer
(i) Fear of offending/damaging advertisers 5 10 1 0

(ii) Need to protect financial interests of 7 4 4 1

news organisation
(iii) Fear of libel suits 10 4 1 1
(iv) Fear of offending government/MPs or 2 4 8 2
public bodies
(v) Fear of offending monarchy 13 3 0 0
(vi) Fear of breaking cultural taboos 5 5 6 0
(vii) Fear of offending news organization 6 1 8 1
owner(s)
(viii) Fear of offending friends/associates 4 4 8 0
of owners and / or editors
(ix) Fear of damaging journalist’s career 2 5 9 0
(x) Fear of alienating a source(s) 2 9 5 0

The questions in Table 2 were about self-censorship and asked respondents

to use their own personal knowledge when answering. They were
discouraged from giving anecdotal evidence about what they had heard from
other people. Respondents were particularly asked to think not only of their
own news organisation, but what they personally knew of other news
organisations in Swaziland.

Of the ten scenarios offered the following scored higher in the ‘never’ column
than in the ‘often’ and ‘sometimes’ columns combined. This suggests that
these categories are far less important factors in self-censorship.
 11

(iv) Fear of offending government/MPs or public bodies

(vii) Fear of offending news organization owner(s)
(ix) Fear of damaging journalist’s career

Table 3 rearranges the results of Table 2 as a log table to see which of the
reasons offered were more likely to result in self-censorship. Where there is a
tie between the reasons the reason with the more respondents answering
‘often’ is placed higher.

TABLE 3 (Self-censorship)

Category Number
Of
n = 16 respondents
(v) Fear of offending monarchy 16
(i) Fear of offending/damaging advertisers 15
(iii) Fear of libel suits 14
(ii) Need to protect financial interests of 11
news organisation
(x) Fear of alienating a source(s) 11
(vi) Fear of breaking cultural taboos 10
(viii) Fear of offending friends/associates 8
of owners and / or editors

Table 3 shows the main causes of self-censorship. Every respondent said

self-censorship took place because there was a fear of offending the Swazi
monarchy. Of these 13 said this happened ‘often’. This was by far the largest
number of respondents indicating ‘often’. The next highest were the 10
respondents indicating a fear of libel suits.

The questions in Table 4 were about imposed censorship and asked

respondents to indicate from a list of choices how often groups ‘influence or
try to influence decisions about which stories to run at your news
organisation’.

The choices were cabinet, MPs, government ministries, public bodies,

monarchy, traditional leaders, advertisers, media owners / parent companies,
individual businesspersons, civil society organisations and religious
formations.

Of this list of 11 groups only four scored more in the ‘often’ and sometimes’
column combined than the ‘never’ column.
 12

TABLE 4 (Imposed censorship)

To you own knowledge, how often do the following groups influence

or try to influence decisions about which stories to run at your news
organization?
n = 16 Often Some Never
times
Monarchy 11 1 4
Advertisers 5 7 4
Media owners/parent companies 2 7 7
Individual businesspersons 2 7 7

The results in Table 4 confirm that the main causes of imposed censorship
are the monarchy and advertisers.

Table 4 also shows that media owners / parent companies try to influence
decisions. In the interview with respondents it emerged that the attempts at
influence might not be censorship as such, but a more general involvement in
day-to-day decision making at the media houses. Owners might be consulted
(either at their own insistence or at the editor’s initiative) when there was a
story being considered for publication that might be deemed to be problematic
in some way.

The influence of individual businesspersons tended to be closely linked to

their role as advertisers / potential advertisers in the minds of many
respondents.

The names of two individual business people were given to the researcher as
people who did on occasion try to influence the newspapers. One has a very
high reputation as a source of news stories and journalists shy away from
reporting bad things about him. Another businessperson claims to be close to
other influential people in Swazi society who might be able to cause damage
to the newspaper if bad reports are published.

If we look at Tables 2, 3 and 4 together we can begin to make some general

statements about the state of censorship in Swaziland.

