Adversarial journalism and its pitfalls
The Covid-19 pandemic has spawned a new kind of journalism in Zimbabwe which fits snugly into the definition of what is called “adversarial journalism”. This kind of journalism is hardly new in the global context, historians saying it predates even the American Revolution. But in Zimbabwe it emerged most prominently at the advent of the Covid-19 pandemic when some journalists sought to expose corruption in the procurement of medicines and medical accessories.
Globally, major proponents of adversarial journalism are Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Assange became famous or infamous for his WikiLeaks exposés. WikiLeaks came to international attention in 2010 when it published a series of leaks provided by United States Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning.
Snowden is an American former computer intelligence consultant who leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency in 2013, when he was an employee and subcontractor.
In Zimbabwe Hopewell Chin’ono can be classified as an adversarial journalist.
According to the Oxford Reference website, adversarial journalism is “a model of reporting in which the journalist’s role involves adopting a stance of opposition and a combative style in order to expose perceived wrongdoings”. Others define it simply as “the official term for investigative reporting done in an antagonistic way”.
This style is sometimes criticised as being aggressively antagonistic or cynically divisive.
Frank Hartzel, a veteran reporter and editor based in Northern California says: “Adversarial journalism is when a reporter, a newspaper or on rare occasions, a blog, stands up on behalf of the public to those in power.”
He cautions that good adversarial journalism is NOT combative and is NOT cynical.
Zimbabwe has always had problems with its journalism. In the past two decades, the media in Zimbabwe was woefully polarised to the extent that consumers began to doubt the gravitas of whatever newspapers carried. The polarisation was on the wane in recent times, but appears to be on the rise again as political temperatures begin to rise as the 2023 elections approach.
But polarisation and now adversarial journalism are increasingly upstaging proper journalism, which is grounded on codified ethics of the trade. Proponents or practitioners of adversarial journalism quickly become very popular shooting to rock-star status globally.
Although some forms of adversarial journalism can be overly biassed and even abusive, adversarial journalism has also helped to expose a number of important scandals and issues, but it has its own pitfalls.
The Drax “Scandal”, which eventually led to the sacking of then Health and Child Care minister Obadiah Moyo and arrest of Drax representative Delish Nguwaya, gripped the imagination of the nation at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. But, as the story later turned out, in November last year, the High Court declared that the deal which Drax entered with NatPharm was valid. Although the journalists involved cried foul alleging “judiciary capture” by the state, lives had been destroyed by the story.
But what do apostles of adversarial journalism say in its defence and what do its opponents say? There is a famous article by Roy Greenslade carried by the Guardian (UK) in 2013 called Greenwald vs Keller — Adversarial vs mainstream journalism.
Glenn Greenwald argues: “A journalist who is petrified of appearing to express any opinions will often steer clear of declarative sentences about what is true, opting instead for a cowardly and unhelpful “here’s-what-bothsides-say-and-I-won’t-resolvethe-conflicts’ formulation. That rewards dishonesty on the part of political and corporate officials who know they can rely on “objective” reporters to amplify their falsehoods without challenge
Greenwald contends that, “honestly disclosing rather than hiding one’s subjective values makes for more honest and trustworthy journalism. But no journalism — from the most stylistically ‘objective’ to the most brazenly opinionated — has any real value unless it is grounded in facts, evidence and verifiable data”.
On the other hand, Bill Keller, the former New York Times executive editor, responds by pointing out that mainstream reporters, “as an occupational discipline”, suspend their opinions and let “the evidence speak for itself”. And this is not simply an “individual exercise, but an institutional discipline, with editors who are tasked to challenge writers if they have given short shrift to contrary facts or arguments readers might want to know”.
Keller believes that “once you have publicly declared your ‘subjective assumptions and political values’, it’s human nature to want to defend them, and it becomes tempting to omit or minimise facts, or frame the argument, in ways that support your declared viewpoint”.
Adversarial journalism is outrightly dangerous. Look at what has happened to Assange and Snowden. Closer to home, Chin’ono has also had his fair share of brushes with the authorities.