Abstract
Like their counterparts in other parts of the world, African scholars have continued to contribute to knowledge through quality research and publication in high-impact international journals. This collection highlights some of such African research (excluding North Africa) as published in Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. As pointed out by de Beer (2007), “the changing political and social contexts in African countries continues to shape journalism education in these settings” (p. 2). To get articles for this collection, I searched all articles published in the journal over a 40-year period, 1979 to 2019, and found only 23 relevant articles, out of which eight were selected. Adams et al. (2010) noted “the hemorrhage of talent” in Africa and African research networks that “seem to have benefitted less from the new dynamics” (p. 3).
The problems of African scholars getting published in prestigious journals are varied, but most times the fault of the authors. Manuscripts of many African scholars often lack depth, scope, relevance, and significance when compared with the aim and focus of the journal. Many African scholars also send manuscripts to journals without being familiar with such journals and most times without having read a single article published in the journals. “Familiarity with the journals consists of three dimensions: knowledge, use and readership” (Ha et al., 2015, p. 225). African scholars, in their haste to get published, most times gloss over such basic requirements. “Unfortunately,” as pointed out by Ha (2020), many desk rejects by prestigious journals such as Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly “are from developing countries because they do not meet the academic standard and rigor to be sent out for review” (p. 5).
Toward this end, the aim of the collection is to generate interest in African research and also to encourage more research output from scholars of the continent. “Research reputation,” according to (Ha et al., 2015), “is the most important criterion in evaluating a faculty’s performance in research in tenure and promotion decision in universities” (p. 221). Reputation is often linked to publication in prestigious journals. To get published in such journals is usually a long and arduous task, and “the only way to shorten the time to publication is to submit a manuscript that is well done” (Rocco, 2011, p. 10).
Scholars who are interested in the interrelationship of public relations and editorial comment will find the article of Albritton and Manheim (1983) irresistible. Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), under the government of Ian Smith, was riddled with violent conflicts and wars. Expectedly, such violent conflicts gave the country a bad press. Determined to curb such negative reporting, Prime Minister Ian Smith, in December 1976, contracted an American public relations firm to improve its image in the United States. But can public relations launder the image of a badly battered, war-torn country? Using a 2-year content analysis, 12 months immediately preceding and another 12 months immediately following the signing of the public relations contract, Albritton and Manheim (1983) examined all the news articles on Rhodesia as reported in the New York Times and found a strong correlation between the public relations contract and the amount of positive news that the country received, thus affirming that public relations can have a significant effect on editorial commentary.
The apartheid government of South African President P. W. Botha was marred with racial violence, racial unrest, and violent conflicts, which in turn bred a large amount of negative press both at home and abroad. To curb such negative reporting, the government increasingly churned out stringent censorship measures on both the domestic and foreign press. But can such press restrictions reduce the amount or change the type of reporting? To answer these questions, Giffard and Cohen (1989) undertook a content analysis of U.S. network TV coverage of South Africa over a 5½-year period from January 1982 to May 1987 and concluded that “the amount of coverage of South Africa did not decline after curbs were placed on the media, but rather intensified” because “the networks clearly were determined to get stories out in spite of the restrictions” (p. 10).
How would a nation’s press that was implicated in the killing of more than 800,000 of its citizens conduct its affairs after such a massive genocide? What would be the fate of press freedom in such a country after the journalists themselves have thoroughly been oppressed in press freedom? Sobel and McIntyre (2019) conducted a series of in-depth interviews with Rwandan journalists to determine how they understand their role, their relationship with the government, how they perceive their level of press freedom, and how they perceive “no-go” areas and the consequences of going into such areas. The authors found that the journalists prefer to work with the government in advancing development; hence, they censor themselves in the discharge of their duties, believe that the level of press freedom in their country is continually improving, and also believe that outsiders do not understand the media landscape of Rwanda and so are wrong in passing judgment on its press freedom.
Journalists’ job satisfaction has always been of interest to journalism scholars. However, not much of it has been done in African countries. Ireri (2016) conducted a national survey of Kenyan journalists to determine the level of job satisfaction, income satisfaction, and other predictors of job satisfaction. Using a very laborious and extensive system of sampling, Ireri (2016) first compiled a list of all media organizations in Kenya and then went further to collect the names and contact addresses of all the journalists working in the media organizations—a process that yielded the names of 1,532 journalists—50% of whom were surveyed. The author found that the majority of Kenyan journalists are satisfied with their jobs, but at the same time dissatisfied with their income. This seeming contradiction, according to the author, can be explained by the high level of job prestige, on the one hand, and corrupt patronage which Kenyan journalists enjoyed, on the other. The high rigor in his sampling of Kenyan journalists is remarkable.
The historical study of the press in Liberia from its early beginnings in 1825 by Rogers (1986) shows that early newspaper editors in Liberia played a dual role as both journalists and government officials at the same time without any overt conflict of interest. Rogers painted a sad picture of the early Liberian press weighed down by financial constraints, yet maintained that the high mortality rate of the early newspapers was not because they were run as one-man operations, but because of the twin factors of poor economic base arising from a small reading audience and a low literacy rate. Although many of the early newspapers were short-lived as a result of the enormous problems of finance and readership that they faced, a few of them still managed to survive for a decade or more.
Inequality in the flow of news between the North and the South vis-à-vis the New World Information Order has been a major subject of interest among scholars. But much of early studies focused on supporters of the new order who were principally academics and politicians from Third World or Eastern European countries or opponents of the new order who were mostly journalists from the United States and Western Europe. Journalists of developing countries, who should have the major stake in the debate’s outcome, had little or no say. To fill this gap in the literature, Roser and Brown (1986) examined the attitudes of newspaper editors in 20 African countries toward the New World Information Order and found that African editors were both strongly in favor of a balanced flow of news as outlined in the New Order and strongly in support of a free flow of the news—and they did not see any contradiction in their views.
Early Nigerian journalists were very critical of colonial rule. Such criticisms naturally irked the colonial governors who sought ways to curb the freedom that the press enjoyed. One of such was the enactment of the Seditious Offences Ordinance of 1909. The Ordinance was meant to strengthen the grip of the colonial masters over their subjects. After over 70 years of its continued use, Okonkwor (1983) critically examined the effects of the Ordinance on free speech and found that the post-independence Federal Government of Nigeria not only inherited the 1909 Ordinance alongside the colonial technique of maintaining societal stability, but actually continued to use it “to repress expression of opinions deemed inimical to the status quo” (p. 59). The study further found that the Nigerian Supreme Court which is vested with the power of judicial review “acquiesced in letting the laws remain immutable” (p. 60). Thus, there has been no difference between the colonial governments and the post-independence governments of Nigeria in their use of the laws of sedition against the press—a fact that holds till date.
Hamstrung by legal and constitutional guarantees of press freedom which journalists often claimed during the Second Republic civilian government of Nigeria between 1979 and 1983, the government devised subtle means to muffle and control the press. Ekwelie (1986) examined the prospects of civil liberties and press freedom in Nigeria during the period and found that recourse to legal and constitutional guarantees of press freedom by journalists and adherence to the rule of law by the civilian administration combined to save the press—“in spite of all the commotions and confrontations for which the mass media were the main battle grounds, the press, thanks to the Constitution, escaped fatal prosecutions” (p. 103).