Fear of monarchy and the power it has over the kingdom and media houses
within it is by far the main cause of censorship in Swaziland. This is both
censorship imposed by King Mswati III (Table 4) and self-censorship (Tables
2 and 3). The King has threatened to close down titles that offend him and in
recent history has done exactly that. There are also high levels of self-
censorship around the King and the Queen Mother, since editors, aware of
threats made in the past by the King, do not want to get themselves into
trouble. Because of their ownership structure, the Swazi Observer and its
companion title, Weekend Observer, are generally accepted to be ‘the King’s
newspapers’.
 13

The fear of damaging advertisers is real in Swaziland’s failing economy.

There is not much money around and every emalangeni that can be gathered
from advertisers is vital to the survival of titles.

The fear of libel suits does not always relate directly to censorship issues.
Respondents spoke about the way that people, aggrieved by what they have
read about themselves in the newspapers, will run to lawyers to threaten legal
action. Often, they do this to try to intimidate media houses to stop writing
about them. Respondents commented about the need to reform the legal
system in Swaziland and discourage ‘ambulance chasing’ lawyers from trying
to get income from bogus libel actions.

Many respondents confused the need to protect the financial interests of their
news organisations with a fear of damaging advertisers. When questioned
closely on their reasons for answering this category, most respondents
confirmed that they had not been pressured in the past to drop stories or tone
down angles because of a need to protect the financial interests of their news
organisations.

A total of 11 respondents said that ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ self-censorship took

place to protect sources. When questioned it emerged that source protection
was not a major issue with media houses because the occasions when
sources got into trouble and wanted their names kept out of the media were
not that common. Respondents touched on issues regarding sources that
were not totally about censorship, but rather ethical issues about how much a
news organisation had to rely on sources and how this reliance was
negotiated in practical terms.

Most respondents said they did not worry about breaking cultural taboos,
except when the taboo concerned the activities of the monarchy, for example
during the annual Reed Dance ceremony or Incwala. It is this link to the
monarchy that makes respondents choose the ‘often’ or ‘sometimes’ option
when answering this category.

The question regarding fear of offending friends and associates of editors

proved problematic, because many of the respondents themselves had the
rank of ‘editor’. Four respondents said there was ‘often’ avoidance of such
people and four said ‘sometimes’. On further questioning it emerged that what
many were considering was not necessary ‘friends’ of the editors or owners,
but more generally people in powerful positions in Swaziland who might have
a ‘direct line’ to editors and owners to make complaints about the journalist
should the journalist do something to offend. This category exposed a more
general problem that journalists face in Swaziland and that is the kingdom is
so small that ‘everybody knows everybody else’ and you cannot be sure how
close a relationship the person you are talking to has to your boss.
 14

SECTION FIVE: WHAT THE RESPONDENTS SAID

This section presents some of the comments respondents made during the
interview. It is intended to put some ‘flesh’ onto the bare bones of the
quantitative analysis presented in section four. The interview was intended to
draw out from respondents some real examples of imposed censorship and
self-censorship in Swazi media houses. During the interviews, respondents
were constantly reminded to give only evidence about matters that they
personally knew about and not to offer hearsay evidence.

It must be remembered that what follows were comments made by

respondents and the researcher cannot check the veracity of the statements
made. It is assumed that the comments were made in good faith and they are
reproduced here in the same manner.

This section has been divided into sub sections, which follow closely the
questions used in Table 1 and Table 2.

Being ordered to drop a story

There are varied experiences of this. Most examples concerned the King, but
there were also examples that centred around happenings at large
companies.

There seemed to be general agreement that all media houses had procedures
in place for decisions about what could and could not be published to be
made. The editor usually makes the decision, supported if circumstances
demand, by the editorial board and / or chief officer or publisher.

All decisions made seemed to respondents to be transparent and clearly

communicated to staff.

There was less agreement with state-owned media, where government could
have an input. The decision making process in such circumstances is less
transparent. In such media houses self-censorship by senior and junior
journalists may be more prevalent (journalists learn early in their careers what
will and what will not be acceptable within their news organisations).

Self-censorship by reporters

There were various experiences here. Senior editorial staff said this never
happened. The procedure would be that reporters would tell their editor what
stories they were working on and the editors would decide whether to pursue
them or not.

One respondent went so far as to say that if a reporter were found to be

hiding a story from an editor that reporter would be fired.
 15

Some reporters detected written and unwritten editorial policies about what
would and would not be published. Some reporters do not write stories they
believe would not be in line with editorial policy.

