Journalistic role orientations in Rwanda,Uganda and Kenya

Abstract

This study examines how journalists in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya perceive their journalistic role orientations in light of the countries’ differing political systems, Rwanda representing the nation with the most restrictive political system, Uganda sitting in the middle and Kenya illustrating the nation that is home to the least restrictive political system. Data were analyzed from a comparative, quantitative online survey completed by 424 journalists from the three East African nations. Overall, the journalistic role orientations that emerged in each country align with the freedoms afforded by the political system in each country, revealing a trend that journalists in non-Western countries lean toward more interventionist roles (at times to the point of actively supporting their government), and journalists in countries with less restrictive political systems lean toward more adversarial roles (keeping their government in check).

Keywords

journalistic roles political structure Rwanda Uganda Kenya Africa

In 1994, journalists in Rwanda used the radio and newspapers to disseminate messages of hate, encouraging individuals to kill their neighbors in what is now known as the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. An estimated 800,000 to 1 million people were killed in a 90-day genocide, and the news media, led by Hutu extremists loyal to the then-government, enabled the violence to spread by encouraging the killings (Kasoma, 1995; Kellow and Steeves, 1998; Mamdani, 1996; Paris, 2004; Specia, 2017; Taylor, 1999). Alongside substantial economic, educational and technological development (Giokos and Parke, 2018; Keffler, 2019; The World Factbook, 2019), the Rwandan mediascape, including the roles, responsibilities and freedoms of journalists, has changed drastically since 1994 (Sobel and McIntyre, 2019). Rwanda has seen a rise in the number of media houses, including private and online media, and technology adoption is growing rapidly, but the country receives ongoing criticism for a lack of press freedom that is enforced in the name of genocide prevention and peacekeeping by President Paul Kagame, who some refer to as a dictator (Bonde et al., 2015; Frère, 2009; Reporters Without Borders, 2021).

Similar complex relationships exist between governments and media practitioners around the world. In neighboring Uganda, a civil war in the 1980s, a fight against the Lord's Resistance Army, and a president that has been in office since 1986 have resulted in restrictions on the press and ambiguous punishments for journalists who push the limits (Chibita, 2009; Kimumwe, 2014; Maractho, 2015; Odongo, 2014; Sobel Cohen and McIntyre, 2020). However, despite those challenges, Ugandan President Yoweri “Museveni has received international praise for cultivating a ‘relatively liberal media climate’” (Tabaire, 2007: 204), and Uganda is home to “one of the more vibrant media scenes in east and central Africa” (Freedom House, 2017; para. 5–6).

Even more vibrant and liberal is the mediascape of nearby Kenya, which is said to be “the most sophisticated in east Africa” (BBC, 2022: para. 6). The nation has experienced conflict, particularly after elections and terrorist attacks, but not close to the extent that Rwanda and Uganda have experienced conflict (Chikwanha, 2007).

Despite the three nations gaining independence around the same time, each country's path has looked different since then and Kenya is the only one of the three to escape major internal conflict and military rule. These three nations represent countries with different social and political environments: Rwanda being the closest to severe conflict and having the most restrictive political system, Uganda being in the middle and Kenya being the most peaceful and least restrictive political system. This study seeks to examine how present-day journalists in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya perceive their journalistic role orientations in light of the three countries’ differing political systems.

Literature review

Political and media histories

It is difficult to understand how and why journalists perceive their roles today without an understanding of the political and media histories in each country. The following sections provide a brief overview of the political and media histories and landscapes in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya. As will be discussed below, the political structure of these three countries is debated and varying. Although all three nations under study have been classified as electoral autocracies (V-Dem, 2022), for the purposes of this paper, the important point is that Rwanda experiences the most restrictive political system, Uganda's system is restrictive but not to the extent of Rwanda's and Kenya has the least restrictive political system.

Rwanda

The 1994 genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda still impacts many parts of Rwandan society today. The genocide ended when the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by Rwanda's current president Paul Kagame, defeated the government-backed militias that spearheaded the killings. The RPF and Kagame remain in office today. Although there is not universal agreement about the role of the media in the genocide against the Tutsi (see Straus, 2007), many scholars, activists and even politicians argue that Rwandan media hold some responsibility for broadcasting hate messages that encouraged violence (Kasoma, 1995; Kellow and Steeves, 1998; Mamdani, 1996; Paris, 2004).

Since the genocide, the Rwandan mediascape—as well as most aspects of the country—has evolved. Foreign donations enabled the creation of the country's first journalism school (Kayumba and Kimonyo, 2006) and since then, substantial infrastructure and technology growth have resulted in some referring to Rwanda as undergoing a “technology revolution” (Nkosi, 2016: para. 1). However, President Kagame has been called a “darling tyrant” because “he is a dictator responsible for human rights abuses but that, despite this, he has a great many friends” (Sundaram, 2014: para. 1). Among those human rights violations are substantial limitations on press freedom. President Kagame and the RPF “promoted private media outlets to create a façade of media pluralism” while simultaneously restricting journalists under the name of genocide prevention and peacekeeping (Waldorf, 2007: 404).

Scholars and activists have suggested varying points in which Rwanda sits on a spectrum of authoritarianism, calling the country an electoral autocracy (V-Dem, 2022), a non-democracy (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2019), an example of developmental authoritarianism, described as “nominally democratic governments that provide significant public works and services while exerting control over nearly every facet of society” (Matfess, 2015: 181), and an unreformed autocracy in which “governments make no pretense at legitimizing themselves through competitive elections” (Bratton et al., 2005: 18).

Freedom House gave Rwanda a “global freedom score” of 22 out of 100—considered “not free”—in its 2022 Freedom in the World Index, which tracks global trends in political rights and civil liberties (Freedom House, 2022). Despite tight limitations, the nation has seen a rise in the number of media houses, including private and online media (Bonde et al., 2015; Frère, 2009; Reporters Without Borders, 2021), and as of 2021, media regulators in Rwanda reported that there were 39 FM radio stations, 20 TV stations, 8 newspapers and 24 registered news websites operating in the country (Rwanda Media Barometer, 2021). As of early 2022, Rwanda had an internet penetration rate of 26.3% and an estimated 78.7% of the population had a mobile connection (Kemp, 2022a), making digital media, in all of its forms, of growing importance. However, despite highly notable improvements in the country since 1994 and improvements to the media landscape, journalism as a profession remains a young field, and the impact of the genocide remains prevalent in the nation's social, political and media environments.

