The three alternative journalisms of Africa

Abstract

Much African journalism scholarship has had a critical stand towards ‘Western’ journalism models. The criticism has resulted in the submission of alternative African journalism models such as ujamaa journalism, ubuntu journalism and oral discourse journalism. The present article reviews a number of significant contributions to normative African journalism models over the past 50 years and argues that they constitute three major streams: journalism for social change, communal journalism and journalism based on oral discourse. The vital differences between these three journalism models are explicated along the dimensions of interventionism and cultural essentialism. The article goes on to enquire why the three journalism models of Africa, different as they are, appear to be in collective conflict with Western journalism paradigms. It is suggested that the dimensions of socio-historicity and professionalism best explain the conflict.

Keywords

African journalism cultural essentialism deconstruction interventionism normative theory professionalism socio-historicity

Introduction

‘The tragedy facing African journalism’, writes the late Francis Kasoma (1996: 95), ‘is that the continent’s journalists have closely imitated the professional norms of the North’. Kasoma is only one of many scholars who have expressed discontent with Western influence in African journalism. A series of commentators warn against mainstream ‘bandwagonism’ (Nyamnjoh, 2005b: 4) in African journalism at the expense of ‘genuine’ African values. Western media practices applied in the African context arguably reinforce neocolonialism (Banda, 2008a), undermine (Ndlela, 2009) and misinterpret local culture (Sesanti, 2009), suppress people participation (Shaw, 2009), prioritize conflict above empathy (Traber, 1987) and are generally seen to be at odds with African philosophy (Blake, 2009; Jimada, 1992; Okigbo, 1987).

A closer look at the history of African media studies, however, shows that there is no consensus on a distinct African journalism paradigm that stands out as an agreed alternative to a Western or Northern paradigm (Kivikuru, 2009). Kasoma (1996), for example, who proposed ‘Afriethics’ as a basis for African journalism practice, was criticized by colleagues from all over the continent who claimed that his ideology was based on a ‘romantic reconstruction of the pre-colonial’ (Nyamnjoh, 2005a: 91) and that it assumed a static and exceptionalistic understanding of African culture (Banda, 2009b; Tomaselli, 2009). Others have suggested ubuntuism as a source for African journalism ideology (e.g. Blankenberg, 1999; Christians, 2004; Worthington, 2011), but they have been refused as well, for instance on the ground that ubuntu runs the risk of being misused for political purposes (Fourie, 2008a, 2008b) or that it could turn into an essentialist and exclusivist ideology (Kanyegirire, 2007). Even so, the belief that Africa needs a journalism standard which differs substantially from that of the rest of the world – and particularly from the West – seems to be strong among many media scholars.

What provoked this article was a desire to systematize the many efforts that have been made to formulate genuine African journalism models over the past decades. These efforts have a history to around 1960 when African leaders such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana requested the media to take part in the liberation struggle through the introduction of revolutionary journalism; and the efforts continue today. Against this backdrop, the aim of this study is to provide an overview of all significant contributions to the formulation of a distinct African journalism ideology since the late 1950s, when national liberation began on the continent, and until today. I propose that the contributions fall into three broad groups, or streams, of African journalism. These are: (1) journalism for social change, (2) communal journalism and (3) journalism inspired by oral discourse. For each group, I identify a series of sub-disciplines which have been submitted by scholars as contributions to framing the essence of a normative African journalism framework. However, I argue that many of these submissions share certain basic characteristics and therefore can be clustered into one of the three streams of African journalism. The three streams in turn provide a ground for theoretical comparison with journalism models elsewhere.

An underlying purpose of the contribution is to reflect fundamentally on the variables used when comparing and contrasting journalism models locally as well as globally. In arguing that there are fundamental differences between the three streams of African journalism, I propose two key variables or dimensions; those of interventionism and cultural essentialism. Interventionism points to the extent to which journalism should actively advocate change in society. Various African journalism models (but not all) score high on this dimension. Cultural essentialism points to the extent to which the preferred journalism model is built on values that are believed to be fixed to a particular tradition, people or society. As will be demonstrated later, a range of African journalism models score high on this dimension as well. These two dimensions, then, serve to distinguish the three main streams of African journalism. However, from an external perspective, it may appear that the three journalisms of Africa are basically the same and that the important point of tension rather lies in the fact that they are all at odds with Western journalism. This perception, I argue, emerges because the outsider intuitively assumes main emphasis on two other variables – professionalism and socio-historicity – when comparing journalism ideologies across cultures. In that perspective, liberal journalism models appear to stand out as more universal and more professionally oriented than African models. This way, an examination of African journalism models also evokes essential reflections on the constituents used when defining local and global journalism paradigms.

Importantly, the present study is occupied with normative models, implying that the focus is primarily set on ideal-type journalisms rather than actual journalism practice. This stands in contrast to the empirical focus that habitually characterizes research on ‘journalism cultures’ where mapping of journalism practice takes precedence over normative analyses (e.g. Hanitzsch et al., 2011; Weaver and Willnat, 2012). The mission of this article, by contrast, is to investigate and compare ideal-type journalisms, i.e. normative journalism models as defined in the literature or in media policy. That said, it is pertinent to note that a journalism type could hardly be regarded as exclusively normative or descriptive. A normative model will always presume a relationship with actual practice, at least in intention, as it seeks to define journalistic norms within a particular media culture. At the same time, a normative model constantly runs the risk that various limitations in daily media practice are glossed over, such as time pressure in the newsroom. The potential of studying normative journalism models lies therefore first and foremost in identifying fundamental norms and ideologies which in turn give directions for journalistic practice.

Theoretical and methodological issues

As one of the aims of this article is to reflect critically on the variables applied in journalism models, a few theoretical and methodological issues must be discussed before construing the actual models. The understanding is that comparing journalism models, be it on a global or regional level, involves certain methodological challenges (Hanitzsch, 2008, 2009). I propose that three such challenges carry particular significance for the analysis of global journalism models, relating to the topics of categorization, semantics and demarcation. A reflection around these issues will serve to substantiate that the subsequent analysis points to the most relevant aspects of each journalism model and that the models are adequate for comparison with journalism frameworks elsewhere in the world.

