Pubic_Administration

The role of the media in agenda setting This paper attempts to explain the theory of agenda setting and the role of the media in agenda setting. It also outlines the stages of how a public issue develops into a public problem, then systemic agenda and then institutional agenda/governmental agenda. The paper will focus on sanctions, water problems and indeginisation policy in Zimbabwe in Harare and the role of the public and independent media in agenda setting and agenda dissipation. According to the Wikipedia free encyclopedia “agenda setting theory is the theory that the news media have a large influence on audiences by their choice of what stories to consider newsworthy and how much prominence and space given them. Agenda setting theory’s main postulate is salience transfer”. Salience transfer is the ability of the news media to transfer issues of importance from their news media agenda to public agenda. Through their day-to-day selection and display of the news, editors and news directors focus our attention and influence our perceptions of what are the most important issues of the day. That ability to influence the salience of topics on the public agenda is agenda setting role of the news media. The Agenda setting theory was introduced by Maxwell McCombs and Donald Shaw in 1972, after their study of the role of the media in the 1968 presidential campaign in Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Wikipedia). In the study of McCombs and Shaw, the theory explains the correlation between the rate at which the media cover a story and the extent that people think that this story is important. This correlation has been shown to occur repeatedly. In agenda-setting, the media agenda is where issues discussed in the media such as newspaper, television and radios take centre stage. According to Bernard C. Colen (1963) “the media does not tell us what to think, it tells us what to think about.” The media’s role therefore is to cover stories in graphical detail. Stories that are earmarked for debate by the press are given front page coverage in bold letters to draw public attention. According to Walter Lippman 1922 (Public Opinion), “What we know about the world is largely based on what the media decide to tell us.” For example Television news offers numerous cues about salience, in the opening story of the main news cast, length of time devoted to the story. These cues repeated day after day effectively communicate the importance of each topic thereby setting the agenda for a public problem. Agenda setting has an explanatory power as it explains why most people prioritise the same issues as important. It also predicts that if people are exposed to the same media, they will feel the same issues are important. The agenda-setting functions are a 3-part process. Media agenda looks at issues discussed in the media. Public agenda focuses on issues discussed and personally relevant to the public Policy agenda which focuses on issues that policy makers consider important. It is important to know both why some problems are cited on and others are neglected. A policy problem according to James Anderson 2000 can be defined as “a condition or situation that produces needs or dissatisfaction among people and for which relief or redress by governmental action is sought.” That’s the shortage of water in Harare Suburbs is a public problem as it affects a substantial number of people and has broad effects including consequences for persons not directly involved like humanitarian organizations who are called upon to assist the availing of water. Issues like sanctions, water challenges in Harare and gender imbalance in decision making positions in government result in them becoming public problems as they produce discontent, anxiety and dissatisfaction among a large number of people. The conditions should be defined as problems and then brought to the attention of government where there is a possible solution for government. According to Anderson, 2000, a problem definition can be either top-down or a bottom-up process. In the case of sanctions, the Zanu-Pf politicians identified it as a problem and it is being cascaded downwards by the media. In the case of water shortages in Harare, the public complained of failing to access water. According to Professor Aaron Widarsky (1979) “officials are unlikely to deal with a problem unless it is coupled with a solution” Politicians can look for problems that they can mitigate or solve so as to enhance their reputation or gain support for reelection. In the case of water shortages the public media is setting an agenda of corrupt and inefficient Movement of Democratic Change (MDC) councilors in Harare who are failing to provide water for the residents of Harare. Water challenges are there in most suburbs in Harare by the Public media is using that to set an agenda of denouncing the MDC led council for poor service delivery. A