Uganda

Rwanda's neighbor to the north, Uganda, has had the same leader, President Yoweri Museveni, since 1986, who is regularly referred to as a dictator (Akumu, 2014; Simon, 2019) and journalists report ongoing and sustained efforts to limit free expression (Chibita and Fourie, 2007; Isoba, 1980), despite Freedom House (2017) referring to the nation as “one of the more vibrant media scenes in east and central Africa” (para. 5–6) and the fact that “Museveni has received international praise for cultivating a ‘relatively liberal media climate’” (Tabaire, 2007: 204).

Uganda has had a multiparty system and a democratic constitution since 1995. However, President Museveni has been in office since 1986 and is said to operate a liberalized autocracy (also referred to as semi-, electoral or competitive authoritarianism) or a hybrid regime (Bratton et al., 2005; Fisher and Anderson, 2015; Tangri and Mwenda, 2008; Tripp, 2010) where the ruling party implements just enough democratic policies to appear democratic, and thus appease international donors, but ultimately aims to limit freedoms in order to stay in power. In this situation, journalists and citizens are given just enough space for freedom of expression that they feel as if they are able to air their grievances, and thus they continue on, but no changes occur to the existing social and political structures (Buehler, 2013; MacKinnon, 2008; Sobel Cohen and McIntyre, 2020).

Uganda has what Matovu and Stewart (2000) refer to as a “conflict-ridden history” with spurts of severe political violence (p. 240), but not to the same scope as the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda. This violence, largely centered around political instability and fighting against the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), has impacted the nation in many ways, but despite challenges, the media ecosystem has continued to grow.

The Ugandan media environment is now home to multiple English-language dailies, including the government-owned The New Vision, which has the highest circulation (approximately 30,000 copies per day), followed by the independent paper the Daily Monitor, with a circulation of around 26,000 (Nassanga, 2007). Weekly papers such as The East African, The Weekly Observer and Sunrise also exist alongside more than 30 TV channels and more than 290 licensed FM stations (BBC Media Action, 2019). As of January 2022, Uganda had an internet penetration rate of 29.1% and an estimated 57.9% of the population had a mobile connection, which represents growth compared to previous years, but a notably lower level of mobile connections than are seen in Rwanda (Kemp, 2022b). Despite this liberalization of the media, journalists face many challenges (Sobel Cohen and McIntyre, 2020). Freedom House gave Uganda a “global freedom score” of 34 out of 100—considered “not free”—in its 2022 Freedom in the World Index (Freedom House, 2022).

Kenya

Unlike the previously discussed countries, Kenya has not experienced the severe conflicts that Rwanda and Uganda have undergone. Kenya has had its challenges, like violence after elections, in which radio was accused of playing a role (Ismail and Deane, 2008), but not to the extent of the conflicts in Rwanda and Uganda.

Today, Kenya has a “highly-competitive press scene” that is, as stated above, said to be “the most sophisticated in east Africa” (BBC, 2022: para. 6). Television is the most popular platform, but radio stations that broadcast in local languages are vital to rural residents (BBC, 2022). The Kenyan government has promoted digital connectivity by investing in the infrastructure needed for country-wide fiber optic cable and developing “digital villages” where remote communities can access the internet (Booker, 2013). As a result, Kenya's internet penetration rate (42%) is higher than the other countries in this study (and many across the continent), and data indicate that there are more mobile connections in the country than there are people, suggesting that mobile connectivity in the country is very high (and some people have more than one mobile connection) (Kemp, 2022c). Widespread mobile phone access in Kenya as well as across the continent is argued to be one of the most significant impacts of digital advancements in Africa (Moyo, 2009; Wasserman, 2011).

The Kenyan mediascape, however, is not without challenges. The news industry has faced challenges related to political influences on coverage (BBC, 2022). Similar to nations around the world, news outlets in Kenya have also seen a decline in revenue in recent years, which has resulted in layoffs (Harwood et al., 2018), and journalistic ethics are not always respected in online journalism (Booker, 2013). The country's media has also been criticized for being too heavily controlled by, and representative of, political and economic elites (Ambala, 2014, 2016; Ogola, 2011). Additionally, multiple terrorist attacks have taken place in Kenya in recent years and Reporters Without Borders (2019) identified a “slow erosion of media freedom in recent years” in which “the political situation and security concerns have been used since 2016 as grounds for restricting the freedom to inform” (para. 1).

Despite the terrorist attacks, Kenya is home to the largest economy and one of the most stable political systems in the region. The country has had a multiparty system since the early 1990s and current president Uhuru Kenyatta has led the nation since 2013, winning reelection in 2017. Although Kenya has never experienced military rule or a civil war, its political environment has been described as “somewhat democratic” because, “the country has had its share of politically instigated violence along ethnic divisions and tribal lines” (Kimenyi and Kibe, 2014: para 8). Freedom House gave Kenya a “global freedom score” of 48 out of 100—considered “partly free”—in its 2022 Freedom in the World Index (Freedom House, 2022).

Journalistic roles

Western scholars have defined journalistic roles as “journalists’ perception of the social functions journalism plays in society” (Hellmueller and Mellado, 2015, citing Weaver and others: 2). Hanitzsch and Vos (2017) say “journalistic roles have no ‘true’ essence; they exist because and as we talk about them” (p. 129). Journalists’ professional roles may not be tangible. Yet, journalistic role conceptions are shaped by personal experiences and on-the-job socialization (Breed, 1955), and scholars have studied journalists’ perceptions of their roles for more than half a century. Much of the early, and existing, research on journalistic roles focused on the United States, revealing that American journalists could largely be categorized as neutrals (detached observers where “the news media function as an impartial transmission link dispensing information to the public”) and Participants (“the journalist must play a more active and, to some extent, creative part in the development of the newsworthy”) (Johnstone et al., 1972: 523). Later, four, more nuanced, journalistic functions emerged from Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) and Weaver et al.'s (2007) work: the Disseminator, Interpretive, Adversarial, and Populist Mobilizer. More recently, this research on American journalists found that journalists evaluated the roles of “investigating government claims” and “analyzing complex problems” as more important than any other roles (Weaver et al., 2019).

In addition to much research examining journalistic roles coming from a Western lens, “most work on journalists’ roles is remarkably thin on theory” (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2017: 117). One framework was suggested by Mellado (2020a, 2020b) who put forward a model with three domains in which the role of journalism, and varying role functions, can be studied: the “journalistic voice,” “power relations,” and “audience approach” domains, “all of which relate to different expectations of journalism in different political, economic, and media contexts” (p. 33). This theory, although relevant, does not apply to the current study as it was developed for the analysis of role performance rather than role orientations. Alternatively, Hanitzsch and Vos (2017) developed the process model in which journalists’ roles are articulated and enacted based on two levels: role orientation and role performance. Within each of those levels, two categories exist—within role orientations, normative ideas (“what journalists should do”) and cognitive orientations (“what they want to do”) exist, and within role performance, narrated performance (“what they say they do”) and professional practice (“what journalists really do”) exist (p. 118). Hanitzsch and Vos (2017) (as well as others, including Wasserman (2006)) acknowledge that many normative conceptualizations of journalists’ roles relate to serving as a watchdog or holding government to account, and “distinct normative ideas may apply in many non-Western contexts” (p. 124).