First, the challenge of categorization points to the attributes which are chosen to describe each journalism model. The proposition in this regard is that the chosen attributes – or more precisely: variables – for describing each model will determine the frame of reference when comparing the models in global perspective. In setting the variables, two aspects appear to be particularly important. First, the variables must provide a valid ground for comparison across cultures, news organizations and media types. For instance, the variables need to be easily identifiable in both African and European journalism practice; in both state media and private media organizations; and in broadcasting and print media alike. As such, Hanitzsch’s (2007) proposal of three universal constituents and seven determinants (or ‘principal dimensions’, as he calls them) when deconstructing journalism culture is useful and will serve as a starting-point for the comparison of African journalism frameworks in this article.¹ Second, the variables should reflect values which are regarded as important by theoreticians and practitioners who are closely engaged with the journalism ideologies under scrutiny. For instance, the historical backdrop of colonialism is a major incentive for many scholars in the discussion of African journalism (Banda, 2008a; Bond, 1997; Bourgault, 1995; Domatob, 1988; Wasserman, 2006), hence the variables used to describe a particular journalism ideology must not escape or downplay such cultural and sociopolitical factors even though an outsider might intuitively put main emphasis on other variables. In other words, the variables chosen to capture the essentials of an evolving journalistic ideology such as an African one need to reflect both an enduring theoretical foundation as well as those contextual imperatives which are deemed important by local actors.

The second challenge is that it is important to take into account the role of semantics when discussing journalism paradigms. This issue concerns the nomenclature applied when naming the various journalism models. The dilemma comes to the fore, for example, when two analysts use the same term (label) but assume a different understanding of the term. A case in point is Faringer’s (1991: 23) use of the term ‘indigenous journalism’ to describe certain journalism practices in Nigeria as closely linked to local languages and native communication patterns, as opposed to James (1990), who uses the same term – ‘indigenous journalism’ – in a rather different way, namely as an equivalent to social change journalism. Similarly, established terms like ‘public journalism’ typically carry one meaning where they once originated (in this case in the US) but may take on a different meaning when the term is adopted for other cultural contexts. ‘Development journalism’, to use another pertinent example, may not mean the same to everyone. The importance in this regard lies in scrutinizing the nomenclature with the view to identify the meaning behind the term instead of assuming that there is an inherently agreed understanding of the content of the term.

Third, demarcation of the journalistic field soon becomes an issue when analysing African journalism models. The key question in this regard is what should qualify as journalism and what should not. The general literature on journalism in Africa shows that many writers presume a wide understanding of the practice. The discipline of development journalism, for instance, is sometimes equated with the wider area of development communication (e.g. Odhiambo, 1991). A staunch journalism professional may be critical of such blurring of professional boundaries. This discussion, of course, has a parallel in the debate of whether new media practices like blogging qualify as journalism (Domingo and Heinonen, 2008; Lowrey, 2006). When studying journalism cultures in global perspective, researchers generally prefer a wide conceptualization of `journalism', primarily to make sure a Western understanding of journalism does not exclude other types (Park and Curran, 2000). However, one particular type of journalism, namely professional news journalism, although appearing in somewhat different forms around the globe, commonly maintains the position as a benchmark for a range of journalism practices (e.g. Deuze, 2002; Hanitzsch, 2007; Norris, 2010). This may not be all bad, given the history and prominence of news journalism worldwide (Shoemaker and Cohen, 2006; Weaver and Willnat, 2012). At the same time, when identifying African journalism models, one must be careful to ensure that the chosen theoretical framework does not exclude journalistic forms that are outside the strict news format. I therefore operate with a fairly wide conceptualization of ‘journalism’ in this study. This does not, however, preclude a further discussion of the usefulness of operating with a wide definition of journalism in the African context, though that discussion must be followed up elsewhere than in this article.

Aiming to circumscribe all major contributions to the formulation of a journalism model for Africa, the study necessarily relies on a high number of literature references, both past and present. The early historical references are selected in terms of their relevance for describing journalism models in relation to the dominant political systems of the first independent African states. Later on, the scholarly environment associated with the African Council for Communication Education (founded 1976) played a key role in debating African journalism models, not the least through its journal Africa Media Review (established 1986). Thus, articles published in this journal are central to the material discussed. Geographically, the interest in this analysis lies both in identifying models that have been proposed for the African continent as a whole as well as for specific nation-states and societies within Africa. Most submissions, however, assume pan-African significance, though often confined to sub-Saharan Africa. It is further important to note that the frameworks portrayed in this article as African journalism models do not necessarily denote an exclusive African origin. Some models are derived from journalism traditions elsewhere, such as development journalism and peace journalism. However, in order to qualify as African journalism models, they must have been adopted to the local context with the intention to meet the particular challenges of African media societies.

With these methodological precautions in mind, I go on to identify and categorize various African journalism models in the way that these have been proposed in the literature.

The three streams of African journalism

It is the argument of this article that although a number of African journalism models have been proposed since the late 1950s, they fall into three streams, broadly speaking (see overview in Table 1). The first stream, which I call journalism for social change, is the most extensively covered in the research literature among the three and has counterparts in various Western journalism paradigms. Journalism for social change champions that the journalist should be a change agent. The second stream, communal journalism, shares the interventionist dimension with journalism for social change, but is profoundly different in its dependence on an exclusive African cultural paradigm. The third stream, journalism based on oral discourse, is fundamentally rooted in a philosophy of indigenous African communication practice. This last journalism stream insists that African media practice can only prosper if it grows out of a philosophy of oral communication, regarded as fundamental to all interaction on the continent.

Table 1.

Overview of the three major streams of African journalism with sub-disciplines.