problem may not be public and depends on how it is socially viewed. In the case of water shortages in Harare, most rich people in the low density suburbs have installed boreholes and no longer rely on water from Municipality of Harare. They do not raise any issue if Harare City Water runs dry. In the same vein, those from the high density suburbs will perceive the shortage as a major problem requiring governmental intervention. The definition of problems is a political process whose outcome will help determine appropriate solutions. (Anderson 2000) It is also coupled by the causes of the condition. Dealing with the causes of the condition rather than the symptoms will help deal with the problem. Other public problems require less behavioural change than others. Thus the elimination of discrimination in allocation of resources like land and resources in Zimbabwe was accomplished by the land review policy where the minority whites were removed from having multiple large farms and redistribution of pieces of land to the black majority of Zimbabwe. The tractability of problem whether it is tangible or intangible. Tangible problems are easy to address like shortage of water in Harare. Intangible problems such as racism are hard to address by monetary means and mostly are difficult to address. Problems usually compete for official attention for legislators or government officials in line with limited resources and time. The decision to take up a problem and address it will result in other s being left behind. The decision to act on a problem constituted policy agenda. Thus some problems can be defined as a crisis like the Harare Water shortage in the 2008 to 2009 period when a cholera outbreak occurred as a result among others of shortage of water. Thus it was given priority by the then Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA). Thus the public problem of water was converted into an issue requiring governmental attention. A public problem moves to systemic agenda where the issue(s) is perceived by members of the political community as meriting public attention. Thus the moment politicians take up the issues then the issue goes in systemic agenda which is essentially a discussion agenda in general terms and normally does not go anywhere in terms of getting governmental redress or action. If top governmental officials or legislation give active attention to the issue, the issue moves into institutional agenda/governmental agenda. It is in this mode that issues discussed by legislative or administrative policy makers may be very technical to draw the attention of the general news media. There are various levels/points where institutional agenda occurs. At national level, one can identify legislative, executive, administrative and judicial agendas. According to Anderson (2000), an institutional agenda is basically an action agenda and is more specific and concrete in context than a systematic agenda. It ranges from mandatory to discretionary. Mandatory in that the government is expected to provide water, shelter and protection to its citizens and discretionary as regards to minor or major issues. This paper will look at three policy problems sanctions, indigenization and gender imbalance in decision making in the public service. The issue of sanctions in Zimbabwe has taken centre stage in both the print and electronic media. This according to Donald W. Show in “Public Opinion Quarterly” 1972 XXXVI, 2 “Candidates go before the people through the mass media rather than in person ….. the pledge promises, and rhetoric encapsulated in news stories, columns and editorials constitute much of the information upon which a voting decision has to be made …..” The problem of anti-sanctions was launched by the President of Zimbabwe, Comrade R.G. Mugabe on March 2 2011 on behalf of the Zanu Pf and the “government of Zimbabwe”. It was aimed at showing displeasure to the Zimbabwe Democracy and Recovery Act (ZIDERA) 2001 and the adoption in 2002 by the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand. The launch was extensively covered by the public media, both print and electronic. It was carried in almost all the newspapers under the Zimpapers group, viz, The Herald, The Sunday Mail, The Chronicle, and The Manica Post like “ZIMBABWE SAYS NO TO ILLEGAL SANCTIONS”. The private media also covered the launch. What is however, interesting to note is the tone and content of the public and private media with regards the coverage of the launch. Prior to the launch, the public media carried widespread coverage supporting the launch and it was playing a role in legitimizing the policy problem. According to Sahr, 1993, “the media acts as a powerful political actor, with its interests strongly tied to the status quo --- journalists and editors shape policy agendas by actively filtering issues so that reporting conforms to their dominant news values - selecting what issues are covered and