Such “distinctive normative ideas” can be overlooked in the Western-centric focus of much journalistic roles research, which, as Hanitzsch (2019) pointed out, “privileges liberal democracy and individuality, which are different from norms that exist elsewhere” (Hanitzsch, 2019: 215). In Africa, media attention can be tugged in different directions as Western liberal-democratic views can compete with local perceptions of democracy that are grounded in African personhood and community, and, “If the media are sensitive to these apparent contradictions, as they are expected to be, their content should reflect ongoing efforts to negotiate conviviality between competing traditions, influences and expectations” (Nyamnjoh, 2005: 20), creating unique roles for journalists.

Thus, a number of calls have been put forward to reconceptualize these areas of study beyond Western liberal-democratic ideals, with a particular emphasis on context in understanding journalism and journalists’ roles in society (Mutsvairo et al., 2020; Waisbord and Mellado, 2014; Wasserman, 2006; Wasserman and de Beer, 2009). Mutsvairo et al. (2021) explained,
The study and practice of journalism have been traditionally conducted through a universal Western lens as a “global standard” that provides status and recognition. In addition, journalists in the Global South are taught to adhere to this universal “right way” of doing journalism. In recent years, the problem with such an assumption has been notable, and documenting the intricacies of journalism practice within the Global South are strongly conditioned by the realities of the local context. The assumption that there is one way of doing journalism is problematic and fails to reflect on what is happening on the ground where regions in the Global South are countering global normative practices of journalism with local news epistemologies (p. 997).

Prior to and since these calls, a growing body of literature has examined journalistic roles outside the Western world (albeit, with varying degrees of attention dedicated to context, but within the understanding that journalism functions differently in different places). In a survey of journalists’ role perceptions in 18 countries, Hanitzsch et al. (2011) found that journalists in non-Western countries embraced more subjective, interventionist roles. They were more likely to consider the consequences of their reporting and therefore more likely to bend their ethical standards in an effort to support social change. Aligned with this view, the Worlds of Journalism Study included surveys of journalists in 67 countries and found that journalists had less allegiance to objectivity when they lived in regions with limited political and press freedoms, such as in the Middle East and North Africa (Hanitzsch et al., 2019). In further analysis of eight South Asian, South East Asian, and sub-Saharan African countries included in the WJS, the journalists surveyed found the roles exemplifying development journalism—the idea that journalism may aid national development—more important than the roles that exemplify adversarial journalism (Kalyango et al., 2017).

Research on journalistic role perceptions in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya, specifically, is relatively limited but has resulted in findings that align with the above-mentioned trends. No studies have surveyed journalists in Rwanda on their perceived role perceptions until the current study. However, one interview study did ask journalists about their role conceptions and concluded that while journalists in Rwanda aim to fulfill traditional roles such as informing and educating the public, they value a unique role to promote unity and reconciliation to help the country recover from the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi (McIntyre and Sobel, 2018). This aligns with Kalyango et al.'s (2017) findings that journalists in sub-Saharan African countries support development journalism.

In Uganda, a survey described the profile of journalists in the country in 2001 (Mwesige, 2004). At that time, journalists highly valued the traditional Western journalistic functions of information dissemination, analysis and interpretation, and investigation, while acknowledging that political, economic and legal constraints prevented them from carrying out their jobs in ways that exemplified those values. After all, there is a gap in how journalists understand their roles and how they actually perform their jobs (Mellado, 2020a, 2020b). Journalists in Uganda, however, also strongly valued roles that support advocacy, similar to but more subjective than Weaver et al.'s (2007) Populist Mobilizer function. They perceived this function to be more important than American, British or Australian journalists did. Mwesige (2004) pointed out that this finding aligns with the “missionary” orientation that Lederbogen (1992) found among Tanzanian journalists. The results were corroborated later when Hanitzsch et al. (2012) found again that journalists in Uganda highly valued advocacy of social change, noting that journalists in Western contexts regularly perceive such roles to be of low importance.

Compared to the other two nations under study, journalistic roles in Kenya have received the most scholarly attention. In interviews with journalists in Egypt, Kenya, Serbia and South Africa (“transitional societies across a set of comparable democratisation conflicts,” p. 1) Lohner et al. (2016) found that while journalists were committed to “‘western’-motivated ethical guidelines, however adapted and contested by local conditions” (p. 51) such as objectivity and truthfulness, they also believed that it was their duty to reduce the chances of inciting violence and admitted that, in practice, their own personal biases (political, tribal, etc.) can negate those ideals. This research also revealed that, at times, journalists found objective reporting to run counter to democratization, and depending on the conflict that they were reporting on, detrimental. This was especially the case for Kenyan journalists who “grappled with questions around their obligation to report election violence objectively while holding the responsibility to maintain peace. Specifically, journalists questioned whether the inclusion of objective ‘facts’ was conducive or even advisable, especially in their coverage of ethnically motivated conflicts or legitimacy of electoral processes, where the pursuit of objectivity necessitates the inclusion of information that could be interpreted by the public as inciting violence” (Lohner et al., 2016: 55–56).

Further, the 2017 Worlds of Journalism project included Kenya and revealed that “Kenyan journalists found it most important to report things the way they are, to educate the audience and to promote tolerance and diversity” (Obonyo and Owilla, 2017: 3). Similarly, Ireri (2017) surveyed journalists in 2012–13 and measured their perceptions of 10 professional roles. The five roles perceived to be the most important were to provide citizens with information, advocate for social change, support official policies, motivate people to participate in civic activities, and serve as a government watchdog. The top two ranked roles support research that has consistently shown that journalists in the East African region value both the traditional dissemination function and a social advocacy function that appears to be more present in countries with increased political and media restrictions. Despite these similarities, journalistic role conceptions tend to vary from country to country (Ireri, 2017) and may be shifting alongside rapid digital advancements which are changing the way that African journalists gather, produce and distribute news (Mabweazara et al., 2014).

Because “normative journalistic roles are socially negotiated and sensitive to context” (Hanitzsch and Vos, 2017: 125) and empirical understandings of normative journalistic roles in East Africa are in their infancy, this study seeks to build on the work of Hanitzsch and Vos to understand how normative role orientations are defined by journalists in three East African nations. Thus, we posed the following research question to discover how journalistic role orientations vary in Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya, three countries that rest in the same region but lay on varying points on a political spectrum.