Journalism stream	Sub-disciplines
Journalism for social change	Advocacy journalism, activist journalism, liberation journalism, revolutionary journalism, guerrilla journalism, black journalism, journalism of relevance, ujamaa journalism, development journalism, Third World journalism, emancipatory journalism, peace journalism
Communal journalism	Ubuntu journalism, journalism based on Afriethics, Afrocentric/Africentric journalism, indigenous journalism, community journalism, communitarian journalism, citizen/public journalism, mediative journalism, journalism of meaning, journalism of purpose
Journalism based on oral discourse	Narrative journalism, trad-communication, oramedia journalism, journalism of belonging/association/affiliation/partisanship, griot-based journalism, azmari-based journalism, dagu-based journalism

Journalism for social change

It is appropriate to begin with journalism for social change since this became the first set of journalism ideology to challenge foreign-inspired colonial reporting practice on the African continent. The early sporadic initiatives to challenge Western dominance in African journalism concurred with the continent’s first wave of liberalization in the 1950s. It may be more of a coincidence, but the continent’s first independent leader,² Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, had been trained as a journalist. He set up several newspapers (among them Accra Evening News ³), and had clear ideas about the role of journalism in the newfound self-rule. Journalism to him was a vehicle for national unity and a tool for breaking with the colonial past (Alhassan, 2005; Asante, 1996; Bond, 1997). The reporter in Nkrumah’s ideology was a staunch supporter of official government policy. Independent journalism became an oxymoron. In several speeches, Nkrumah envisions the journalist to be a revolutionary political actor. His message to the media is clear: ‘Our revolutionary African press must carry our revolutionary purposes’ (Nkrumah, 1965; cited in Bond, 1997: 30). Nkrumah’s activist approach may have inspired many a young African journalist in the early days (Rake, 1999), but his revolutionary journalism soon came into conflict with the media themselves, exemplified by his issuing of authoritarian directives against the Ashanti Pioneer (Shaw, 2009: 499). However, revolutionary journalism in the less authoritative form has been championed by media commentators long after Nkrumah. Hadjor (1990) advocates a ‘committed black journalism’ akin to the revolutionary journalism of Nkrumah – perhaps not surprisingly considering the fact that Hadjor was the press aide in the publicity secretariat of Nkrumah. For Hadjor it is essential that the journalist must have lived through the struggles of an African and thinks like an African in order to perform this type of journalism. Objectivity is seen as counter-productive, as made clear by the following statement: ‘We [the journalists] should not be attempting to present a so-called balanced picture; we must make unambiguously clear whose side we are on’ (Hadjor, 1990: 22). Hadjor calls his approach ‘journalism of relevance’, actively promoting human rights and fighting for the rights of women and the disadvantaged (Hadjor, 1990: 28). The ultimate duty is to utilize the media in the cause for social and ideological change.

Revolutionary journalism as advanced by Nkrumah and his followers belongs to the broader class of advocacy journalism. According to Elizabeth Hoff (1999), it was predestined that this practice emerged in African newsrooms because ‘African journalism was born out of the dire need for political emancipation from the colonial masters’. Not only colonialism, but political oppression in various coating provoked political advocacy journalism across Africa. Examples are the ‘radical journalism’ of Ruth First during the apartheid years in South Africa (Pinnock, 2007) and ‘guerrilla journalism’ during the military regime of Nigeria in the 1990s (Maringuez, 1996). Various ‘liberation journalism’ movements in for example Cameroon, Ghana and Kenya have been marked by political activism as well (Nyamnjoh, 1997). In recent years, advocacy journalism has been advanced through African versions of new media social movements (Kperogi, 2008, 2011; Murphy, 1999; Njubi, 2001) and a renewed form of emancipatory journalism (Banda, 2009a). Common to these journalisms is a strong interventionist stance, a distrust in objective values of the press, and a conviction that the media ought to join forces with social movements and political interests in the name of the greater good.

Ujamaa journalism shares many of the tenets of advocacy journalism, but deserves a special treatment because it originated in a specific African context (Tanzania) and was used to advocate a particular political agenda (African socialism). It is intrinsically linked to Tanzania’s first president Julius Nyerere (r. 1961–1985), who formulated a political philosophy based on communal ownership of the means of production,⁴ equality and human dignity, unity grounded in a communion of souls, and an obligation to work (Nyerere, 1968). As with Nkrumah in Ghana, Nyerere believed that journalists were inherently part of the national project. Now passé, ujamaa journalism has been described as politicized and part and parcel of the communication strategy of the Tanzanian government (Domatob and Hall, 1983; Kivikuru, 1989; Ramaprasad, 2003; Shoo, 1997; Sturmer, 1998). Jimada (1992: 374) characteristically explains how the journalism department at the Catholic Nyegezi Social Training Institute in Tanzania in 1981 transformed its curriculum to embrace subjects of ujamaa and communication for development. The Tanzania School of Journalism went in the same direction and started a development studies course which included topics like ‘Class Struggle’, ‘Neo-Colonialism’ and ‘The Collapse of Capitalism’ (Murphy and Scotton, 1987). When ujamaa had faded in official policy by the early 1990s, journalism curricula in Tanzania were reverted to a more Western style (Wimmer and Wolf, 2005). One of the problems with ujamaa style journalism was that it began to correspond with state muzzling of the press (Grosswiler, 1997; Rioba, 2008; Sommerlad, 1968). This echoes the fate of Nkrumah’s revolutionary journalism in Ghana; however, while Nkrumah’s journalism strategy was marked by fragmented implementation, Nyerere’s ujamaa journalism model was more systematically introduced in education and media practice, together with a national communication scheme based on collectivism. Both journalisms ceased with the demise of the political regimes which sparked them off.