Editors sometimes ‘tone down’ stories that are submitted by reporters. An

example would be with political ‘progressives’ and some MPs. As an example,
this toning down might concentrate on statements they had made about
conditions in Swaziland or members of the monarchy.

Stories that editors feel have the potential to incite readers are toned down.
Comments that suggest ‘down with the monarchy’ are removed from stories.

Other stories that are toned down include ones about how ‘fed up’ Swazi
people are with conditions in Swaziland.

One respondent believed ‘we would have civil strife by now’ if such stories
were not censored.

Stories containing comparisons between the lavish lifestyles of the King and
ordinary people (or more generally the rich and the poor) in Swaziland are
also censored. These might include references to the King having ‘too many
luxury cars’.

Some toning down also takes place with other stories about royalty. One
respondent recalled that a story about members of royalty seen out shopping
was submitted to a newspaper. It contained comments from shop assistants
about what was purchased. These were removed.

Journalists can have an exaggerated sense of patriotism and do not report on

some things, according to one respondent. The respondent recalled an
occasion when a reporter returned from covering a story and did not hand in a
written report and prepared to go home for the day. When the reporter was
questioned about this, he said ‘I can’t write the story, the country will burn.’
His editorial manager replied, ‘Come back inside, let’s burn it.’

The story appeared, but the country did not burn.

Monarchy

Fear of offending the monarchy is by far the biggest cause of censorship in

Swazi media houses. Respondents returned time and again to the
consequences to the journalist and the media house of offending King Mswati
III.

One respondent said, ‘The biggest problem in Swazi journalism is the King –
who everybody tries to avoid.’

One problem identified by a respondent was the rule that ‘you don’t criticise
the King’. This led people to try to extend this to say you cannot criticise a
cabinet minister, because the King appoints him and to criticise a cabinet
 16

minister, ‘indirectly you criticise the King’ for making a bad appointment.
According to the respondent, ‘It took a long time before media houses decided
it doesn’t work like that.’

One respondent related this example of how the King interfered.

‘The King himself told us he is not happy with us reporting on how he is

spending his money and how his wife was buying clothes. So any time a story
to that effect comes through we generally don’t venture into that area. So [he
made] one order and it has stood for a long time.’

Orders to media houses sometimes come directly from the King (rather than
from someone on behalf of the King). It would seem that these summons are
not made consistently across the media. The Times group seems to have
been called more often than the Observer.

Many respondents referred to an incident in March 2007 when King Mswati III
ordered the Times Sunday to publish an apology for publishing an article
sourced from Norway that said the King was partly responsible for
Swaziland’s economic ills. The King also demanded that the features editor of
the Times Sunday be dismissed for allowing the report to be published. The
King also said that the newspaper must never again refer to him as a ‘dictator’
(even though the report did not use this word). The King said if his demands
were not met he would close down the Times Sunday and the other
newspapers published by its owner.

A summary of comments by respondents on the incident suggests that the

publisher went along with the King’s demands because the publisher did not
want to take the risk of not knowing what would follow if he did not apologise.
So for a quiet life, the publisher did what he was told.

Another example, generally known in the media industry and cited by some
respondents, concerned the King’s first daughter (who was of adult age) who
willingly gave a media interview that the King did not like. The King
summoned journalists to see him and demanded to hear a recording of the
interview as proof that the interview really did take place. The King then told
the media that they would not be allowed to interview her again without the
King’s expressed permission.

Swazi media have interpreted this dictate to mean that they may not interview
any of the King’s children.

Another example cited was a report about one of the King’s wives going to
Matsapha airport to see off her daughter who was going on a trip. The King
was ‘livid’ when the report appeared and made his feelings known to the
media. He said the report had embarrassed him.

According to one respondent, the problem the media face now is what do they
do the next time the Queen is seen in public? If they report it, the King might
be offended and give them trouble. ‘So we don’t, we don’t want trouble.’
 17

There are some areas about the royal family that are not covered by
newspapers, either because of direct censorship (i.e. King Mswati III has said
they must not) or through self-censorship (media houses fear the
consequences of upsetting the King).

One topic cited by respondents as being off limit was the national budget
where it relates to the royal expenditure.