RQ1: What are the professional role orientations of journalists in this East African region? Specifically, what are the role orientations of journalists in Rwanda (RQ1a), Uganda (RQ1b), and Kenya (RQ1c)?

Method

This study utilized a comparative, quantitative online survey among journalists from three East African nations, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya, to gain insights into their perceptions of their roles in society. Admittedly, a survey, and an online one at that, subscribes to some Western methodological practices and can limit the nuance that traditionally African qualitative methods could include (Mkabela, 2005). That said, many journalists in the region are familiar with online practices given that they use the internet in their daily work. These three countries were selected to represent three nations in a similar geographic region with varying political landscapes, as discussed above, and thus may have different role expectations of journalists.

In advance of launching the full survey, a pilot study was done in each country in which local journalists from each nation completed a draft of the survey and provided feedback. The survey was conducted in 2019, with the first email sent to participants in May, followed by subsequent emailed requests for completion in June. The survey was conducted in English.

Sampling

This study did not strive for statistically representative samples but instead aimed to reach journalists in each country that represent a wide variety of mediums (print, television, radio, online) and ownership structures (public and private). In the months preceding the pilot test, lists of journalist names and email addresses in each country were compiled by searching media outlet websites, social media platforms, journalist association lists, and by harnessing our existing networks to ask for contacts. A journalist was defined as any person who earns the majority of their income through work with news media organizations. This includes full-time journalists at established media houses as well as part time or freelance journalists. The survey was sent via email and participants who completed the survey were offered the chance to win one of two distributions of approximately $50 USD (45,000 Francs, 190,000 UG Shillings, or 5000 KE Shillings, depending on the country). The sample ended up including 424 journalists: 174 in Rwanda, 148 in Uganda and 102 in Kenya.

Measures

The questionnaire began with an informed consent protocol, including a confirmation that respondents were 18 years of age or older, after which respondents were asked a series of questions related to their work in the journalism industry, such as their primary role in the newsroom, topics they primarily cover, how long they have worked in the industry and what type of medium they work at, and information about the size and ownership of the organization they are affiliated with.

The questionnaire then asked participants a series of questions about how they view journalism's role in society, professionalism and challenges in the industry, how news media relate to the development of the country, as well as questions about public trust in media. Of particular focus for this paper was a set of questions about roles. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed that each of 22 professional roles is a core function of journalism. The individual role items included the 15 used by Weaver et al. (2007), five additional items shown to represent a “contextualist” function (McIntyre et al., 2018), and two items taken from the Worlds of Journalism study (Hanitzsch et al., 2019) that represent journalism in these East African countries that have less press freedom than most Western countries. The survey ended with demographic questions.

Findings

RQ1 asked what the professional role orientations are among journalists in East Africa. Table 1 shows how journalists in each country ranked the 22 professional roles. The role to “contribute to society's well being” was highly ranked by all three countries (#1 in Rwanda, #2 in Uganda and #3 in Kenya). The only other role to appear in the top five in all three countries was to “alert the public of potential threats.” Two roles were ranked in the bottom five for all three countries: to “serve as a critic of government” and “serve as a critic of business.”

Table 1.
Journalistic roles ranked from most to least important in each country (means displayed).

Rwanda Uganda Kenya

Contribute to society's well-being (4.49) Alert the public of potential threats (4.39) Alert the public of potential threats (4.58)

Provide entertainment (4.47) Contribute to society's well-being (4.31) Discuss national policy (4.56)

Help audiences develop intellectual knowledge (4.44) Let ordinary people express views (4.29) Contribute to society's well-being (4.53)

Alert the public of potential opportunities (4.39) Alert the public of potential opportunities (4.27) Alert the public of potential opportunities (4.53)

Support official policies to bring development (4.37) Help audiences develop intellectual knowledge (4.25) Get information to the public quickly (4.53)

Let ordinary people express views (4.37) Act in a socially responsible way (4.23) Let ordinary people express views (4.48)

Motivate ordinary people to get involved (4.30) Get information to the public quickly (4.21) Motivate ordinary people to get involved (4.45)

Discuss national policy (4.29) Discuss national policy (4.21) Act in a socially responsible way (4.44)

Act in a socially responsible way (4.26) Motivate ordinary people to get involved (4.07) Help audiences develop intellectual knowledge (4.43)

Alert the public of potential threats (4.18) Point to possible solutions (4.06) Provide analysis of complex problems (4.41)

Get information to the public quickly (4.18) Provide analysis of complex problems (4.06) Point to possible solutions (4.39)

Point to possible solutions (4.13) Support official policies to bring development (4.05) Provide entertainment (4.26)

Discuss international policy (4.01) Provide entertainment (4.05) Support official policies to bring development (4.22)

Provide analysis of complex problems (3.96) Investigate government claims (4.02) Accurately portray the world (4.21)

Concentrate on widest audience (3.77) Accurately portray the world (3.98) Investigate government claims (4.19)

Avoid stories with unverified content (3.74) Set the political agenda (3.85) Discuss international policy (4.07)

Convey positive image of pol./bus. leadership (3.74) Avoid stories with unverified content (3.83) Set the political agenda (4.05)

Accurately portray the world (3.73) Discuss international policy (3.73) Avoid stories with unverified content (3.93)

Serve as a critic of business (3.46) Concentrate on widest audience (3.54) Serve as a critic of government (3.49)

Set the political agenda (3.36) Convey positive image of pol./bus. leadership (3.30) Concentrate on widest audience (3.46)

Investigate government claims (3.32) Serve as a critic of government (3.11) Convey positive image of pol./bus. leadership (3.38)

Serve as a critic of government (3.02) Serve as a critic of business (3.05) Serve as a critic of business (3.25)

Even considering these similarities, interesting differences were revealed that speak to the differing political systems, and levels of press freedom, in the three countries. For example, even though all three countries ranked the role to “serve as a critic of government” low, journalists in Rwanda ranked it the lowest, while journalists in Kenya ranked it the highest. More notably, the two roles taken from the Worlds of Journalism study that lend themselves to East African media environments—to “support official policies to bring about prosperity and development” and to “convey a positive image of political and business leadership”—were ranked highest by journalists in Rwanda, ranked lower by journalists in Uganda, and ranked lowest by journalists in Kenya. These findings align with the differing political systems and levels of press freedom in each country, with Rwanda being an electoral autocracy and having the lowest level of freedom and Kenya having the most free and fair, multiparty elections and the highest level of freedom. A final interesting difference was that journalists in Rwanda valued the role to “provide entertainment” more than journalists in Uganda and Kenya.