More enduring and still relevant is development journalism. This is not a genuine African journalism practice, but originated, according to Gunaratne and Hasim (1996), at a Thomson Foundation workshop in the Philippines in August to September 1968. Xu (2009) identifies five common characteristics of development journalism worldwide: it reports on development results and actual impact on people; it focuses on long-term development processes; it is independent from government (though working constructively together for nation-building); it shifts the journalistic focus to economic and social development issues; and it empowers ordinary people. There is general agreement on these markers in African development journalism too, apart from the criterion of non-alignment with the government. As demonstrated by nation-building journalism in Ghana and Tanzania, African governments have been very eager to interfere with media practices, and development journalism is no exception. Indeed, both Nkrumah’s and Nyerere’s journalistic projects have been described as development journalism (Domatob and Hall, 1983; Murphy and Scotton, 1987). The Pan-African News Agency, PANA, was founded in 1979 on the basis of development journalism philosophy (Ochs, 1986). Although development journalism has been viewed as a ‘welcome departure from Western mass media paradigms’ (Odhiambo, 1991: 17), more recent contributions have sought to combine the journalism model with European public service ideals (Banda, 2007). The practice is still taught in various journalism schools on the continent (Wimmer and Wolf, 2005). Nevertheless, development journalism in Africa is usually associated with negligence of critical reporting (James, 1990; Skjerdal, 2011). To this end, Ghana’s former Minister of Information Kofi Totobi Quakyi characteristically declared in 1990 that, ‘What we need in Ghana today is a journalist who sees himself as a contributor to national development. This country does not need watchdogs’ (quoted in Eribo and Jong-Ebot, 1997: x). The quote indicates how the development journalist is commonly equated with a development agent. Thus, when explicating the implications of the New World Information and Communication Order for the African media, Barry (1983) maintains that journalists in Africa should not be trained as reporters, but as development agents. Such conflation of journalistic and broader communicative roles is a key characteristic in various social change journalism frameworks.

The latest significant contribution to journalism models for social change in Africa is another paradigm of foreign extraction: peace journalism. If hard-hitting advocacy journalism came with pan-African liberalization in the 1950s and 1960s, and ujamaa and development journalism came with nationalization projects in the 1970s and 1980s, peace journalism entered the African scene in the pluralist but still conflict-ridden era of the 2000s. Following Lynch and McGoldrick’s (2005) conceptualization of peace journalism in the tradition of Galtung (1969), several contributions have considered African adoptions of peace journalism, for instance in Chad (Zint, 2009), northern Uganda (Goretti, 2007) and South Africa (MacGregor, 2004). Peace journalism in Africa, as elsewhere, endorses journalistic interventionism and rejects an objectivist epistemology (Banda, 2008b). The essential idea is to employ the media in peace efforts by challenging the conflict orientation of traditional news journalism. It remains to be seen whether African peace journalism will be substantively different from peace journalism practices elsewhere.

The various sub-disciplines of journalism for social change all represent interventionist approaches in the sense that they advocate active involvement by the media whose ultimate purpose is to bring about change for people and society. However, social change models are not inherently essentialist in their understanding of epistemology and the journalistic agent. Within journalism for social change, the main emphasis remains on what the journalist does for society rather than on what journalists are as indigenous affiliates of the community. This stands in contrast to the second stream of African journalism ideology, which takes as its starting-point that the journalist is first and foremost a native member of the local community.

Communal journalism

The second stream of African journalism is rooted in the community and its inherent values, taking as its starting-point that the journalist is first and foremost a member of a local community. The professional identity only comes secondary. This thesis has given way to two related journalism paradigms in particular; ubuntu journalism and journalism based on Afriethics. The two paradigms take the local community as their basic point of reference while simultaneously advocating that reporting practices should be more than just community journalism. ‘Community’ in this context is understood in the widest sense, involving cultural collectivity and pan-African unity. The thesis is captured in the Nguni term ubuntu, which could morphologically translate as ‘personhood’ or ‘humanness’, and socio-linguistically connotes ‘respect for any human being, for human dignity and for human life, collective sharedness, obedience, humility, solidarity, caring, hospitality, interdependence, communalism’ (Kamwangamalu, 1999: 26). The concept has variants in a number of African languages.

Ubuntu is not readily translated into journalism practice, but its relevance as a guiding principle for journalism standards has been emphasized by a number of media scholars. Christians (2004) defines the central idea of ubuntu as the community being ontologically prior to persons, thus comparing ubuntu with communitarianism and contrasting it with libertarianism. Blankenberg (1999) combines ubuntu with Freire’s philosophy of critical consciousness when suggesting that the journalist should play a key role in the process of dialogical pedagogy as a facilitator and mediator ‘between people and the medium’ (1999: 45). In conjunction with elements of development journalism and participatory communication, Blankenberg sees ubuntu as inspiring a potentially new form of liberation journalism. Worthington (2011) goes on to argue that ‘ubuntuism-guided media philosophy’ could serve to oppose socially permissible attitudes towards for example rape. However, scholars differ on the question of the extent to which ubuntu has universal application and what it actually means for professional media practice. Wasserman and Rao (2007) maintain that the concept has been misused for the purpose of formulating a foundation for global media ethics, while ubuntu, in their view, must primarily be understood against the postcolonial backdrop of Africa. Thloloe (2008: 259) for his part argues that ‘ubuntu is a universal concept that should not be boxed in by boundaries and language’. Furthering the ambiguity of ubuntuism as a principle for media practice, Blankenberg (1999: 59) sees ubuntu media philosophy as an antithesis to Western elitist-driven journalism of ‘balance, neutrality and objectivity’, while Cheri (2009: 337) for his part argues that ‘objectivity, balance, impartiality, truth-telling, integrity and respect for others’ are not in conflict with ubuntu philosophy. These contradictory statements illustrate that ubuntuism is not an easily applied framework for media practice, except that it caters for a reporting style which relates to the community at some level. To this end, the kinship between ubuntu journalism and other normative frameworks such as communitarian journalism (Fackler, 2003; Fordred, 1997), mediative journalism (Mkhize, 1994), journalism of meaning (Hochheimer, 2001) and journalism of purpose (Kariithi, 2005) is evident. Advocating a community-based media practice less preoccupied with professional demarcations, ubuntu journalism is related to Western-based civic/public/community journalism (Banda, 2010; Ocwich, 2010). According to Francis Nyamnjoh (2010: 85), ‘before citizen journalism became popularised, you had citizen journalism all over Africa’. The orthodox school of ubuntuism, however, will maintain that ubuntu is deeply embedded in African philosophy and should not readily be equated with popular Western media ideology. This has led yet others to note the potentially exclusivist dimensions of ubuntuism, and the appending dilemmas for independent reporting (Fourie, 2008a, 2008b; Ndangam and Kanyegirire, 2005; Tomaselli, 2009).