King Mswati III in effect owns the Observer and Weekend Observer
newspapers and there is ‘an extra sensitivity’ at these newspapers when
reporting about the King and royalty. It is generally accepted throughout
Swazi media that the Observer is ‘the King’s newspaper’.

The person who at any time holds the position of ‘chief editor’ of the Observer
group is the person who would tackle royal assignments.

One respondent described one of the chief editor’s responsibilities as being to

protect the ‘good standing’ of the royal family.

The Observer would also try to ‘correct the misconception’ that the King had a
lavish lifestyle.

This situation seems to be generally recognised by the Swazi media – both

inside and outside of the Observer group.

A summary of respondents’ views in this area suggests that the Observer will
not report things that put the King and the Queen Mother in a ‘bad light’ or
publish something that ‘ridicules’ them. Among topics that will not be
published are reports of the activities of political ‘progressives’ and the things
they say during their demonstrations. The Observer might report that there
had been a rally and it might say police broke it up, but it would not report
details of the purpose of the demonstration. The Observer also shies away
from using the term ‘the ruling class’ in stories, unless readers confused the
term to mean ‘the King’.

The Observer will not publish stories that embarrass the King. One example
cited by many respondents was a car crash the King was involved in. The
story was published on the front page of the Times of Swaziland, on 2 April
2008, but not published at all in the Observer. It was thought that publishing
the report would offend His Majesty.

The Observer will not report on the issue of polygamy as this may be
interpreted as a criticism of the King (who has 13 wives).

The Observer would not give advance reports of the King’s activities, for
example, a trip abroad, unless the King’s office had officially announced it. To
publish information known to the newspaper, but not officially announced by
the King, would be deemed ‘disrespectful’ to the King.
 18

Away from the Observer, arguments sometimes take place within media
houses about how far they can go when reporting about the King. Caution
usually wins. Some journalists say they would prefer to see how far they can
go and ‘take a chance’.

Advertisers and financial interests of organisations

The threat of losing advertising is real, this is especially so as the economy of

Swaziland is declining. The privately owned media is dependent on
advertising to survive, and since a small number of organisations spend so
much the media houses give serious consideration every time there is a
complaint from an advertiser.

Some advertisers are so important to the newspapers that a special

relationship exists between the advertiser and the advertising department.
The advertising department knows that some advertisers will never say ‘no’
when approached to advertise. For example, if a newspaper is running a
special themed advertising supplement, it might approach a regular advertiser
to support it. If the advertiser has already spent the annual advertising budget,
an advertisement would still be placed and the advertisement paid for at a
later date, when funds are available to the advertiser.

A number of companies and organisations were specifically cited as

organisations that regularly tried to censor the content of newspapers. They
were Swazi Bank; the cellphone company, MTN (‘a definite no-go area’ and
‘you can’t write about blackouts in the service’); the Swaziland Electricity
Company and Swaziland Posts and Telecommunications (SPTC).

All the foregoing are major companies or parastatals in Swaziland. But

smaller companies are also given special treatment. One such company that
was mentioned more than once by respondents was the Why Not (a
recreation and entertainment venue). In the case of the Why Not, respondents
said they did not even feel able to publish a poor review of an act that
appeared at the venue, for fear of losing advertising.

Although media houses will keep stories about advertisers out of the media
there is a limit to what they will not report. For example, one respondent said
they would publish a story if a chief officer of an advertiser were accused of
rape.

Newspapers do not fear the withdrawal of advertising by government,

although, according to the African Media Barometer, published by MISA,
this has happened in the past. It is felt that government has little choice but to
use the newspapers in order to get information out to the general public
(although state-controlled radio, SBIS is also available for this). One
respondent said that in the past when the government did withdraw
advertising it was done by one small part of government and the ban lasted
about one week.
 19

There was a minority view that advertisers did not cause problems for media
houses because they understood that newspapers had a duty to publish.
Advertisers were satisfied if the media house gave the advertiser a platform to
give its side of the story.

Libel

Many respondents reported that hardly a day went by without somebody

threatening to sue them in order to ‘scare them off’. A letter from a lawyer
often accompanied these threats. There was a general feeling that some
people who claimed that they had been libelled by the media were ‘trying it on’
to get the media house to agree on an apology and costs before the case got
to court.

