Following the success of the Botswana team in the just-ended Tokyo, Japan World Championships, which resulted in Botswana winning a gold medal in the 400*4 men’s relay team and another gold and bronze in the 400M men’s final, it called for a heroic welcome of the athletes. However, what was supposed to be a unifying moment in our national history turned out to be polarising. Reports from private media sports journalists who covered the welcome ceremony indicate that they were denied access to the VIP area where they could have interviews and or capture photographs clearly. Meanwhile, their colleagues from state media, being Botswana Television (BTV), RB, and Daily News (BOPA), were given access. This is despite that all journalists must be equal in the eyes of administrators and event organizers. However, in Botswana, it would appear that some still harbour the old mentality where it was a thing to segregate state from private media, despite that all serve the same purpose, albeit under different platforms. Reports are that it was unclear why private media was, for the lack of a better word, “barred” from covering the proceedings. One hopes that this will be ironed out.
Nonetheless, now that the event has passed, it is worth noting to remind those in the habit of sidelining private journalists and/ or segregating media according to whether they represent government or not that a time has come for them to be progressive. For that to be achieved, public office bearers must be reminded that in their capacity as government workers, they do not represent themselves or the government but the citizens of Botswana and must not hold any monopoly of wisdom on their behalf. Many citizens read private newspapers, listen to private broadcasters, and watch independent TV. With media, different demographics are catered to, and that is why newspaper X will cater to urban youth, whereas newspaper Y caters to the elderly. All that should always be considered. What occurred was unbecoming. The embarrassment that those journalists suffered despite being on duty and assigned by their respective media houses should not be a normalized thing. Likewise, this is not only in sports; it also applies to the police, DIS, and other organisations, which, when national events or issues of public interest occur, are quick to restrict media access, sometimes without any basis. Unless those who deny them entry do so on reasonability that they are willing to share publicly, then this must stop. Be that as it may, if it were meant to be that journalists were to be excluded from these events, then the same should apply to state media. Or is it? It comes across as divisive and sets a bad precedent to give one form of media priority over the other, yet it serves different audiences. The private media is not an afterthought. In any case, such occurrences may even reverse the gains that the current government is trying to achieve in transforming the state into a public media to accord it some independence and shift its operating model.
