“To avoid making a fool of yourself, secure your ego with research, connections, and an applicable skill base.”
Echoes with Conway Tutani
After reading the Page 1 lead story titled Makandiwa wants Daily News closed in that paper’s issue of April 12, 2013, these words above came alive.
The background to the saga is that the Daily News on December 1 last year printed a monumentally wrong poster which read Anglican saga sucks in Makandiwa instead of Anglican saga sucks in banks. This was in reference to Emmanuel Makandiwa, who heads the United Family International Church (UFIC), a Pentecostal denomination which has taken Zimbabwe by storm, drawing the largest crowds in the country.
Makandiwa demanded a retraction and apology prominently placed in the paper because the damaging poster was distributed countrywide.
But no, the retraction was tucked in some corner on Page 2. After they failed to fulfil their part of the bargain, Makandiwa exercised his democratic option of approaching the statutory Zimbabwe Media Commission (ZMC), earning himself the headline Makandiwa wants Daily News closed.
They patronisingly said Makandiwa should have approached the non-statutory Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe (VMCZ), but he copied the letter to the VMCZ, didn’t he? Just like President Robert Mugabe and his biggest political rival Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai should not and, indeed, do not disagree on everything, the ZMC is not bad to the bone as the Daily News would like to paint it.
They then had an editorial comment which began by saying: “This comment is probably the hardest we have had to write since the Daily News was given the green light to relaunch two years ago, following nearly two years of forced closure by President Robert Mugabe’s government for the crime of ‘telling it like it is, without fear or favour’.” The Daily News was shut because management — whether on the basis of bad legal advice or for some other strange reason — refused to register the paper and get a licence as required by the law. Other private newspapers complied with the law and were not closed. So you cannot claim martyrdom on the basis of what amounts to a lie.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
The Daily News really hit the lowest point by “querying”: “Why and how Emmanuel Makandiwa came to believe that the Makandiwa in the poster was him is still a big mystery.” How can they say this after they had apologised to him? What do they take readers for? We cannot soft-pedal on such crass nonsense. If they apologised “unnecessarily”, then it’s no one’s fault, but theirs. If they want to withdraw the apology, they should say so openly.
The editor unwisely continued the feud, ignorantly worsening the situation which could saddle the paper with a much higher defamation bill and fatally damage its reputation. He went on to question Makandiwa’s authenticity as a prophet. What is the logical connection between this and the indisputable fact that they had defamed him? It’s a classic case of deflecting from the issue at hand. Whether he is a true prophet or a false prophet, the fact remains that they defamed him.
Next was an opinion piece on the same page by Alexander Rusero titled Should churches condemn? Was it the UFIC or that Makandiwa was suing in his personal capacity? Heaven help us all! Newspapers mustn’t confuse and mix issues to that extent.
“It’s an even bigger mystery why this ‘prophet’ also went on to conclude, rather self-importantly, that his standing and reputation had been sullied by the poster – hence his ridiculous demand for a staggering $2 million payment from the Daily News,” continued the comment.
Editorial comments don’t get as bad as this. Editors need to be tutored on the basics of the law of defamation. It is more than self-evident that Makandiwa has a massive, if not the biggest, church following in this country as filled stadium testify, and is also on satellite TV. So, he has a high standing and big reputation to protect. You can’t be more public a figure than Makandiwa unless you want to give the word a new meaning.
And is there any connection between Makandiwa’s reputed wealth while some of his flock are wallowing in poverty — as further alleged by the Daily News — and the lawsuit he has filed against the Daily News? There is none. They are simply mixing and confusing issues. In fact, this could be further defamatory in that they are implying that Makandiwa is a mercenary out to rip off people.
The biggest indictment is that the editor talks of retraction as closing the whole saga whereas the aggrieved person still retains the right to file for damages.
The editor needs to be tutored that retraction is not a defence to defamation, but under certain circumstances, it is admissible in mitigation of damages.
In defamation, retraction is the correction of any untruth published in a newspaper or magazine or broadcast on radio or television usually upon the demand of the person about whom the damaging false statement was made. A clear and complete retraction will usually end the right of the defamed party to go forward with a lawsuit for damages for libel. But the Daily News has this headline in its retraction: “Makandiwa withdraws”.
Now, is that a clear and complete retraction?