The great time delay in getting cases to court could intimidate media houses.
One respondent said a case could take up to two years before it went to court.
Another said that lawyers, acting like ‘ambulance chasers’, tried to keep a
case going as long as they could. This guaranteed the lawyer an income,
when lawyers had very few other opportunities to earn.

Media houses sometimes settled cases, even those where they believed they
had not committed a libel, for fear of the huge costs involved. Libel insurance
to protect media houses was becoming prohibitively expensive in a climate
where claims for libel could be as high as E3 million.

This fear of the high cost if a case was lost has led to some stories being
dropped or angles in stories being toned down.

Media houses often settled out of court to avoid the protracted hassle and
possible costs of pursuing a case to court. One respondent said settling out of
court was a dangerous move for media houses. ‘Once you settle, you open
the floodgates for everybody else.’

Another respondent said, ‘Settling for fear of going to court has reduced the
confidence of journalists and lowers the standards of journalism’. This led
newspapers to only go for soft targets (people who could not sue) and to
leave larger, more important, targets alone.

Sources

The media protect their own sources by not publishing harmful stories about
them, but this protection is not total. Some respondents revealed that they
would not publish the story in their own newspaper, but would pass it on to
another newspaper in the same media house, for them to follow up.

Some respondents admitted to censoring stories about regular sources in

order to ensure a future flow of stories from that source.

When a regular source wants to keep something out of the media, a certain
amount of negotiation takes place. There were a number of examples given
 20

where a source – often an official spokesperson for an organisation – offered

the media house a ‘juicier’ story in exchange for dropping a story that would
reflect badly on the organisation that the journalist was working on.

Sources often get their way, and many respondents revealed that they were
given ‘better’ stories in exchange.

Taboos and cultural traditions

Cultural traditions are said to be very important in Swaziland and there exists
a duality in the legal system between constitutional law and cultural and
traditional law.

Despite the apparent importance of culture, most respondents said that they
did not allow traditional leaders to interfere with the media’s work.

Some respondents said that there are no real cultural traditions in Swaziland.
‘We don’t respect that cultural leaders are sincere,’ one respondent said.

Other comments included, ‘To Hell with culture – nobody has authority to
challenge us.’ ‘Nobody’s practising culture in our country any more.’ ‘Women
in the villages are only doing it for survival, they don’t really give a damn.’ ‘I’m
here to break cultural taboos.’

The only area in which culture was respected by the media, concerned the
King. There are a number of things that culture dictates cannot be reported
about annual ceremonies concerning the King (e.g. the Reed Dance and
Incwala) and the media (reluctantly, according to respondents) censored
themselves. It was clear from respondents that there were many stories from
the Reed Dance and Incwala that were known to the media, that they would
like to publish, but did not, for fear of the consequences from the King.

Minority views of respondents

This research report has concentrated on those areas where a majority of

respondents reported censorship and self-censorship. Among those areas
that did not score highly in these terms, there were nonetheless some
‘minority’ experiences that the researcher thought significant enough to
include in this final report.

Prime Minister
The Prime Minister tries to bully the media from time to time. ‘He gets to bully
us a lot,’ one respondent said. He will call editors and publishers and make
threats about stories that have been published or ones that he knows are
about to be published.

Swaziland remains a deferential society and there are still some ‘no go’ areas
for the media when it comes to government. It is considered disrespectful, for
example, to draw a cartoon of the Prime Minister. This limits the possibility to
 21

make comment (satirical or otherwise) through political cartooning. The Times

of Swaziland is less deferential than the Swazi Observer in this respect.

Cabinet Ministers
Cabinet ministers tried to do bully journalists in the past, but it is believed by
journalists that this happens a lot less these days. One reason for this is
thought to be that Swazi society is small and senior journalists will have
known present day government ministers when both the journalist and the
minister were younger. This means that the journalists are not in awe of the
ministers

Members of Parliament
The media houses do not take notice of members of parliament. The
suggestion that media houses might be afraid of MPs elicited derisive laughter
from a number of respondents. ‘We can write anything and everything,’ one
respondent said.

Some MPs try to influence the media by befriending journalists and giving
them money or other ‘freebies’. By buying influence this way, the MP expects
that the journalists will not write anything bad about them in the future.