While there is some uncertainty regarding the ownership and application of ubuntuism in media practice, the concept of Afriethics is more confined because the model was coined in a specific contribution which sought to solve the ‘moral problem’ of African journalism. Through Afriethics, Kasoma (1996) urges African journalists to turn to the continent’s own values instead of imitating the norms of the North, which in his view had only led to media-driven selfishness and divisionism. Afriethics acknowledges an African ontology where the society has obligations both to the living and the dead. ‘In the true African spirit’, writes Kasoma (1996: 109), journalists should ‘develop a deep sense of right and wrong’. Afriethics thus inspires a communal and society-based professional practice and represents a ‘journalism with a human face’ (1996: 93). The framework is profoundly built on the conceptualization of the African society as a communalistic unity (Moemeka, 1997), and is subsequently criticized for succumbing to cultural exceptionalism besides ignoring diversity (Banda, 2009b; Tomaselli, 2003).

What Afriethics and ubuntu media theory share is a distinct confidence in the community as a vital, if not essential, source for media norms. This has both professional implications (journalism may not only be performed by formally trained professionals) and ramifications for the purpose of journalism (journalists ought to work for the benefit of the community). In addition, media practice based on ubuntu and Afriethics, which both belong to the broader typology of communal journalism, is profoundly rooted in the African society, both ontologically and epistemologically. In contrast to African journalism for social change, which finds more or less corresponding frameworks elsewhere in the world, African communal journalism is understood as being fundamentally African and emerges from presumably unique African values.

Journalism based on oral discourse

The last of the three streams of African journalism shares with communal journalism a care for African culture and tradition. However, journalism based on oral discourse is less concerned with the interventionist aspects of journalistic activity and primarily transpires in the journalistic form rather than in the journalistic method. The central thesis of this model is that there is embedded in African culture a fundamental understanding of human communication which should inspire journalism practice. Journalism based on oral discourse is less concerned with the distinction between various communication actors and regards the modern media as only one of several arenas for indigenous African communication. Shaw (2009) thus traces this form of journalism far back in history and argues that Africa had a distinct form of journalism based on oral tradition before the colonial press imposed a Western framework on media communication on the continent. Pre-colonial journalism ‘took the form of oral discourse, using communication norms informed by oral tradition and folk culture with communal storytellers (griots), musicians, poets and dancers playing the role of the modern-day journalist’ (Shaw, 2009: 493). To Shaw, even if this form of oral discourse journalism was ‘unique to pre-colonial Africa’ (2009: 493), it can still inform and improve today’s African journalism to make it more coherent with indigenous thinking.

Within the strict school of African oral discourse journalism, modern media built upon imported communication forms are viewed as a mutilation of native philosophy. For example, excessive use of European languages in the African media arguably ‘greatly helped to distort the identity of the Africans’ (Okolo, 2005: 85). Similarly, the inverted pyramid formula in Western news journalism is useless for rural reporting in Africa, according to Traber (1987: 74). Traber calls for an application of African storytelling in the local media, and is followed by Wall (2000: 18) who claims to find in the Ethiopian azmari tradition a potential for a reporting style which ‘rejects much of the Western notions of objectivity’. From the West African heritage, journalism based on the griot tradition is seen to contradict Western news formats as well; although Bourgault (1995: 189) draws attention that one of the features that this storytelling tradition brings into the public media is praise singing of the elite which may not always be a desired form of reporting in modern society (contested by Sesanti, 2010 and Shaw, 2009). Combining traditional media formats such as ‘oramedia’ with new technology has interchangeably been regarded as a challenge (Ugboajah, 1986) and an opportunity (Ansu-Kyeremeh, 2005; Musa, 2011); according to the latter view traditional communication practice could serve as a model for ‘digitized storytelling’. There have also been attempts to coalesce local storytelling traditions with modern narrative journalism (Khunyeli, 2005), but the more defined approach to the journalism model based on oral discourse assumes a ‘journalism of association, affiliation and belonging’ (Shaw, 2009: 505) that is unique to the African experience.

Deconstructing the models

Having outlined the particulars of each of the three broader streams of African journalism, I turn to a deconstruction of the models with the view to demonstrate their most significant differences. I argue that interventionism and cultural essentialism are key dimensions for understanding the fundamental tensions between the models. Interventionism is here understood as the extent to which journalism should take a stand in socio-political issues and purposefully work for change, while cultural essentialism is understood as the extent to which a given journalism model depends on assumed intrinsic and unchangeable attributes of a particular society. In this system, journalism for social change comes out with a strong interventionist stance. Moreover, the model recognizes a close relationship with interventionist journalism models elsewhere in the world and does not require that the media performer be a ‘home-grown African’. Communal journalism similarly acknowledges an obligation to work for change in the local society. However, a vital difference between this model and the social change model is that communal journalism is fully dependent on seemingly intrinsic African values, as exemplified by ubuntu journalism. Journalism based on oral discourse for its part is related to communal journalism in its dependence on an ontology which is described as essentially African. However, as a model for reporting practice, journalism based on oral discourse does not share the interventionist agenda with the two other models.

Notably, the three streams are not resolute but overlap in some areas. For example, ujamaa journalism, mainly belonging to the journalism for social change group, contains attributes which are borrowed from distinct African philosophy and thus approaches communal journalism as well. However, the argument is that in their raison d’être, the three models are substantially different, as illustrated by Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Tensions between African journalism streams.