RQ1a asked specifically about role orientations among journalists in Rwanda. These journalists reported the five most important roles to be: “Contribute to society's well being,” “provide entertainment,” “help audiences develop intellectual knowledge,” “alert the public of potential opportunities,” and “support official policies to bring development.” The five least important roles, starting with the least important, were: “Serve as a critic of government,” “investigate government claims,” “set the political agenda,” “serve as a critic of business,” and “accurately portray the world.” Overall, journalists in Rwanda appear committed to helping society progress and less concerned with exposing wrongdoings.

RQ1b asked specifically about role orientations among journalists in Uganda. These journalists reported the five most important roles to be: “Alert the public of potential threats,” “contribute to society's well being,” “let ordinary people express views,” “alert the public of potential opportunities,” and “help audiences develop intellectual knowledge.” The five least important roles, starting with the least important, were: “Serve as a critic of business,” “serve as a critic of government,” “convey a positive image of political/business leadership,” “concentrate on the widest audience,” and “discuss international policy.” Overall, journalists in Uganda appear to highly value informing and representing the local population and place less importance on criticizing (or elevating) those in power.

RQ1c asked specifically about role orientations among journalists in Kenya. These journalists reported the five most important roles to be: “Alert the public of potential threats,” “discuss national policy,” “contribute to society's well being,” “alert the public of potential opportunities,” and “get information to the public quickly.” The five least important roles, starting with the least important, were: “Serve as a critic of business,” “convey a positive image of political/business leadership,” “concentrate on the widest audience,” “serve as a critic of government,” and “avoid stories with unverified content.” Overall, journalists in Kenya, like those in the other two countries, placed high importance on informing the public and low importance on covering those in power, although they found criticizing the government to be more important than their counterparts.

Discussion and conclusion

This cross-national, comparative study surveyed journalists in three neighboring East African nations, and the results revealed important similarities and differences between the countries that can build on previous research and serve as a basis for future investigations.

Findings revealed some similarities in how journalists from the three countries perceived their roles. Journalists from each of the countries rated “contribute to society's well being” and “alert the public of potential threats” highly and “serve as a critic of government” and “serve as a critic of business” low. This likely points to cultural similarities that exist in the region and a shared understanding of basic journalism functions that exist far beyond these three countries (Hanitzsch et al., 2011, 2019). The fact that “contribute to society's well being” was highly ranked in all three countries makes sense given that it aligns with the African moral philosophy of Ubuntu, which has been noted as an underlying ethos of reporting on the continent (Blankenberg, 1999; Chasi and Rodny-Gumede, 2021; Wasserman, 2013, 2018). These findings also support previous research that found that journalists outside of Western countries and political systems embrace more interventionist roles (Hanitzsch et al., 2011).

Despite the similarities, between-nation differences were also found. For example, journalists in Rwanda perceived the role to “serve as a critic of government” as the least important, and the two roles are taken from the Worlds of Journalism study—to “support official policies to bring about prosperity and development” and to “convey a positive image of political and business leadership” as the most important of the three countries. The inverse was true for journalists from Kenya—they perceived the role to “serve as a critic of government” most important of the three countries and to “support official policies to bring about prosperity and development” and to “convey a positive image of political and business leadership” the least important. Such findings lend support to previous work (Harwood et al., 2018; Kalyango and Eckler, 2010; Kimumwe, 2014; Lugalambi and Tabaire, 2010; Obonyo, 2003; Reporters Without Borders, 2019, 2021; Sobel Cohen and McIntyre, 2020) pointing to more press freedom, and the ability to criticize public officials, in Kenya than in Uganda and Rwanda, due to differing political structures in place.

When considering the role orientations in each country more specifically, Rwandan journalists’ top most important roles—specifically, the role to “support official policies to bring development”—fit within the understandings of the role of development journalism (Kalyango et al., 2017) and can be explained by previous work which revealed Rwandan journalists view themselves as unifiers in the country (Sobel and McIntyre, 2019) and work to advance their country in numerous ways (McIntyre and Sobel, 2019). Research by Tiako (2015) found that journalists in Cameroon identified with similar “journalistic functions such as aiding, assisting in national unity and socio-economic development” (p. 128). Given that roles promoting development and nation-building were more important among journalists in Rwanda than among journalists in Uganda and Kenya, we are likely not only seeing both limitations of free speech at play but also still-present effects of the genocide (i.e., a strong desire to rebuild and unite). Sobel and McIntyre (2019) found that Rwandan journalists aim to right the wrongs of their predecessors during the genocide, which could explain their commitment to development journalism. However, such nation-building roles are not unique to Rwanda and have been observed in other places on the continent, including Cameroon (Tiako, 2015).

In Uganda, the roles perceived to be the most important were largely constructive (like acting socially responsible and pointing to solutions), which indicates that journalists in the country also embrace a more interventionist reporting style, but not to the extent of Rwandan journalists, who go so far as to support official policies and convey a positive image of leadership. However, the relatively high importance of roles such as “alert the public of potential threats” and “investigate government claims” shows that journalists in Uganda also value traditional information dissemination roles as well as watchdog roles (at least compared to Rwanda). Journalists’ high regard for both constructive and more traditional Western roles displays the competition between Western liberal-democratic views and African values and notions of democracy discussed in the literature review (Nyamnjoh, 2005). In Kenya, the most important role orientations were broader than the other two countries and included a number of roles that were constructive but also political in nature. In Kenya, as well as in Uganda, the role to serve as a critic of government was given low importance, but not as low as in Rwanda, indicating that journalists in these two countries are able to embrace their adversarial duties more than journalists in Rwanda, who work under tighter restrictions, but do not view this as particularly important.

Overall, findings from this study add evidence to existing work (such as Hanitzsch et al., 2012; Kalyango et al., 2017; Lohner et al., 2016) showing that the journalistic role orientations that emerged in each country align with the political systems in that country. Although such findings are not novel, this study documents that while journalists in these three East African nations lean toward more interventionist roles (at times to the point of actively supporting their government), within the region, journalists in countries with less restrictive political systems (Kenya and, to a lesser extent, Uganda) lean toward more adversarial roles (keeping their government in check). Considering this within Hanitzsch and Vos’ (2017) process model, this study shows that role orientations, or normative ideas of “what journalists should do,” vary in different contexts. Specifically, the three countries in this study with developing democracies hold normative ideas that journalists should play a more participatory, constructive role. The more restrictive the country's political system, the stronger this role, which makes sense given that journalists, as members of society, might feel an obligation to contribute to their country's growth and stability if they recently experienced instability or democratic backsliding. Further, given the restrictions that journalists in Rwanda work within, it is important to consider that even though journalists might hold certain values or role orientations, which does not necessarily mean that they can practice those roles. Role perception does not always equal role performance, given varying political and other restrictions (Mellado and Mothes, 2021). Beyond their ability to perform roles, journalists may not want to practice certain roles, even if they respect those roles. For example, a journalist in Rwanda may not want to criticize a government policy, not out of fear of retribution, but because their primary goal is to promote peace. The normative and cognitive roles (“what journalists should do” and “what they want to do”) should be more clearly defined, as journalists in East Africa, and likely many other regions, might interpret what they “should” or “want” to do in unique ways, not by normative standards but instead based on their social, political and historical contexts.

