DIVISIONS IN THE MEDIA ARE VERY HEALTHY.
By MacPherson Mutale
“In any thriving democracy, friction is not a sign of failure—it is evidence of growth. Zambia’s media landscape, though often seen as divided, is in fact a reflection of a society that is dynamic, pluralistic, and striving to define its identity in a complex political environment. The disagreements, differing views, and debates within the Zambian media fraternity are not a crisis; they are a sign of life. It is through such rigorous contestation of ideas that meaningful growth and reform emerge. Therefore, the call for statutory regulation of the media, though driven by understandable frustrations, poses a significant threat to the foundational freedoms that support democratic governance and open society.
The media, often referred to as the Fourth Estate, plays a critical role alongside the Executive, Legislature, and Judiciary in shaping national discourse and ensuring accountability. Like the other arms of government, the media is not immune to differences of opinion, political leanings, or ideological divisions. In fact, just as lawyers may disagree on constitutional interpretations or legislators debate contentious bills, journalists too engage in rigorous debates over journalistic ethics, media regulation, and the future of the profession. These divisions are not signs of weakness, but rather essential characteristics of a healthy and vibrant democracy.
Zambia’s political environment itself is deeply pluralistic. Within Parliament, for example, representatives from divergent political parties are often seen debating passionately, protesting, and even clashing ideologically. Yet, they also find common ground through caucuses and committees for the sake of national progress. If this plurality is acceptable and even celebrated within our legislative system, it should be equally acceptable within our media environment. Journalists are not robots. They are citizens with opinions, feelings, and political inclinations. Expecting an entirely neutral media is not only unrealistic—it is a dangerous fallacy.
In countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, media polarization along ideological lines is both open and institutionalized. Media houses openly declare their political leanings and serve specific audiences. For example, CNN and FOX News offer starkly different narratives on the same issues. Yet this is not seen as a flaw. Rather, it reflects a mature understanding that objectivity in the strictest sense is an illusion. The notion of a perfectly impartial media has never been realized in practice, and attempting to force such neutrality through statutory means only leads to suppression and state control.
Media, by nature, mirrors the society in which it operates. A politically polarized and socio-economically diverse nation like Zambia cannot expect its media to be monolithic. The frustrations expressed by veteran journalists over declining ethical standards are legitimate. The industry indeed faces serious challenges, including the infiltration of untrained individuals and declining public trust. However, the solution is not to surrender regulatory powers to the state. Rather, the solution lies in enhancing self-regulatory mechanisms that reflect the profession’s internal commitment to reform and excellence.
Statutory regulation, such as the proposed Zambia Institute of Journalism (ZIJ), may appear attractive on the surface, especially to those concerned with restoring public trust. But it is a slippery slope. Once the state begins to regulate who can or cannot practice journalism, the door is opened to political manipulation and suppression of dissent. In a country where oversight institutions are weak and public media is already subject to political influence, giving the state additional control over private media is akin to handing over the entire media ecosystem to political whims.
The fears of misinformation and irresponsible journalism are valid. But these challenges are not unique to Zambia. They are global phenomena, exacerbated by the digital revolution. Anyone with a smartphone and an internet connection can now disseminate information to thousands. The traditional gatekeeping role of the media has been permanently disrupted. Attempting to control this reality through statutory laws is not only futile—it is counterproductive. Rather than shutting down digital voices or punishing media houses through legislation, the focus should be on building media literacy among citizens and encouraging responsible journalism through industry-led peer accountability.
Self-regulation is not the absence of order; it is regulation by the industry itself, built on shared standards, codes of conduct, and enforcement mechanisms. This model works best because it is built on the values and experiences of those who understand journalism intimately. Some media houses in Zambia have already taken steps toward this goal, forming self-regulatory bodies and working collaboratively to uphold professional standards. These efforts should be supported and strengthened, not undermined by premature calls for state control.
To allow the state to determine who qualifies as a journalist, what qualifies as news, or what opinions are acceptable is to cede fundamental rights. Freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press—these are not privileges granted by the state. They are inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution and reinforced by international law. Curtailing these rights under the guise of regulation sets a dangerous precedent that can be used to silence critics, suppress opposition, and control public discourse.
The real crisis is not the lack of statutory regulation but the failure to create an enabling environment for journalism to flourish. Government institutions often withhold information, delay responses, and shun transparency. In such a vacuum, speculation and misinformation thrive. The solution, therefore, lies in improving access to information, building trust between media and public institutions, and empowering journalists with tools, training, and support.
The media landscape has evolved, and Zambia must evolve with it. Any attempt to impose 20th-century regulatory frameworks on a 21st-century media environment is bound to fail. We must acknowledge that informal media setups are here to stay. Citizen journalists, bloggers, podcasters, and social media commentators are all part of the modern information ecosystem. Suppressing them through state-led licensing and regulation only fuels public resentment and digital resistance.
To those advocating for statutory regulation out of frustration or despair, your concerns are understood. But giving the state more power is not the solution. It is an invitation to censorship. Let us not allow fear to dictate our future. Let us, instead, build a strong, credible, and independent media sector that can hold power accountable while policing itself with integrity and resolve.
Zambia’s democracy is still young and fragile. We cannot afford to hand over our last line of defense—the media—to the same state that seeks to be scrutinized. Let us strengthen self-regulation, invest in journalism education, promote media ethics, and foster public trust through openness and professionalism. The state already controls enough. Let us not give it the other buttock, lest we soon find ourselves unable to sit at the table of democracy at all.”