If we were to place a mainstream libertarian journalism model within the two-dimensional diagram (Figure 1), it would contrast all three African models and end up somewhere in the empty, third quadrant. Libertarian journalism emphasizes objectivity and independence, thus scoring low on the interventionism dimension. At the same time, it claims a high degree of universality, thereby contesting any journalism model that adheres to cultural essentialism in some form. However, for an outsider, the three African journalism models may not appear to be that different from each other. Their essential quality appears to be that they are ‘African’, in the sense ‘not Western’ or ‘not libertarian’. How should this best be understood in theoretical terms? Figure 2 suggests one answer. Notwithstanding that one can hardly speak of a single agreed Western journalism model, it is proposed that the vital differences between a traditional libertarian journalism model and African journalism models are envisaged along two axes, representing the socio-historical dimension and the professional dimension. The socio-historical dimension illustrates the degree to which a journalism model claims to respond to specific social and historical conditions. African journalism models assume such a realization to be part of their raison d’être, while the libertarian model claims universality and scores proportionately lower on the socio-historical dimension. The second dimension, professionalism, refers to the degree to which the journalistic role is preferred to be exclusive or inclusive. The libertarian discourse assumes an exclusivist view of the journalism profession where the media constitute a clear-cut fourth estate and journalists accordingly make up a fraternity distinct from other societal communities. In contrast, African journalism models are strong in their belief that social and cultural identity comes prior to professional identity. Figure 2 thus illustrates why many observers regard Western and African journalism models as being in sharp conflict with each other.

Figure 2.

Tensions between Western and African journalism models.

Conclusion

I have argued that there is an underlying relationship between the many terms and models of African journalism that have been proposed since around 1960 and until today. Despite their different social, political and historical origin, the models fall into three major streams: journalism for social change, communal journalism and journalism based on oral discourse. What distinguishes these three journalisms of Africa from each other is their diverse attitude towards interventionism and cultural essentialism as constituents of the journalistic discipline. These differences, I argue, largely explain why it has proven difficult to reach consensus on a harmonized African journalism model. In the way forward, it is deemed important for communication scholars to acknowledge and reconsider these ideological differences when discussing the viability of a future framework for African journalism practice. The essentialist dimension in particular is the source of much unspoken tension between scholars. While some contend that the need for a localized journalism paradigm emerges from the realization of a common African experience, others take a more exclusivist approach and limit the exercise of ‘true’ African journalism to a certain group of people, thereby excluding outsiders or the undefined. Each of these positions should be asked to give reasons for the presumed need for a homogeneous framework for African journalism practice as well as answer who is believed to be in the position to perform this journalism form. These arguments need particular attention today as a number of scholars question the viability of a journalism model unique to Africa (Strelitz, 2005; Tomaselli, 2011). By the same token, elaborations of African journalism models should take into consideration the experience that journalism practice on the African continent has gained in the decades since political independence. In this regard, it is striking that contemporary research reveals a favouritism towards libertarian watchdog journalism among African media practitioners (e.g. Hanitzsch et al., 2011; Ibelema, 2008; Mwesige, 2004). As illustrated by this study, African journalism models appear to collectively challenge Western libertarian journalism frameworks on a principal level. However, in bridging principles with practice, it becomes necessary to acknowledge that journalism on the African continent has universal aspirations in addition to local commitments and that African journalists regard themselves as members of a wider professional community while simultaneously maintaining a local identity. There is therefore a need for more empirical studies which seek to identify professional preferences among journalists within Africa as well as in comparative global perspective.⁵ It follows from the argument of this article that such studies must especially pay attention to parameters which trace journalists’ professional values along the dimensions of interventionism and cultural essentialism.

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes

References

Akhahenda

(1983) The imperative of national unity and the concept of press freedom: The case of East Africa. Gazette 31(1): 89–98.

Alhassan

(2005) Market valorization in broadcasting policy in Ghana: Abandoning the quest for media democratization. Media, Culture and Society 27(2): 211–228.

Ansu-Kyeremeh

(2005) Digitized storytelling. In: Ansu-Kyeremeh

(ed.) Indigenous Communication in Africa. Concept, Application and Prospects. Accra: Ghana Universities Press, pp. 251–278.

Asante

(1996) The Press in Ghana: Problems and Prospects. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Banda

(2007) An appraisal of the applicability of development journalism in the context of public service broadcasting (PSB). Communicatio 33(2): 154–170.

Banda

(2008a) African political thought as an epistemic framework for understanding African media. Ecquid Novi – African Journalism Studies 29(1): 79–99.

Banda

(2008b) The interpretation of conflict: Can journalists go further? The case for linking the teaching and training of journalists to constructing a peace-building role in the world. Rhodes Journalism Review 28: 50–51.

Banda

(2009a) Exploring media education as civic praxis in Africa. In: Frau-Meigs

Torrent

(eds) Mapping Media Education Policies in the World. New York: UNESCO, pp. 225–242.

Banda

(2009b) Kasoma’s Afriethics: A reappraisal. International Communication Gazette 71(4): 227–242.

10.

Banda

(2010) Citizen journalism and democracy in Africa: An exploratory study. Report. Grahamstown: Rhodes University/Highway Africa.

11.

Barry

(1983) Training the African communicator for the information age. In: The New World Information and Communication Order – Implications for Africa. Nairobi: African Council on Communication Education, pp. 20–23.

12.

Blake

(2009) The African Origins of Rhetoric. New York: Routledge.

13.

Blankenberg

(1999) In search of real freedom: Ubuntu and the media. Critical Arts 13(2): 42–65.

14.

Bond

(1997) Neocolonialism and the Ghanaian media: An in-depth look at international news coverage in Ghanaian newspapers, television and radio. Brattleboro, VT: SIT Graduate Institute. Available at: digitalcollections.sit.edu/african_diaspora_isp/59.

15.

Bourgault

(1995) Mass Media in Sub-Saharan Africa. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

16.

Cheri

(2009) Ethical challenges facing Zimbabwean media in the context of the Internet. Global Media Journal – African Edition 3(1): 333–366.

17.

Christians

(2004) Ubuntu and communitarianism in media ethics. Ecquid Novi 25(2): 235–256.

18.

Deuze

(2002) National news cultures: A comparison of Dutch, German, British, Australian, and US journalists. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 79(1): 134–149.

19.

Domatob

(1988) Sub-Saharan Africa’s media and neocolonialism. Africa Media Review 3(1): 149–174.

20.

Domatob

Hall

(1983) Development journalism in black Africa. Gazette 31(1): 9–33.

21.

