Flawed journalism vs bad journalism, why the distinction matters
THOMAS NKHOMA | Wednesday July 23, 2025 10:03
Lately, in the wake of big stories such as allegations against Bridget Motsepe in the so-called P100 billion saga, some have accused the media of being complicit in spreading lies simply for reporting on allegations that were circulating in official circles. In an article I wrote earlier, I argued that flawed journalism is often better than no journalism at all because silence in the face of significant allegations involving public figures and national resources would be far more damaging to our democracy.
However, some misconstrued it to suggest was that I was defending bad journalism, or worse, that I was indifferent to its consequences.
This needs clarity. Flawed journalism and bad journalism are not the same thing. Conflating them is, more than anything else, a disservice to serious debate about media ethics and the future of journalism in Botswana.
It is unfortunate that when some people complain about media being riddled with propaganda, misinformation and fake news, it becomes fashionable to dismiss the entire media landscape as monolithic and tainted. But such a narrative is not entirely accurate.
The media in Botswana is diverse, ranging from public broadcasters to private newspapers and online platforms, each with its own editorial line, strengths and weaknesses.
To paint all media houses with the same brush is to make a sweeping generalisation that fails to acknowledge the complex realities journalists work under.
It has also become common for critics to invoke Rwanda as a cautionary tale, citing how radio broadcasts fuelled the 1994 genocide as evidence that journalism can be deadly if left unchecked.
This is absolutely true. Bad journalism can indeed be lethal. When certain media outlets in Rwanda deliberately dehumanised a segment of the population and called for violence, that was not flawed journalism.
It was propaganda and incitement to genocide, a textbook case of bad journalism weaponised for political ends. It is an example we must never ignore because it shows how powerful and dangerous journalism can be when ethics and truth are abandoned.
However, it is both unfair and inaccurate to suggest that because bad journalism played a deadly role in Rwanda, the media in Botswana is somehow heading down the same path merely because it reports on contentious stories or makes mistakes.
Media in Botswana is not engaged in systematic hate speech or calls to violence. We do not suffer from rampant fabrication or coordinated propaganda campaigns. What we see, more often, are examples of flawed journalism characterised by errors of fact, incomplete reporting or insufficient context.
These are failings that arise not from malice but from real constraints such as limited resources, legal pressures and time. The Motsepe case is a perfect example. The allegations were serious, politically significant and emerged from official documents and court processes.
The media had a duty to report on them. Whether some stories gave the allegations too much weight or failed to include enough skepticism is a valid critique and that is where flawed journalism can come in. However, reporting on allegations as allegations, is not the same as inventing false stories.
Some critics argue that journalists who defend flawed journalism do so because they do not appreciate how important and powerful their role is in society. I disagree. I believe most journalists are painfully aware of the weight they carry.
They know that what they publish shapes reputations, influences public opinion and sometimes even sways political outcomes. The point I made and continue to stand by, is that while flawed journalism must be addressed and improved, it is not the same as bad journalism and it should not be treated as such.
To silence journalists out of fear of being flawed is to invite secrecy and unchecked power. That does not mean flawed journalism should be excused.
It deserves critique, correction and rigorous self-reflection. Journalists owe the public the highest possible standards of accuracy, fairness and context.
Conversely, to argue that flawed journalism is better than no journalism at all is not to defend recklessness. It is to acknowledge that a free press is essential for democracy, even when it sometimes stumbles.
Bad journalism, on the other hand, is a deliberate betrayal of public trust. It involves fabrications, unethical distortions or incitement to harm. Botswana, thankfully, has largely been spared the scourge of systematic bad journalism.
Nonetheless, that does not mean we should become complacent. We must guard against it vigilantly because the stakes, as history has shown us, can be deadly. As we debate the role of the media in Botswana, we owe it to ourselves and to our readers to draw these distinctions clearly.
Flawed journalism deserves critique and efforts at improvement. Bad journalism deserves condemnation. However, they are not the same. And conflating them only clouds the path towards building a stronger, more credible media landscape that can serve democracy as it should.
*Thomas T. Nkhoma is MISA-Botswana national governing council chairperson