which sources are used”. Thus the media coverage was setting the agenda for the public to accept anti-sanction as a public problem, needing governmental intervention. The four national radio stations started playing jingles and Presidential snippers denouncing sanctions every thirty minutes accompanied by political songs on anti sanctions. This was meant to cater for the rural folk who do not have access to the television. In contrast the independent media views the whole issue as a propanganda initiative to safeguard the interests of the ruling elite. Gullian Gotora from Associated Press wrote on 4 May 2011, “EU: sanctioned Zimbabwe journalists ‘incite hate’. The article focused on the six Zimbabwean state-media journalists who were put on the sanctions list because their reporting incites hatred that media groups say has led to political violence. Independent media was advocating for agenda dispersion by trying to give or support sanctions and why they are necessary. The launch of the anti-sanctions was broadcasted on all the four national radio stations and the national television. On the main news hour of the bulletin, it was the main item. All public newspapers carried first page articles on the launch and gave full page coverage. According to the Media Institute of Southern Africa-Zimbabwean chapter (Mawarire & Nyakunu 2007: 8), public service broadcasting plays a critical role in a situation where structural imbalances and scarcities of media access can undermine democratisation and development. MISA further states that in a country like Zimbabwe, the public broadcaster, the ZBC, enjoys the monopoly of the airwaves since no privately-owned radio and television stations have been licensed (Mawarire & Nyakunu, 2007: 8). Misa established that there is government interference in editorial decisions. The ZBC news staff operating from both in the field and at the editorial desk all confirmed that there was regular government interference in their operations, especially with regards the portrayal of the MDC parties. The findings were as follows: • The Permanent Secretary in the ministry of Media Information and Publicity, George Charamba, instructed the ZBC General Manager for News to brief him about the angle which was to be used in the daily political news bulletins. Any stories critical of ZANU (PF) were removed or twisted to sound favourable to the party. According to Sub-Editor (2010): “No MDC-related stories would be broadcast before being cleared by the General Manager for News, who in turn sought clearance from the ministry. Three of our supervisors were suspended on allegations of leaking the directive to the private media. The General Manager for News was personally involved in the editing and clearing of all stories related to the unity talks leading to the formation of the Government of National Unity. He further instructed that in all news bulletins we should refer to President Mugabe as Head of State and Government and the Commander-in-Chief of the Zimbabwe Defence Forces‟ while Prime Minister Tsvangirai was to be referred to only as Mr.‟.” That’s the media’s role is to potray the President and the authority with all the powers to lead the state, government and the defence forces. All news whether from the political party or from the day to day operations of government should be given coverage. There is therefore no distinction between President Mugabe’s role as the leader of Zanu (PF) and the inclusive government. Thats the launch of the launch of the anti-sanctions was given wide coverage from the public media. The General Manager for News instructed that only pro-ZANU (PF) political analysts like Maxwell Hove, Tafataona Mahoso, Godwills Masimirembwa and Goodson Nguni would be invited to participate in live television news bulletins. No pro-MDC political commentators were invited to participate in the live news bulletins. Only very few commentators from civic society and the business world are invited (Urban Reporter, 2010; Sub-Editor, 2010) The ZBC news staff reported that besides being instructed to adopt negative angles in covering the MDC parties, their reports were sometimes changed if they portrayed the former opposition parties in positive light. The study found that while ZBC news crews attended several MDC-T and MDC-M press conferences and rallies, most of the material gathered was not always shown on television news bulletins. Whatever was shown was manipulated to suit the ZANU (PF) political agenda. According to MDC-M‟s Mushoriwa (2010) who state that “To talk of fairness from ZBC is not proper. It has been known to propagate the views of ZANU (PF) only. During those unity talks they manipulated the press conferences to the extent of pointing cameras to corners without capturing any news when covering opposition parties. We have been victims of distortion.” George Charamba the permanent secretary in the Ministry of Information and Publicity and