Civil Society Organisations

Civil society organisations do not tend to try to censor news organisations and
the media would ignore them if they did. Swazi media houses say they do not
take civil society organisations very seriously because many have been
involved in internal scandals in the past. Civil society organisations often
complain about the lack of accountability and transparency in other
organisations, but they are not themselves transparent.

Fear for journalist’s own career

Generally, there was not a lot of evidence of journalists fearing for their own
careers if they wrote or published material that might upset people in power,
although there are many public examples of journalists being sacked from
their jobs for having written or published something that later caused trouble.
The most recent public example of this was the features editor of the Times
Sunday who lost his job after an article critical of King Mswati III was
published in the newspaper in March 2007.

Respondents were reluctant to go into specific detail on this topic. Among

some respondents there was a feeling that self-censorship sometimes took
place because the journalists were worried about what would happen to them
if they displeased their own editors or people in power. One respondent
summed it up, ‘If a journalist thinks a story is not safe for him, he won’t do it.’

The main types of story that are avoided are those that touch on the
monarchy. In Swaziland many of the royal family’s activities must not be
reported. If a journalist transcends what is permissible there is a fear that an
order may come down from a ‘faceless’ person ordering the dismissal of the
journalist.
 22

One respondent, echoing the example of the Times Sunday, said that
management can ‘sacrifice’ a journalist to keep the media house out of
trouble. ‘You always have that at the back of your mind.’

There are a number of publicly known examples of victimisation of journalists

who write or publish things that upset the King or politicians. The
consequences for the journalists can include dismissal from their job, a
summons to appear before the King, and formal charges from parliament.

Some politicians will refuse to speak to journalists because they do not like
previous stories that have been published.

One method politicians use to get back at print journalists who they feel have
offended them is to use the airwaves of state-controlled radio, SBIS. It is
common for politicians to be given airtime to criticise the journalists who have
written about them in the newspapers. The ‘offending’ journalists are not
invited onto the radio station to give their version of events.
 23

SECTION SIX: CONCLUSIONS

This research report had three objectives. The primary objective was to
establish if censorship existed in newsrooms. If it was found that censorship
did indeed exist, two secondary objectives were set. The first was to establish
the scale of censorship prevailing. The second was to identify the forms of
censorship prevailing and its possible causes.

On the primary objective (does censorship exist in newsrooms) the research

proves conclusively that it does. Tables 1, 2 and 3 demonstrate in quantifiable
terms the existence of censorship (as defined by media practitioners in
Swaziland).

The second objective (establishing the scale of censorship) is demonstrated

in both Table 1 and Table 2. The main conclusions from the evidence here is
that censorship exists to a greater or lesser degree around seven defined
areas, including the monarchy, advertisers, libel, sources, cultural taboos and
the associates of editors.

Table 3 is a log table that attempts to rank each of these areas by importance.
We should be cautious about being too ‘reductionist’ in this analysis. Not too
much should be read into the suggestion that the monarchy ‘scored’ one point
more than advertisers and advertisers one more than a fear of libel suits. The
manner in which the information was gathered and the thought processes
involved in answering the questions, suggests to the researcher that positions
in this log table might not be stable and that a similar research undertaken
(even with the same participants) sometime in the future might result in
slightly different log positions for some categories.

What the research can say with some confidence is that when taken as a
whole the seven categories that make up Table 3 collectively give an accurate
picture of the state of newsroom censorship in Swaziland. So should we
attempt to use the analysis in this research to inform ourselves about how to
tackle censorship we should not be sidetracked into arguing the log table
positions per se. What is important to take away from this analysis is the
overall conclusion that there is censorship and that this censorship is
widespread. The experiences recounted by practitioners in section five offer
ample support for this conclusion.

The first part of the third objective (to identify the forms of censorship
prevailing) is largely answered under the second objective (above). The
second part of the objective (… and its possible causes) leads the researcher
to identify two main areas that impact on censorship in Swaziland. The first is
the position of the monarchy in a kingdom that is non-democratic. The second
is the poor state of the economy and the financial circumstances in which
private media in Swaziland must operate.

It cannot be overstated that the overwhelming concern of the media houses

was its relationship to monarchy. There is ample evidence, both historical and
 24

public, that the King can (and will) close down publications if he wishes. This
power was demonstrated most recently in March 2007 when a threat was
made to the Times Sunday. The media in Swaziland generally take such
threats seriously.

