为新闻自由服务还是为帝国议程服务?津巴布韦新闻业的压迫和殖民主义谈判

IF 1.3 Q1 Social Sciences Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture Pub Date : 2019-08-14 DOI:10.16997/WPCC.306
Khanyile Mlotshwa
{"title":"为新闻自由服务还是为帝国议程服务?津巴布韦新闻业的压迫和殖民主义谈判","authors":"Khanyile Mlotshwa","doi":"10.16997/WPCC.306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ideological differences relating to the normative expectations of media performance in Zimbabwe have, historically, been at the heart of debates and struggles around press freedom and media activism. On one hand, political leaders, who lean towards nationalist politics, have accused the media and media activists who are mostly part of the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), of undertaking colonial work. In some cases, the private media have been characterised as running dogs of imperialism. On the other hand, media activists and journalists, have accused the government of limiting the space for meaningful engagement in media work through harsh laws and the arrests of journalists. These activists and journalists, ideologically located mostly in the terrain of a free market liberal understanding of media and politics, have also accused the government of using soft strategies such as starving private newspapers of government advertising and the huge revenue that comes with it. Former Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has given as good as he has got in this ideological war. He has accused the private media of colluding with the Western media to tarnish the image of the country. In turn, he has been described as a media hangman. Using a combination of archival research and in-depth interviews with journalists, media activists and politicians, this paper gives a historicised account of this ideological struggle and seeks to engage with questions concerning the meaning of press freedom and media activism in Zimbabwe.","PeriodicalId":41893,"journal":{"name":"Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In the Service of Press Freedom or the Imperial Agenda? Negotiating Repression and Coloniality in Zimbabwean Journalism\",\"authors\":\"Khanyile Mlotshwa\",\"doi\":\"10.16997/WPCC.306\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Ideological differences relating to the normative expectations of media performance in Zimbabwe have, historically, been at the heart of debates and struggles around press freedom and media activism. On one hand, political leaders, who lean towards nationalist politics, have accused the media and media activists who are mostly part of the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), of undertaking colonial work. In some cases, the private media have been characterised as running dogs of imperialism. On the other hand, media activists and journalists, have accused the government of limiting the space for meaningful engagement in media work through harsh laws and the arrests of journalists. These activists and journalists, ideologically located mostly in the terrain of a free market liberal understanding of media and politics, have also accused the government of using soft strategies such as starving private newspapers of government advertising and the huge revenue that comes with it. Former Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has given as good as he has got in this ideological war. He has accused the private media of colluding with the Western media to tarnish the image of the country. In turn, he has been described as a media hangman. Using a combination of archival research and in-depth interviews with journalists, media activists and politicians, this paper gives a historicised account of this ideological struggle and seeks to engage with questions concerning the meaning of press freedom and media activism in Zimbabwe.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41893,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.16997/WPCC.306\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Westminster Papers in Communication & Culture","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16997/WPCC.306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在津巴布韦,与媒体表现的规范期望有关的意识形态差异历来是围绕新闻自由和媒体行动主义的辩论和斗争的核心。一方面,倾向于民族主义政治的政治领导人指责媒体和媒体活动家(大多是公民社会组织(cso)的一部分)从事殖民工作。在某些情况下,私人媒体被定性为帝国主义的走狗。另一方面,媒体活动人士和记者指责政府通过严厉的法律和逮捕记者,限制了媒体工作中有意义参与的空间。这些活动人士和记者,在意识形态上大多站在自由市场的立场上,对媒体和政治有自由的理解,他们还指责政府使用软策略,比如让私营报纸失去政府广告和随之而来的巨额收入。津巴布韦前总统罗伯特·穆加贝(Robert Mugabe)在这场意识形态战争中已经尽其所能。他指责私营媒体与西方媒体勾结,玷污国家形象。反过来,他被描述为媒体的刽子手。本文结合档案研究和对记者、媒体活动人士和政治家的深入访谈,对这场意识形态斗争进行了历史性的描述,并试图探讨津巴布韦新闻自由和媒体活动的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
In the Service of Press Freedom or the Imperial Agenda? Negotiating Repression and Coloniality in Zimbabwean Journalism
Ideological differences relating to the normative expectations of media performance in Zimbabwe have, historically, been at the heart of debates and struggles around press freedom and media activism. On one hand, political leaders, who lean towards nationalist politics, have accused the media and media activists who are mostly part of the Civil Society Organisations (CSOs), of undertaking colonial work. In some cases, the private media have been characterised as running dogs of imperialism. On the other hand, media activists and journalists, have accused the government of limiting the space for meaningful engagement in media work through harsh laws and the arrests of journalists. These activists and journalists, ideologically located mostly in the terrain of a free market liberal understanding of media and politics, have also accused the government of using soft strategies such as starving private newspapers of government advertising and the huge revenue that comes with it. Former Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has given as good as he has got in this ideological war. He has accused the private media of colluding with the Western media to tarnish the image of the country. In turn, he has been described as a media hangman. Using a combination of archival research and in-depth interviews with journalists, media activists and politicians, this paper gives a historicised account of this ideological struggle and seeks to engage with questions concerning the meaning of press freedom and media activism in Zimbabwe.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Estereotipos de género y TIC en secundaria: un estudio mediante metodología mixta La discriminación en los videojuegos: el caso Fortnite Overview of Spanish Universities’ Sustainability and Sustainability Communication Performance THE EFFECTS OF INTERACTIONS IN VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL MEDIA IN THE SHAPING AND REPRODUCING OF CULTURAL MEMORY, NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTITY, AND CULTURE El entramado de la violencia en las redes sociales, una reflexión del sexting
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1