Presidential spokesman commented on the need for everyone to join the anti-sanctions campaign. Ambassador Mutsvangwa was called on Television news to give a political commentary on the issue supporting the launch. The two acted as political analysts who give a “rational” view point to try and set an agenda for the general public to accept the launch as public problem. |The Private Media and in the Zimbabwean scenario, the independent Press also carried the anti-sanctions articles from the launch. | | | | |However, they focused on why the sanctions were imposed by the Western countries and choose to define them as travel restrictive measures | | | | |imposed to some political leadership in ZANU PF party who were violating human rights and were blocking democratic changes and rights. For| | | | |example, Muckraker on 3 March 2011 in the Independent newspaper had a headline: Sanctions ultimate Zanu PF scapegoat. | | | | | | |The article stated that Zimbabwe is being rewarded for its fiscal management by the EU with the lifting of certain categories of sanctions.| |In the middle of the article it then focus on Zanu PF launch of “ a massive exercise in dishonesty trying to tell the country that | |sanctions are at the root of our problems”. The independent media brought in a critique of the launch by suggesting to the readers that | |Zanu PF tells people that sanctions are “an attack on all Zimbabweans and an attack on our economy”, under the heading “10 strong reasons | |why you must sign against illegal sanctions”, In fact the article poses alternatives of the reason for the launch as a planned retaliation | |against Nestlé because it declined to buy milk from the Gushungo dairy owned by the first family. Here it gave a good example of an “attack| |upon the economy”. Compares the anti-sanctions petition to the land reform. In a way the article by Mackraker is an attempt by the | |independent media to scatter the efforts of agenda setting put forward by the public media i.e. the Herald and the Sunday Mail. | | | |The article further critics a handful of “misguided business people have signed up for this coercive and hypocritical scheme.” It further | |questions business personality like Shingi Mutasa who is widely respected in the business community by asking whether he really want to be | |seen as part of Zanu PF’s damaging project' The same goes for Nigel Chanakira who appears to think the EU is “bitter” about land reform. No| |mention from his round table colleagues about electoral violence or manipulation. It attempts to satisfy its readership which is mainly | |the business and urban clientele. | Prior to the launch of the anti-sanctions launch, the media played a great part in agenda setting. Caesar Zvayi on 25 August 2010 in his article “Corporate Media Distorts Southern African Development Agenda” after the SADC Summit of 17 August 2010 in Namibia. He stated that the private media had carried many stories/articles claiming Windhoek was going to be President Mugabe’s downfall; Zimbabwe tops SADC agenda, SADC to rein in Mugabe. However when the summit was held the media agenda proved that it was not SADC agenda. The expectations of the independent corporate media were not achieved. This gave Caesar Zvayi from the Herald, a field day and an opportunity to set the agenda for anti-sanctions. According to Caesar Zvayi, “the tabloids were left aghast, have to relate the summit outcome to their hysterical agenda setting and their attempts to cover their behinds were quite hilarious, for instance to the Zimbabwe Independent of August 20 to 26, 2010 read “SADC afraid of Mugabe” that the independent media learnt a lesson that there is a difference between media agenda setting and the SADC Agenda setting (C. Zvayi,:2010)”. The Agenda setting they attempted to do on the run up to the Windhoek SADC Summit of August 2010 was aimed at influencing the Summit agenda but it failed. However, it is worth noting that in the same article by Caesar Zvayi, he attempted to put the anti-sanctions issue on the agenda-setting for the Zimbabwean audience. At the end of the article he mentions that “the only sticking issue which is hindering the full operation of the Global Political Agreement Signed by Political parties in 2008 was sanctions and the sooner all parties denounce them the better”. In a way Caesar Zvayi is acting as a gatekeeper by attempting to set the news media agenda. | The public media has become a vital force for legitimizing governmental issues and problems. The government and journalists participating | |in “coalition journalism”. This is where journalists obtain credentiated information and recognition by providing an “important” | |legitimate story, while policy makers obtain publicity. The Herald of 1 March 2011 carried a front page article “Mugabe launches sanctions | |campaign”. The article’s first paragraph was very clear and precise as it set the agenda, “President Robert