These findings lend additional support to the calls for reconceptualizations of normative frameworks beyond those from Western, liberal-democratic ideologies, from which this study, admittedly, does not escape. What is clear from this study and many others that similarly measure role orientations from existing role items is that a new way of measuring roles is needed. Although journalists in this East African region do value Western normative roles, scholars should measure additional roles that fit the context. For example, future researchers might consider adding role items such as Cooperate with those in power; Act as an advocate; Facilitate change; and Promote peace. These items align with some of the 18 roles that Hanitzsch and Vos (2018) put forth to accommodate journalists both in Western and non-Western contexts. Their 18 roles map onto six overarching role functions: informational-instructive, analytical-deliberative, critical-monitorial, advocative-radical, developmental-educative and collaborative-facilitative. The developmental-educative function, which includes the three individual role items of the change agent, the educator and the mediator, seems most closely aligned with journalists’ role perceptions in East Africa, based on our work. The collaborative-facilitative dimension is also relevant, especially its facilitator role item, and especially in Rwanda. Future studies that measure role perceptions in East Africa and other non-Western nations should use Hanitzsch and Vos’ (2018) 18 role items.

This study is limited in numerous ways. First and most likely foremost is that this study utilized ideologies and measurement tools that were created largely with Western contexts in mind, with the exception of two of the roles. In an attempt to study the ways in which these frameworks do and do not apply in three East African nations, this study applied Western ways of thinking in a vastly different context. Similarly, methodologically, surveys were conducted only in English; while many journalists in this region are fluent in English, this is still a limitation of this study. Future research should expand this line of inquiry to include journalists that speak other languages and live in nations outside of the three considered in this study. Also, the sample is not representative so results cannot be generalized. Finally, as with all surveys, results depend on honest responses, and it is possible journalists who completed this survey withheld their true feelings at times, perhaps due to fear of government or coworker retaliation, or due to a bias toward what they believe journalism should be rather than what the current state of it is.

Despite the limitations, this study compared journalists’ perceptions in three East African nations, a region deserving of continued research. This study can serve as a baseline for understanding a large number of journalist perspectives as it provides insights into journalistic role orientations that help contextualize how journalists view their profession in countries with varying political systems from which future research can build.

Rwanda	Uganda	Kenya
Contribute to society's well-being (4.49)	Alert the public of potential threats (4.39)	Alert the public of potential threats (4.58)
Provide entertainment (4.47)	Contribute to society's well-being (4.31)	Discuss national policy (4.56)
Help audiences develop intellectual knowledge (4.44)	Let ordinary people express views (4.29)	Contribute to society's well-being (4.53)
Alert the public of potential opportunities (4.39)	Alert the public of potential opportunities (4.27)	Alert the public of potential opportunities (4.53)
Support official policies to bring development (4.37)	Help audiences develop intellectual knowledge (4.25)	Get information to the public quickly (4.53)
Let ordinary people express views (4.37)	Act in a socially responsible way (4.23)	Let ordinary people express views (4.48)
Motivate ordinary people to get involved (4.30)	Get information to the public quickly (4.21)	Motivate ordinary people to get involved (4.45)
Discuss national policy (4.29)	Discuss national policy (4.21)	Act in a socially responsible way (4.44)
Act in a socially responsible way (4.26)	Motivate ordinary people to get involved (4.07)	Help audiences develop intellectual knowledge (4.43)
Alert the public of potential threats (4.18)	Point to possible solutions (4.06)	Provide analysis of complex problems (4.41)
Get information to the public quickly (4.18)	Provide analysis of complex problems (4.06)	Point to possible solutions (4.39)
Point to possible solutions (4.13)	Support official policies to bring development (4.05)	Provide entertainment (4.26)
Discuss international policy (4.01)	Provide entertainment (4.05)	Support official policies to bring development (4.22)
Provide analysis of complex problems (3.96)	Investigate government claims (4.02)	Accurately portray the world (4.21)
Concentrate on widest audience (3.77)	Accurately portray the world (3.98)	Investigate government claims (4.19)
Avoid stories with unverified content (3.74)	Set the political agenda (3.85)	Discuss international policy (4.07)
Convey positive image of pol./bus. leadership (3.74)	Avoid stories with unverified content (3.83)	Set the political agenda (4.05)
Accurately portray the world (3.73)	Discuss international policy (3.73)	Avoid stories with unverified content (3.93)
Serve as a critic of business (3.46)	Concentrate on widest audience (3.54)	Serve as a critic of government (3.49)
Set the political agenda (3.36)	Convey positive image of pol./bus. leadership (3.30)	Concentrate on widest audience (3.46)
Investigate government claims (3.32)	Serve as a critic of government (3.11)	Convey positive image of pol./bus. leadership (3.38)
Serve as a critic of government (3.02)	Serve as a critic of business (3.05)	Serve as a critic of business (3.25)

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Karen McIntyre

Meghan Sobel Cohen

References

Akumu

(2014) Yoweri Museveni: a dictator with nothing left to promise Uganda. The Guardian, 22 February. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/yoweri-museveni-uganda-dictator-anti-gay.

Ambala

(2014) Reimagining the Kenyan television broadcasting-scape: Active user-generated content (AUGC) as an emancipating platform. Ecquid Novi: African Journalism Studies 35(3): 39–53.

Ambala

(2016) Voicing “Kenyanness” in the everyday: Disrupting traditional broadcasting tropes through participatory digital storytelling. African Journalism Studies 37(4): 45–61.

BBC (2022) BBC Country Profile: Kenya. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13681344.

BBC Media Action (2019) Uganda—Media Landscape Report. Available at: https://www.communityengagementhub.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2019/09/Uganda-Media-Landscape-report_BBC-Media-Action_February-2019.pdf.

Blankenberg

(1999) In search of real freedom: Ubuntu and the media. Critical Arts 12(2): 42–65.

Bonde

Uwimana

Sowa

, et al. (2015) The State of Media Freedom in Rwanda. Report, Rwanda Media Commission. Available at: https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/6_5_2015_ib_-_final_report_on_state_of_the_media_freedom_in_rwanda_00.00.pdf.