Domingo

Heinonen

(2008) Weblogs and journalism: A typology to explore the blurring boundaries. Nordicom Review 29(1): 3–15.

22.

Edeani

(1970) Ownership and control of the press in Africa. Gazette 16(1): 55–66.

23.

Eribo

Jong-Ebot

(1997) Introduction. In: Eribo

Jong-Ebot

(eds) Press Freedom and Communication in Africa. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, pp. ix–xx.

24.

Fackler

(2003) Communitarian media theory with an African flexion. In: Mitchell

Marriage

(eds) Mediating Religion: Conversations in Media, Religion and Culture. London: T&T Clark, pp. 317–327.

25.

Faringer

(1991) Press Freedom in Africa. New York: Praeger Publishers.

26.

Fordred

(1997) Natal cockroaches fly: Khaba Mkize and communitarian journalism in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. In: Marcus

(ed.) Cultural Producers in Perilous States: Editing Events, Documenting Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, pp. 19–54.

27.

Fourie

(2008a) African ubuntuism as a framework for media ethics: Questions and criticism. In: Ward

SJA

Wasserman

(eds) Media Ethics beyond Borders: A Global Perspective. Johannesburg: Heinemann, pp. 105–122.

28.

Fourie

(2008b) Ubuntuism as a framework for South African media practice and performance: Can it work? Communicatio 34(1): 53–79.

29.

Galtung

(1969) Violence, peace, and peace research. Journal of Peace Research 6(3): 167–191.

30.

Goretti

(2007) Peace journalism applied: An assessment of media coverage of the conflict in Northern Uganda. Conflict and Communication Online 6(2). Available at: www.cco.regener-online.de/2007_2/pdf/nassanga.pdf.

31.

Grosswiler

(1997) Changing perceptions of press freedom in Tanzania. In: Eribo

Jong-Ebot

(eds) Press Freedom and Communication in Africa. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, pp. 101–120.

32.

Gunaratne

Hasim

(1996) Social responsibility theory revisited: A comparative study of public journalism and developmental journalism. Javnost – The Public 3(3): 97–107.

33.

Hadjor

(1990) Africa in an Era of Crisis. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.

34.

Hanitzsch

(2007) Deconstructing journalism culture: Toward a universal theory. Communication Theory 17(4): 367–385.

35.

Hanitzsch

(2008) Comparing journalism across cultural boundaries: State of the art, strategies, problems, and solutions. In: Löffelholz

Weaver

(eds) Global Journalism Research: Theories, Methods, Findings, Future. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 93–105.

36.

Hanitzsch

(2009) Comparative journalism studies. In: Wahl-Jörgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 413–427.

37.

Hanitzsch

. (2011) Mapping journalism cultures across nations: A comparative study of 18 countries. Journalism Studies 12(3): 273–293.

38.

Hochheimer

(2001) Journalism education in Africa: From critical pedagogical theory to meaning-based practice. Critical Arts 15 (1–2): 97–116.

39.

Hoff

(1999) African conflict and the media. In: Onadipe

Lord

(eds) African Media and Conflict. London: Conciliation Resources. Available at: www.c-r.org/resources/occasional-papers/african-media-and-conflict.php.

40.

Ibelema

(2008) The African Press, Civic Cynicism, and Democracy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

41.

James

(1990) Development of indigenous journalism and broadcasting formats: Curricular implications for communication studies in Africa. Africa Media Review 4(1): 1–14.

42.

Jimada

(1992) Eurocentric media training in Nigeria: What alternative? Journal of Black Studies 22(3): 366–379.

43.

Kamwangamalu

(1999) Ubuntu in South Africa: A sociolinguistic perspective to a pan-African concept. Critical Arts 13(2): 24–41.

44.

Kanyegirire

AST

(2007) Journalists’ perceptions of their roles and identities with regard to the New Partnership for Africa’s Development. PhD dissertation, Rhodes University.

45.

Kariithi

(2005) A journalism of purpose. Rhodes Journalism Review 25: 10.

46.

Kasoma

(1996) The foundations of African ethics (Afriethics) and the professional practice of journalism: The case for society-centred media morality. Africa Media Review 10(3): 93–116.

47.

Khunyeli

(2005) Every number is a life. Rhodes Journalism Review 25: 53–54.

48.

Kivikuru

(1989) Communication in transition: The case of Tanzanian villages. Gazette 43(2): 109–130.

49.

Kivikuru

(2009) From an echo of the West to a voice of its own? Sub-Saharan African research under the loophole. Nordicom Review 30 (Jubilee issue): 187–195.

50.

Kperogi

(2008) Guerrillas in cyberia: The transnational alternative online journalism of the Nigerian diasporic public sphere. Journal of Global Mass Communication 1(2): 72–87.

51.

Kperogi

(2011) Webs of resistance: The citizen online journalism of the Nigerian digital diaspora. PhD dissertation, Georgia State University.

52.

Lowrey

(2006) Mapping the journalism-blogging relationship. Journalism 7(4): 477–500.

53.

Lynch

McGoldrick

(2005) Peace Journalism. Stroud: Hawthorn Press.

54.

MacGregor

(2004) Peace journalism: One African view. In: Eashwar

(ed.) Dialogue, Understanding and Tolerance. Bangalore: Asia-Pacific Institute for Broadcasting Development, pp. 85–96.

55.

Maringuez

(1996) Nigeria: Guerrilla journalism. Report. Paris: Reporters Sans Frontières.

56.

Mkhize

(1994) Greening of journalism for the 21st century. In: Commonwealth Journalism Association Conference, Windhoek, Namibia, June.

57.

Moemeka

(1997) Communalistic societies: Community and self-respect as African values. In: Christians

Traber

(eds) Communication Ethics and Universal Values. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 170–193.

58.

Murphy

(1999) Alternative ‘journalisms’, social movement computer networks and Africa. Critical Arts 13(2): 1–23.

59.

Murphy

Scotton

(1987) Dependency and journalism education in Africa: Are there alternative models? Africa Media Review 1(3): 11–35.

60.

