The Paradox Of Information Sources

The fact that the Road Traffic Department (RTD) was declared the most secretive public institution in the country by the Media Institute of Southern Africa (Misa)-Malawi Chapter sometime back did not provide good reading, especially in this era when information dissemination is very crucial to development. Yet, it is not only the RTD that is economic with information when it comes to revealing to the media what they know.

When reporting on different issues taking place in the country and elsewhere, the media relies extensively on information provided to them by different informants. For verification of stories, there is need for some relevant or ‘highly-placed sources’ to say something that would either validate the story or provide more information on it or both.

This might be the case even where the report contains material that is generally known by almost everyone. News pieces are different from feature articles or opinions where someone can write their own ideas throughout the piece. They require interviews and sometimes even photographs which may ultimately substantiate the whole story that is being carried.

Yet in Malawi, there is a widespread tendency for people who would provide information on certain stories to refuse to talk to the media. Most stories carried in our local papers indicate that nearly half of the reports carried are never fully-fed because relevant sources are usually disinclined to provide information to the media.

Malawians have the right to access to information and this is largely fulfilled through the media because it is the most effective way of disseminating information. It is illogical that some individuals holding different positions especially in governmental and non-governmental organisations do not care about giving information to the media on issues which the nation at large needs to be aware of.

And the funny thing is that when reporters resort to other ‘anonymous sources’ for the sake of the readers, these unwilling individuals rush to bash reporters terming them unprofessional. Where do they think the reporters can get the information from apart from the ‘anonymous sources’ if they themselves are non-committal on commenting on issues in which they are directly involved?

It does not do Malawians justice to see a burning story end in suspense or never come out altogether just because someone does not want to speak to the media. And the most ridiculous thing is that these non-committal officers do not provide any reason for their unwillingness that can be worthy the fig.

There are many stories which are left underlying just because there is no one to validate them and reporters cannot report them for fear of finding themselves on the wrong side of the law. Those who would say something on the story (because they know something) usually shun the media.

In certain instances, it has been observed that they only promise to call back only to switch off their phones. In other instances, you find that instead of someone refuting a story that was validated by other sources, they only rush to hang the phone up or to tell the reporter that it is their paper that is doing what is said to have been done. Is this the way officers have to react to the media? If ‘highly-placed sources’ act like this, who will be the media’s source in Malawi?

Sometime back, I was in Tanzania on a certain mission and I tried to survey a number of the Eastern African country’s papers to see how sources cooperate with the media. Most of the stories carried made a very good reading because there was a lot of information on them. This was in virtue of the fact that people in the country, particularly high-positioned officers, are very much willing to speak to the media.

We do not need civic education in Malawi on how important it is to provide the media with information, relevant of course.

In other instances, there is also the problem of shifting the ball from one court to another until the reporter gets tired and time runs out. A reporter calls someone to source information on a certain story and that someone refers the reporter to someone else and a long chain is created where at the end is the very same person who made the initial ‘reference’.

It is not always the case that every piece of information has to come out through the public relations officers or the spokespersons. Sometimes there is need for the bosses themselves to say something and all they can say is that they are in a meeting. This is even if you saw them driving down the highway only some seconds ago