Booker

(2013) Mapping Digital Media: Kenya. Available at: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/publications/mapping-digital-media-kenya.

Bratton

Mattes

Gyimah-Boadi

(2005) Public Opinion, Democracy, and Market Reform in Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Breed

(1955) Social control in the newsroom: A functional analysis. Social Forces 33(4): 326–335.

11.

Buehler

(2013) Safety-valve elections and the Arab spring: The weakening (and resurgence) of Morocco's Islamist opposition party. Terrorism and Political Violence 25(1): 137–156.

12.

Chasi

Rodny-Gumede

(2021) Rethinking peace journalism in light of ubuntu. In: Maweu

Mare

(eds) Media, Conflict & Peacebuilding in Africa. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 19–30.

13.

Chibita

(2009) The politics of broadcasting, language policy and democracy in Uganda. Journal of African Media Studies 1(2): 295–307.

14.

Chibita

Fourie

(2007) A socio-history of the media and participation in Uganda. Communication 33(1): 1–25.

15.

Chikwanha

(2007) The Anatomy of Conflicts in the East African Community (EAC): Linking Security with Development. Available at: https://www.ascleiden.nl/Pdf/LectureAnnieChikwanha.pdf.

16.

Fisher

Anderson

(2015) Authoritarianism and the securitization of development in Africa. International Affairs 91(1): 131–151.

17.

Freedom House (2017) Freedom of the Press 2017: Uganda. Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/country/uganda/freedom-world/2017.

18.

Freedom House (2022) Freedom in the World Index. Countries and Territories. Available at: https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores.

19.

Frère

(2009) After the hate media: Regulation in the DRC, Burundi and Rwanda. Global Media and Communication 5: 327–352.

20.

Giokos

Parke

(2018) Why this South American company is making laptops in Rwanda. CNN, 19 July. Available at: https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/africa/rwanda-tech-hub/index.html.

21.

Hanitzsch

(2019) Journalism studies still needs to fix Western bias. Journalism 20(1): 214–217.

22.

Hanitzsch

Vos

(2017) Journalistic roles and the struggle over institutional identity: The discursive constitution of journalism. Communication Theory 27(2): 115–135.

23.

Hanitzsch

Vos

(2018) Journalism beyond democracy: A new look into journalistic roles in political and everyday life. Journalism 19(2): 146–164.

24.

Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Mellado

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

25.

Hanitzsch

Seethaler

Skewes

, et al. (2012) Worlds of journalism: Journalistic cultures, professional autonomy, and perceived influences across 18 nations. In: Weaver

Willnat

(eds) The Global Journalist in the 21st Century. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 483–504.

26.

Hanitzsch

Hanusch

Ramaprasad

, et al. (eds) (2019) Worlds of Journalism: Journalistic Cultures Around the Globe. New York: Columbia University Press.

27.

Harwood

Herrick

Ugangu

(2018) Strengthening Kenyan Media: Exploring a Path Towards Journalism in the Public Interest. Available at: https://kenyamedia.reboot.org.

28.

Hellmueller

Mellado

(2015) Professional roles and news construction: A media sociology conceptualization of journalists’ role conception and performance. Communication & Society 28(3): 1–11.

29.

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (2019) The Global State of Democracy 2019. Available at: https://www.idea.int/sites/default/files/publications/the-global-state-of-democracy-2019.pdf.

30.

Ireri

(2017) A national survey on the professional role conceptions of journalists in Kenya. Journalism Practice 11(8): 1042–1061.

31.

Ismail

Deane

(2008) The 2017 general election in Kenya and its aftermath: The role of local language media. Press/Politics 13(3): 319–327.

32.

Isoba

JCG

(1980) The rise and fall of Uganda’s newspaper industry, 1900–1976. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 57(2): 224–233.

33.

Johnstone

Slawski

Bowman

(1972) The professional values of American newsmen. Public Opinion Quarterly 36(4): 522–540.

34.

Kalyango

Eckler

(2010) Media performance, agenda building, and democratization in East Africa. Communication Yearbook 34: 355–389.

35.

Kalyango

Jr Hanusch

Ramaprasad

, et al. (2017) Journalists’ development journalism role perceptions: Select countries in Southeast Asia, South Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa. Journalism Studies 18(5): 576–594.

36.

Kasoma

(1995) The role of the independent media in Africa’s change to democracy. Media, Culture & Society 17: 537–555.

37.

Kayumba

Kimonyo

(2006) Media assistance to postgenocide Rwanda. In: de Zeeuw

Kumar

(eds) Promoting Democracy in Postconflict Societies. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 211–235.

38.

Keffler

(2019) Economic growth in Rwanda has arguably come at the cost of democratic freedom. World Finance, December 17. Available at: https://www.worldfinance.com/markets/economic-growth-in-rwanda-has-arguably-come-at-the-cost-of-democratic-freedom.

39.

Kellow

Steeves

(1998) The role of radio in the Rwandan genocide. Journal of Communication 48: 107–128.

40.

Kemp

(2022a) Digital 2022: Rwanda. Available at: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-rwanda.

41.

Kemp

(2022b) Digital 2022: Uganda. Available at: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-uganda.

42.

Kemp

(2022c) Digital 2022: Kenya. Available at: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-kenya.

43.

Kimenyi

Kibe

(2014) Africa’s Powerhouse. The Brookings Institute. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/africas-powerhouse/.

44.

Kimumwe

(2014) Media Regulation & Practice in Uganda. A Journalist’s Handbook. Kampala: ClearMark Publishers.

45.

Lederbogen

(1992) Watchdog or Missionary? A Portrait of African News People and their Work: A Case Study in Tanzania. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

46.

Lohner

Banjac

Neverla

(2016). Journalistic practices, role perceptions and ethics in democratisation conflicts: Empirical findings from interviews with journalists in Egypt, Kenya, Serbia and South Africa. MeCoDEM Working Paper. Available at: https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/117301/1/Lohner%20Banjac%20Neverla%202016_Journal.

47.

Lugalambi

Tabaire

(2010) Overview of the state of media freedom in Uganda: A research report. African Centre for Media Excellence. Available at: http://acme-ug.org/wp-content/uploads/Research-Report-on-State-of-Media-Freedom-in-Uganda.pdf.

48.

Mabweazara

Mudhai

Whittaker

(eds) (2014) Online Journalism in Africa: Trends, Practices and Emerging Cultures. London: Routledge.

49.

McIntyre

Sobel

(2018) Reconstructing Rwanda: How Rwandan reporters use constructive journalism to promote peace. Journalism Studies 19(14): 2126–2147.

50.

McIntyre

Sobel

(2019) How Rwandan journalists use WhatsApp to advance their profession and collaborate for the good of their country. Digital Journalism 7(6): 705–724.