Musa

(2011) Pan-Africanism or globalizing capitalist modernity? The dilemma of African media in the 21st century. African Communication Research 4(1): 153–174.

61.

Mwesige

(2004) Disseminators, advocates and watchdogs. A profile of Ugandan journalists in the new millennium. Journalism 5(1): 69–96.

62.

Ndangam

Kanyegirire

(2005) Nepad is an African story. Rhodes Journalism Review 25: 7.

63.

Ndlela

(2009) African media research in the era of globalization. Journal of African Media Studies 1(1): 55–68.

64.

Njubi

(2001) New media, old struggles: Pan-Africanism, anti-racism and information technology. Critical Arts 15 (1–2): 117–134.

65.

Nkrumah

(1965) The African Journalist. Dar es Salaam: Tanzanian Publishers.

66.

Norris

(ed.) (2010) Public Sentinel: News Media and Governance Reform. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

67.

Nyamnjoh

(1997) Anglophone liberation journalism and national deconstruction in Cameroon. In: Nkwi

Nyamnjoh

(eds) Regional Balance and National Integration in Cameroon: Lessons Learned and the Uncertain Future. Yaoundé: ASC/ICASSRT, pp. 67–78.

68.

Nyamnjoh

(2005a) Africa’s Media: Democracy and the Politics of Belonging. London: Zed Books.

69.

Nyamnjoh

(2005b) Modernity, Africanity. Rhodes Journalism Review 25: 3–6.

70.

Nyamnjoh

(2010) Racism, ethnicity and the media in Africa: Reflections inspired by studies of xenophobia in Cameroon and South Africa. Africa Spectrum 45(1): 57–93.

71.

Nyerere

(1968) Ujamaa – Essays on Socialism. Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press.

72.

Ochs

(1986) The African Press. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press.

73.

Ocwich

(2010) Public journalism in Africa: Trends, opportunities and rationale. Journal of African Media Studies 2(2): 241–254.

74.

Odhiambo

(1991) Development journalism in Africa: Capitulation of the fourth estate? Africa Media Review 5(2): 17–29.

75.

Okigbo

(1987) American communication theories and African communication research: Need for a philosophy of African communication. Africa Media Review 1(2): 18–31.

76.

Okolo

MSC

(2005) Reassessing the impact of colonial languages on the African identity for African development. Africa Media Review 13(2): 85–103.

77.

Park

M-J

Curran

(eds) (2000) De-westernizing Media Studies. London: Routledge.

78.

Pinnock

(2007) Writing Left: The Radical Journalism of Ruth First. Pretoria: Unisa Press.

79.

Rake

(1999) A drum boy in Africa. New African, June, pp. 8–14.

80.

Ramaprasad

(2003) The private and government sides of Tanzanian journalists. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8(1): 8–26.

81.

Rioba

(2008) Media in Tanzania’s transition to multiparty democracy: An assessment of policy and ethical issues. Licentiate’s thesis, Department of Media and Mass Communication, University of Tampere.

82.

Sesanti

(2009) A case for African culture in journalism curricula. Communitas 14(1): 125–135.

83.

Sesanti

(2010) The concept of ‘respect’ in African culture in the context of journalism practice: An Africentric intervention. Communicatio 36(3): 343–358.

84.

Shaw

(2009) Towards an African journalism model. A critical historical perspective. International Communication Gazette 71(6): 491–510.

85.

Shoemaker

Cohen

(2006) News around the World: Content, Practitioners, and the Public. London: Routledge.

86.

Shoo

(1997) The new press bills in Tanzania: Implications for national communication policy and press freedom. Africa Media Review 11(2): 1–11.

87.

Skjerdal

(2011) Development journalism revived: The case of Ethiopia. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies 32(2): 58–74.

88.

Sommerlad

(1968) Problems in developing a free press enterprise in East Africa. Gazette 14(2): 74–78.

89.

Strelitz

(2005) An embracing Africanism. Rhodes Journalism Review 25: 4.

90.

Sturmer

(1998) The Media History of Tanzania. Salzburg: Ndanda Mission Press.

91.

Thloloe

(2008) Afro-humanism and the challenges for journalism education. Global Media Journal – African Edition 2(2): 257–260.

92.

Tomaselli

(2003) ‘Our culture’ vs. ‘foreign culture’: An essay on ontological and professional issues in African journalism. Gazette 65(6): 427–441.

93.

Tomaselli

(2009) (Afri)ethics, communitarianism and libertarianism. International Communication Gazette 71(7): 577–594.

94.

Tomaselli

(2011) (Afri)ethics, communitarianism and the public sphere. In: Hyde-Clarke

(ed.) Communication and Media Ethics in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta, pp. 76–96.

95.

Traber

(1987) Towards the democratization of public communication: A critique of the current criteria of news. Africa Media Review 2(1): 66–75.

96.

Ugboajah

(1986) Communication as technology in African rural development. Africa Media Review 1(1): 1–19.

97.

Wall

(2000) The Westernizer, the developer and the azmari: Journalism discourses in Ethiopia. In: International Communication Association Conference, Acapulco, June.

98.

Wasserman

(2006) Globalized values and postcolonial responses: South African perspectives on normative media ethics. International Communication Gazette 68(1): 71–91.

99.

Wasserman

Rao

(2007) Global media ethics revisited. A postcolonial critique. Global Media and Communication 3(1): 29–50.

100.

Weaver

Willnat

(eds) (2012) The Global Journalist in the 21st Century. London: Routledge.

101.

Wimmer

Wolf

(2005) Development journalism out of date? An analysis of its significance in journalism education at African universities. Münchener Beiträge zur Kommunikationswissenschaft 3, May. Available at: epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/647/.

102.

Worthington

(2011) Gender discourse and ubuntu media philosophy. News framing of rape in Sowetan Online . Journalism Studies 12(5): 608–623.

103.

(2009) Development journalism. In: Wahl-Jörgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. New York: Routledge, pp. 357–371.

104.

Zint

(2009) Radio, newspaper and more: Media tools for peace. Experiences from the field 2002–08. Report. Neuwied: Eirene.