Mugabe’s anti-sanctions crusade | |swings into full gear with a planned ‘million men march’ expected in Harare on Wednesday.” | In a full-page advert placed in the state-owned Herald newspaper, Zanu PF said the sanctions had resulted in the decline of the economy, the non-availing of lines of credit, the negative international perception of the country and the fall in the standards of living of Zimbabweans. “It is thus a responsibility of all political parties and all patriotic Zimbabweans to take a stand against these illegal sanctions by signing the anti-sanctions petition,” read an advert placed by the Zanu PF information department. This supports Bernard C. Colen (1963) assertion that the media does not tell us what to think, it tells us what to think about. Stories that are earmarked for debate by the press are given front page coverage in bold letters to draw public attention. Information and Publicity Minister Webster Shamu, who is also Zanu PF political commissar, said the march was a “national event”. But in reality it turned up to be a political party event as other political parties did not attend. Minister Shamu went on to express the launch as “…a rare opportunity for all of the people of Zimbabwe, irrespective of colour, creed or political affiliation, who have been affected by the illegal sanctions,” Shamu told the state media. “People of various political and religious affiliations are free to turn out in their respective regalia.” MDC parties claimed that their party spokesmen are not invited to speak on live bulletins and current affairs programmes. According to MDC-T’s Chamisa (2010), “there has been a lot of bias against our party; ZBC brought a lot of ZANU (PF) people to speak on behalf of the MDC, instead of inviting us to speak for ourselves. In fact, they covered all meetings, rallies or statements, but we never saw the news items on television except sections where ZANU (PF) people speak on our behalf. Falsehood and distortion is always part of the editorial policy at ZBC. They like to engineer and manufacture facts in order to denigrate the MDC-T” The media plays a significant role in determining the issues of service delivery in Harare. The media plays an important role in shaping the values of society but also reflects those values. Water shortages in Harare started as a small community problem in Mabvuku/Tafara but it spread to affect most high density surburbs of Mbare, Highfield, Budiriro, Glen View, Kuwadzana, Dziwarasekwa, Mufakose and Sunningdale. The problems started in the early 2000 and that is when the councils were made up of councilors from the opposition parties. The politicians from the ruling party ZANU (PF) then acknowledged the problem of water as emanating from the incompetence of the councilors from the opposition party. This has been taken on board by the public media setting the agenda that the corrupt and incompetent councilors are failing to provide water for Harare residents. The water problems in Harare are linked to the MDC party councilors and not to shortage of resources to avail the water. This is not withstanding the current shortage of electricity which is an important input in the pumping of water to Harare reservoirs. The Zanu (PF) party controls the public broadcaster and enjoys monopoly of the airwaves since no privately owned radio and television stations have been licensed. The Zanu (PF) party is using that opportunity to determine indigenisation as a public problem. As alluded to by Anderson (2000) the definition of a problem is a political process whose outcome will help determine appropriate solutions. The public media is now being used to reflect the position of the Zanu (PF) party in the indigenisation process. Articles in both the public print media and electric media are being flighted in an effort to set the agenda that indigenization is a national problem and should be tackled by the government like what was done in addressing the land imbalance. The agenda setting in the indigenization drive is now more political as it is an attempt to put forward the position that the solution to Zimbabwe’s problems is addressed through indigenization. |In an interview with Ralph Matema 5 May 2011on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum on Africa, Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment | |Minister, Saviour Kasukuwere, said there was no going back on compliance but stressed the National Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment | |Board would sit down with all parties involved to come up with a win-win situation. The win-win position being taken is an attempt to show | |that the ‘revolutionary’ party is implementing its promise of reallocating resources to the majority Zimbabweans. However the independent | |media views the agenda setting of the public media as an attempt to distort the progress made in restoring the economy. | According to Wisdom Mudzangairi (2011), “Zimbabwe appears to be replaying chapters out of Animal Farm and Atlas Shrugged. The benefits of indigenisation are outweighed by the long-term destruction of private firms as people lose jobs, goods are scarce, and costs go up because you don’t know what capricious act in the name of the people is next. Zimbabwe should look south to its neighbour South Africa for economic inspiration not north or elsewhere. No one thinks government-run companies are more efficient. Look at the electricity situation in Zimbabwe. No one would want to invest in a country which keeps nationalising foreign-owned companies, in the name of indigenisation.” This is agenda scattering that is trying to discredit the whole process. According to the Independent Newspaper, Essar swooped on Ziscosteel and snapped 60% of the shareholding against indigenisation laws requirements during a week when Zimbabwe held the Euromoney investment conference aimed at luring investors. To all intents and purposes government has violated its own indigenisation regulations after approving the disposal of part of its shareholding in Zisco. Principals in the inclusive government President Mugabe, PM Tsvangirai and Deputy Premier Arthur Mutambara approved the multi-billion dollar deal. Politicians are wily foxes, saying everything regarding indigenising the economy with tongue in cheek. Industry minister Welshman Ncube even went further to say: Zisco is valueless. The article is discrediting the agenda set by the public media by showing that the government is not serious about the issue of indigenization as it is failing to follow the laws stated in the indigenization laws. The Zimbabwean an independent newspaper on 11 May 2011 reported that Zapu President Dumiso Dabengwa's Zapu party has said the ongoing indigenisation drive is "ill-timed, ill-conceived, ill-directed and ill-fated." "It is economically suicidal at this time to chase away foreign investment by grabbing what remains of big business in the private sector and handing it to the corrupt elite belonging to or associated with one known political party," said Zapu President. The Newsday on 13 May 2011 reported that Mines and Mining Development minister Obert Mpofu and Indigenisation minister Saviour Kasukuwere attacked critics of indigenisation laws and said some of them were being used as mouthpieces of Western countries. The two were addressing the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Mines and Energy on indigenisation in the mining industry. “In dealing with issues of indigenisation, we should not be mouthpieces of detractive interests because we are the only country in the world which has not benefitted,” said Mpofu. Kasukuwere vowed there was no going back on indigenisation and urged companies to engage the government. The same article was carried by the Independent and stated that Youth Development, Indigenisation and Empowerment minister Saviour Kasukuwere and Mines minister Obert Mpofu told a workshop that the government would press ahead with its contentious indigenisation drive even though the Indigenisation Act has some gaping loopholes. "No one is going to stop us from indigenising any company, particularly those which supported the (Ian) Smith regime like Anglo American, which has exploited our resources all over the country. Even though the Indigenisation Act has certain loopholes, we are not going to stop the process," Kasukuwere said. "We are not nationalising anything but only seeding value. The Indigenisation Act was not going to be necessary if these companies had complied with us for the sake of our people, but they did not do anything and now that we are indigenising, they are saying we are wrong," said Kasukuwere. All the articles in the independent media on indigenization focuses on the critical aspects and the damage it will make to the economy. The attempt by the independent media is based on the notion that the over published problem does not exist. They want the status quo to remain. The articles focus on the fact that even if the problem exists, it is not appropriate and does not warrant governmental attention. REFERENCES 1. James E. Anderson (2000) Public Policy Making, Fourth Edition, Texas A and M University: Boston, New York 2. Thomas R. Dye (2002) Understanding Public Policy: Florida State University, Pearson Education. 3. Financial Gazette 11 December 2009 4. Micheal Barker (2005) Manufacturing policies: the media’s role in the policy making process, Griffith University 5. Auerbach, Y & Y. Bloch-Elkon (2005). Media framing and foreign policy: the elite press vis-avis US policy in Bosnia, 1992-95, Journal Peace Research, 42 83-99 6. Gillian Gotora (2011) Associated Press, EU: Sanctioned Zimbabwe journalists ‘incite hate’ 7. Maxwell E. McCombs and Donald Shaw (1972) The Agenda- Setting Function of Mass Media, Public Opinion Quarterly XXXVI,2 8. The Herald Newspaper 9. The Independent Newspaper 10. Newsday Newspaper