51.

McIntyre

Dahmen

Abdenour

(2018) The contextualist function: U.S. newspaper journalists value social responsibility. Journalism 19(12): 1657–1675.

52.

MacKinnon

(2008) Flatter world and thicker walls? Blogs, censorship and civic discourse in China. Public Choice 134(1/2): 31–46.

53.

Mamdani

(1996) Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

54.

Maractho

(2015) Broadcasting governance and development in ‘Museveni’s Uganda’. African Journalism Studies 36(2): 5–24.

55.

Matfess

(2015) Rwanda and Ethiopia: Developmental authoritarianism and the new politics of African strong men. African Studies Review 58: 181–204.

56.

Matovu

Stewart

(2000) Uganda: The social and economic costs of conflict. In: Stewart

Fitzgerald

(eds) War and Underdevelopment, Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 240–288.

57.

Mellado

(ed) (2020a) Beyond Journalistic Norms: Role Performance and News in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge.

58.

Mellado

(2020b) Theorizing journalistic roles. In: Mellado

(ed) Beyond Journalistic Norms: Role Performance and News in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge, pp. 22–45.

59.

Mellado

Mothes

(2021) Measuring the link between professional role conceptions, perceived role enactment, and journalistic role performance across countries. In: Mellado

(ed) Beyond Journalistic Norms: Role Performance and News in Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge, pp. 147–166.

60.

Mkabela

(2005) Using the Afrocentric method in researching indigenous African culture. The Qualitative Report 10(1): 178–189.

61.

Moyo

(2009) Citizen journalism and the parallel market of information in Zimbabwe’s 2008 election. Journalism Studies 10(4): 551–567.

62.

Mutsvairo

Bebawi

Borges-Rey

(2020) Data Journalism in the Global South. London: Palgrave.

63.

Mutsvairo

Borges-Rey

Bebawi

, et al. (2021) Different, but the same: How the global south is challenging the hegemonic epistemologies and ontologies of westernized/ western-centric journalism studies. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 98(4): 996–1016.

64.

Mwesige

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

65.

Nassanga G (2007) Peace journalism applied: An assessment of media coverage of the conflict in Northern Uganda. Conflict & Communication Online 6(2): 1–9.

66.

Nkosi

(2016) Rwanda’s technology revolution helps country forge new path after genocide. BBC, May 13. Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-36285889.

67.

Nyamnjoh

(2005) Africa’s Media: Democracy and the Politics of Belonging. London and Pretoria, South Africa: Zed Press.

68.

Obonyo

(2003) Kenya. In: Quick

(ed) World Press Encyclopedia: A Survey of Press Systems Worldwide. New York, NY: Gale Group, pp. 529–539.

69.

Obonyo

Owilla

(2017) Country Report: Journalists in Kenya. Available at: https://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36375/1/Country_report_Kenya.pdf.

70.

Odongo

(2014) A Critical Analysis of the Mass Media Freedom in Uganda. Moldova: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

71.

Ogola

(2011) The political economy of the Media in Kenya: From Kenyatta’s nation-building press to Kibaki’s local-language FM radio. Africa Today 57(3): 77–95.

72.

Paris

(2004) At War’s End: Building Peace After Civil Conflict. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

73.

Reporters Without Borders (2019) Kenya. Available at: https://rsf.org/en/kenya.

74.

Reporters Without Borders (2021) Censorship and Self-Censorship: Rwanda. Available at: https://rsf.org/en/rwanda.

75.

Rwanda Media Barometer (2021) Kigali: Rwanda Governance Board.

76.

Simon

(2019) Bobi Wine Vs. Uganda's 'Dictator': It's 'Dangerous To Sit Down And Resign To Fate'. NPR, November 16. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2019/11/16/780067936/bobi-wine-a-year-after-his-arrest-and-beating.

77.

Sobel

McIntyre

(2019) The state of journalism and press freedom in postgenocide Rwanda. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 96(2): 558–578.

78.

Sobel Cohen

McIntyre

(2020) The state of press freedom in Uganda. International Journal of Communication 14: 649–668.

79.

Specia

(2017) How a Nation Reconciles After Genocide Killed Nearly a Million People. The New York Times, April 15. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/25/world/africa/rwandans-carry-on-side-by-side-two-decades-after-genocide.html.

80.

Straus

(2007) What is the relationship between hate radio and violence? Rethinking Rwanda’s “radio machete”. Politics & Society 35: 609–637.

81.

Sundaram

(2014) Rwanda: The Darling Tyrant. Politico, March/April. Available at: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/02/rwanda-paul-kagame-americas-darling-tyrant-103963.

82.

Tabaire

(2007) The press and political repression in Uganda: Back to the future? Journal of Eastern African Studies 1(2): 193–211.

83.

Tangri

Mwenda

(2008) Elite corruption and politics in Uganda. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 46(2): 177–194.

84.

Taylor

(1999) Sacrifice as Terror: The Rwandan Genocide of 1994. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

85.

Tiako

(2015) Journalistic role perceptions of Cameroonian professional journalists. Fecha de Edición: Diciembre 2015: 117.

86.

Tripp

(2010) Museveni’s Uganda. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

87.

V-Dem (2022) Democracy Report 2022: Autocratization changing nature? Available at: https://v-dem.net/media/publications/dr_2022.pdf.

88.

Waisbord

Mellado

(2014) De-westernizing communication studies: A reassessment. Communication Theory 24(4): 361–372.

89.

Waldorf

(2007) Censorship and propaganda in post-genocide Rwanda. In: Thompson

(ed) Media & the Rwanda Genocide. London, England: Pluto Press, pp. 404–416.

90.

Wasserman

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

91.

Wasserman

(2011) Mobile phones, popular media, and everyday African democracy: Transmissions and transgressions. Popular Communication 9(2): 146–158.

92.

Wasserman

(2013) Journalism in a new democracy: The ethics of listening. Communicatio: South African Journal for Communication Theory and Research 39(1): 67–84.

93.

Wasserman

(2018) Media, Geopolitics, and Power: A View from the Global South. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

94.

Wasserman

de Beer

(2009) Towards de-westernizing journalism studies. In: Wahl-Jorgensen

Hanitzsch

(eds) The Handbook of Journalism Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 428–438.

95.

Weaver

Wilhoit

(1996) The American Journalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People at the End of an Era. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.

96.

Weaver

Beam

Brownlee

, et al. (2007) The American Journalist in the 21st Century: US News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.

97.

Weaver

Willnat

Wilhoit

(2019) The American journalist in the digital age: Another look at U.S. news people. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 96(1): 101–130.

98.

World Factbook (2019) Central Intelligence Agency. Available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/.