Patriotic journalism vs watchdog journalism: Navigating the thin line of truth
THOMAS NKHOMA | Monday October 20, 2025 06:00
In April 1961, the world watched in disbelief as a small fleet of exiled Cubans, backed by the United States, attempted to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. The mission ended in disaster, hundreds were captured and the US military suffered a humiliating defeat.
In the aftermath, President John F. Kennedy accused the American press of failing to report a leak about the operation, suggesting that, had journalists informed the public, it might have spared the army both embarrassment and unnecessary loss of life.
Herein lies a paradox that continues to confront journalists worldwide. Is the duty to protect national interests and save lives a form of patriotic journalism or is exposing risky government decisions the essence of watchdog journalism? Perhaps it is both.
Reporting on the leak could have simultaneously held power accountable and safeguarded human life while non-reporting left the nation exposed to the consequences of a failed operation.
While operating in a vastly different context, the media in Botswana encounters similar dilemmas.
A telling example is the 2023 detention of editor Ryder Gabathuse and Innocent Selatlhwa, investigative journalists at Mmegi, who found themselves at the centre of a national security storm. A confidential document inadvertently landed on their desks. After careful deliberation and rigorous ethical reflection, they decided to pursue the story.
When it was eventually published, it provoked the ire of the Directorate of Intelligence and Security (DIS), who demanded to know how the journalists had obtained the document. Both Gabathuse and Selatlhwa were arrested, questioned and temporarily detained.
Their ordeal encapsulates the core tension in journalism that reporting in the public interest can come at a personal and professional cost, even when intentions are ethical.
The story challenged the actions of powerful actors, yet it also sparked debate over national loyalty, security and the media’s role in balancing both.
It is a delicate line - one where watchdog duties may appear to conflict with patriotic considerations and where every decision carries weighty consequences.
What compounds this delicate balance in Botswana is the tendency by security agencies to invoke the National Security Act which has often proved to be an albatross around the neck of journalists.
Its broad provisions can be used to intimidate reporters or suppress reporting on matters deemed sensitive, creating a chilling effect on investigative journalism.
Nonetheless, this balance is central to Botswana’s journalistic practice. Patriotic journalism has historically played a crucial role in nation-building, highlighting achievements in governance, economic growth and social cohesion.
It fosters pride and unity, painting a picture of progress that resonates with citizens and reinforces national identity.
Yet, when patriotic journalism is pursued uncritically, it risks becoming mere cheerleading, obscuring systemic weaknesses, mismanagement or corruption.
Watchdog journalism, by contrast, thrives on scrutiny, investigation and accountability.
It often surfaces uncomfortable truths, from financial irregularities to governance failures. Yet, it is inherently risky. As Gabathuse and Selatlhwa discovered, holding power to account can provoke institutional backlash, legal entanglements and reputational threats, challenges not unique to Botswana.
Across the region, journalists face similar trials. In Kenya, investigative reporters covering election irregularities such as the 2017 post-election audits, faced legal threats and intimidation from political actors, yet their reporting ensured transparency and prevented potential electoral fraud.
In South Africa, outlets such as AmaBhungane have exposed high-level corruption including state capture scandals, walking the fine line between criticising leaders and supporting the broader public good.
Internationally, the lesson is the same. In the Philippines, investigative journalists who exposed human rights violations during the Marcos era risked persecution but ultimately strengthened democratic accountability.
Conversely, media outlets in Japan often balance patriotism with oversight by reporting on natural disasters and public health while subtly critiquing governmental preparedness, demonstrating that holding the state accountable need not undermine national interest.
Even during wartime, the British press has historically provided critical reporting on military strategy while maintaining support for national morale, exemplifying that watchdog and patriotic journalism can coexist in delicate equilibrium.
So how can this happen? Institutional frameworks can help safeguard this balance. Botswana once had a Press Council which before it collapsed, offered a model of self-regulation, enforcing the Media Code of Ethics through its Complaints and Appeals Committees, composed of media professionals and public representatives.
The mixed composition ensured diverse perspectives and mitigated unilateral influence. Lessons can also be drawn from regional bodies such as the Media Council of Kenya and Press Council of South Africa, both of which blend voluntary and statutory frameworks to protect editorial independence while promoting ethical standards.
The Press Council of India, with its multi-sectoral composition including journalists, parliamentarians and judicial figures, demonstrates how diverse representation can enhance impartiality and accountability.
Consequently, resuscitating and strengthening Botswana’s framework could involve expanding council membership to include legal and civil society experts, thus increasing the visibility and enforcement authority of the Press Council and providing regular training on investigative ethics and risk management.
On the other hand, public awareness campaigns can cultivate a citizenry that appreciates the nuanced role of journalists, understanding that holding power accountable is not inherently unpatriotic.
Ultimately, the experiences of Ryder Gabathuse and Innocent Selatlhwa, the historical lessons of the Bay of Pigs and the successes of journalists in Kenya, South Africa, the Philippines and elsewhere underscore a central truth. Journalism’s dual responsibility is both patriotic and watchdog.
A journalist may simultaneously challenge power, expose mismanagement and promote the public good.
In Botswana, as elsewhere, the press must navigate these tensions with integrity, courage and adherence to ethical standards.
When successful, journalism strengthens democracy, fosters national cohesion and ensures that the truth remains both a tool for accountability and a foundation for collective pride.
The delicate balance between patriotism and scrutiny is not a weakness of the profession but its defining strength. By embracing both roles, Botswana media can continue to illuminate the truth while nurturing the values and achievements that bind the nation together.
*Thomas Thos Nkhoma is MISA Botswana chairperson