MR Geoffrey Nyarota has threatened to sue The Patriot over an article that we published written by Dr Tafataona Mahoso.In his letter of demand, he claims the following:
(i) Summary of our understanding of the letter of demand to The Patriot.
That he is an honest, patriotic Zimbabwean; an internationally acclaimed journalist, editor and intellectual; and a man of such steady principles that his career and reputation have consistently reflected his defence of the truth, love for his country and his people as well as defence of human rights.
That by April 28 2003 the complainant was no longer associated with Associated Newspapers of Zimbabwe (ANZ), the publishers of the Daily News, because he had become a Nieman Fellow at Harvard University in the USA.
That the article used by The Patriot newspaper to illustrate the dangers of financialisation and financialism never appeared in the Daily News, but in a Kenyan paper called The Business Daily.
Therefore Dr Mahoso lied in order to damage the good image of an innocent man.
That The Patriot article of September 19 2014 by Dr Mahoso was therefore substantively false and cruelly defamatory, resulting in the complainant’s demand for a retraction and damages worth US two million (US$ 2 000 000).
(ii) Outline of reply
The Patriot article complained about did not concern Mr Geoffrey Nyarota’s career, personality or reputation; it was about financialisation and financialism.
The complainant has therefore provoked The Patriot newspaper now into examining the complainant’s career and reputation based especially on his stint at the Daily News in order to demonstrate that complainant is in fact not who he says he is and that his over-reaction to that article of September 19 2014 shows that he knows he is masquerading as a consistent patriot, journalist, editor and intellectual when in fact his is a flip-flopping journalist and editor who also became a flip-flopping politician in pursuit of what he perceived to be great opportunities at each turn.
First, the complainant misrepresents his relationship with the Daily News.
He was both a founding director and a founding editor.
We understand this to mean that Nyarota was a shareholder in ANZ in addition to being editor of the Daily News.
It is a misrepresentation for him to claim he ceased to be associated with the Daily News by moving to Harvard, USA, sometime in 2003.
In fact, as late as 2010 the costs of his repatriation to Zimbabwe from overseas were paid by the ANZ, owners of the Daily News. According to some records, the ANZ eventually severed its relationship with Nyarota when it discovered that he had allegedly abused donor funds intended for the Daily News prior to his stint at Harvard.
When his relationship with ANZ ended around 2010, Nyarota went to court to demand his job back.
Nyarota fought and demanded
US$364 000 as compensation for its termination, not in 2003, but around 2010!
We are in possession of an original hard copy of the Daily News of April 28 2003 that carries the story.
Third, if Dr Mahoso’s purpose had been to demonstrate that Mr Geoffrey Nyarota is an opportunistic sell-out and traitor, he would have been able to do so using articles and other materials published, edited or accepted for publication by the complainant during the period at the Daily News for which Nyarota is proud to take credit, long before the Harvard stint.
In other words, the Daily News did more harm to the people and nation of Zimbabwe in 2001 and 2002 than it did after complainant’s move to Harvard University.
The complainant was awarded the Nieman Fellowship as a reward for the propaganda damage he had inflicted on Zimbabwe through the Daily News.
Fourth, the best way to understand the nature and scope of the propaganda damage inflicted by Nyarota on Zimbabwe through the Daily News is to look at current scholarship on the demonisation of Zimbabwe.
Dr Blessing-Miles Tendi is now a lecturer in international relations at Oxford University in the UK.
During the period in question, Blessing-Miles Tendi was a young journalist in Zimbabwe.
His current and relevant study is called, ‘The Origins and Functions of Demonisation Discourses in Britain-Zimbabwe Relations (2000-2014)’.
Readers can find and read the article for themselves in the Journal of Southern African Studies where it was published online in June 2014.
What is important is to summarise Dr Tendi’s findings as follows:
Demonisation discourses can be divided into two categories: Normative demonisation is based on strong beliefs and convictions.
Constructive demonisation is calculated, deliberate, tactical and intended to achieve specific propaganda objectives.
People who engage in this second type of demonisation do not really believe all the evil things they say about their enemy or victim.
They say them merely to influence opinion, to achieve certain propaganda goals and to overcome their opponent or victim for political, business or monetary gain.
Opportunists engage in constructive demonisation.
Nyarota engaged in the constructive demonisation of Zimbabwe as an accomplice of Anglo-American interests who went out of their way to make sure that demonisation activities became lucrative through sponsorship.
Nyarota’s flip-flopping shows that he engaged in the demonisation of Zimbabwe in pursuit of what he perceived to be great opportunities in the form of foreign awards and foreign trips or in the form of posts to be awarded by the foreign-sponsored opposition parties in Zimbabwe if they came to power.
But the most important finding by Dr Tendi is that demonisation poisons international relations and harms nations and peoples because where it succeeds, it leaves and leads to only two options: either war or sanctions.
As a result of the successful demonisation of Zimbabwe to which the Daily News generously contributed under Nyarota, British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s Labour Government asked Field Marshall Lord Charles Guthrie in 2000 to make preparations for the invasion of Zimbabwe.
Guthrie is quoted as saying: “I was asked by Number 10 (Downing Street) and the Foreign Office (in 2000) if I could look into invading Zimbabwe.”
Former South African President Thabo Mbeki is also cited saying:
“Tony (Blair) put maximum pressure on me in 2000 to agree to a military invasion of Zimbabwe and he was going to base his troops here (in South Africa), and we said No.”
In other words, the purpose of ‘demonisation’ for imperialism is to eliminate peaceful options for resolving disputes. War becomes the first option.
Sanctions may be imposed to soften the target for ultimate war.
If the war option is frustrated as in the UK-Zimbabwe case, the sanctions have to be inflicted in the most aggressive and harmful manner possible in order to compensate for the failure to wage war.
Dr Tendi’s article solves two puzzles, about Nyarota and the Daily News.
It shows why on February 21 2001 the Daily News could announce that the Government of Zimbabwe and President Mugabe would be overthrown by July 2001.
Since there were no elections between February and July 2001, the only way the Government would be overthrown would be through a Western military invasion.
This also explains why two years later, the Daily News was most excited about the joint US-UK invasion of Iraq and why that paper led the attack on Zimbabwean intellectuals and politicians who voiced opposition to the US-UK invasion of Iraq.
The second puzzle solved by Dr Tendi’s article is the extent of ‘media banditry and media terror’ inflicted on the people of Zimbabwe through the Daily News under Goeffrey Nyarota.
Dr Tendi explains that the singular purpose of constructive demonisation is to paint the victim or enemy in the worst light possible in order to rule out all soft options.
The supposed enemy or victim has to appear starkly evil.
Next week, we shall publish samples of stories Nyarota published when he was editor of the Daily News as a reminder of the extent of the damage he inflicted on Zimbabwe.