Because there is a constant fear of retribution from the King, media houses
are cautious about what they write about the King and his immediate family.

The Swazi Observer and the Weekend Observer are quite open about their
relationship with the King and will publish nothing that reflects badly on him.
This policy is taken to extremes sometimes as in the case of the car crash in
which the King was involved. The Observer did not report the incident
because it was felt to do so would ‘offend’ His Majesty (in some undefined,
and possibly indefinable, way).

This objective attempts also to identify ‘possible causes’ of censorship. In the

case of the monarchy, the cause is obvious. The power structure within
Swaziland allows the King to close media as he wishes: a power he has used
in the past and still threatens to use from time to time. The Swazi Constitution
states that there is freedom of the media in Swaziland, but the evidence on
the ground suggests this is illusionary. The Constitution was in effect in March
2007 when the King threatened the Times Sunday, but this did not stop the
newspaper from capitulating.

There may be some hope. Many respondents stated that they would not
publish information about the King’s finances (even though it was publicly
available in national budget statements), nor would they publish material that
suggests that the King’s lifestyle is at variance with the general population in
Swaziland. The King himself is also said to have told the Times Sunday
directly that it must not call him a ‘dictator’.

One magazine in Swaziland has broken these ‘rules’. The Nation magazine
has in 2008 published articles that directly challenge the position of the King.
The April 2008 edition gave detailed information about the money the King
receives from the Swazi taxpayer, through the national budget. It also
included a scathing commentary about the gap between the King’s wealth and
the general poverty of Swaziland.

In June 2008, the Nation published two articles based on the documentary
‘Without The King’, which detailed the grievances that ordinary people in
Swaziland have against the King. It also went as close to calling the King ‘a
dictator’ as it is possible to go without actually using the word.

At the time of writing (June 2008) the Nation has not faced retribution for
these articles. This suggests that there might be more scope than the Swazi
media generally believe for robust reporting and commentary about the
monarch.

The second major cause of censorship in Swaziland relates to the economy. It

is very difficult to make a profit legally in Swaziland and the media industry
 25

recognises this as much as anybody. About 70 percent of Swaziland’s near

one million population earn less than E7 per day. They cannot afford to buy
newspapers and are generally excluded from the equation when privately
owned media houses are making their business plans.

Many of the 30 percent of the population who are not officially ‘poor’ are not
well off. They have little disposable income to spend after the basic
necessities of living are paid for. This means that these people are not
attractive to advertisers, for the simple reason that they do not have money to
spend on the goods and services that advertisers want to sell.

What this means is that there is a very small section of the Swazi population
who have enough income to support the private media houses, either by
buying the paper or buying goods and services advertised.

It follows that there is an extremely small pool of advertisers in Swaziland and

there is no evidence that this pool will grow in the short to medium term.

Swazi media need every advertiser they can get and this gives a potential
power to the advertiser. A threat to withdraw vital funding from the media
house has to be taken seriously and this compromises editorial content.

One can sympathise with the media house in this regard. The main concern of
a privately owned media house (as with any commercial organisation) is to
make a profit. Editorial integrity comes a long way behind. When the publisher
of the Times Sunday decided to obey the King’s order to apologise about a
perfectly legitimate news story (that had been published widely outside of
Swaziland), he was almost certainly making a commercial judgement.

It is very difficult to ignore the commercial imperative. Media houses will

always find it hard to make a profit in Swaziland while the economy remains
so poor. In different circumstances, with a thriving economy where advertisers
compete in a marketplace for the cash of people with plenty of it to spend,
media houses may pick and choose their advertisers. Not so in Swaziland.

If Swaziland genuinely believed in a media that was free to report and

comment on any matter of public importance there would be available
subsidies from the public purse to help finance them. This would allow the
media to publish without an over-reliance on advertisers. How this could be
achieved in practice is beyond the scope of this present research report.

This research report should be viewed as the beginning of a conversation

between media practitioners (of all ranks) and the Swazi people.

This report concludes that there is a very real problem of censorship in

Swaziland, but it does not advocate solutions to the problem, since to do so
would be presumptuous of the researcher.

The next step is for those who are concerned about the existence of
censorship to take up the challenges that this research report implies.