Botswana does not need State media that simply changes political masters. It needs public media that changes its relationship with power. That is important because changing the occupants of government does not necessarily change the habits of institutions. A new administration can inherit the same machinery, the same newsroom culture and the same incentives that existed before it. That is the uncomfortable conversation Botswana must now have about its state media. For years, criticism of government-controlled media has centred on political bias: whose speeches receive coverage, whose activities dominate the news and whose version of events becomes the official narrative. Such concerns are legitimate but the deeper problem is not simply whether a particular story is biased. It is whether a publicly funded media institution understands that its first obligation is to the public rather than to the government of the day.
The distinction that government communication and public journalism are not the same thing is also fundamental. While a government has every right to explain its policies, defend its decisions and communicate its achievements, conversely, journalism has a different responsibility. It must interrogate, verify, contextualise and, when necessary, challenge those same claims. When the two functions become indistinguishable, something important happens: the public stops being treated as citizens entitled to information and starts being treated as an audience to be persuaded. That is where public interest can quietly be replaced by institutional interest. The irony is that Botswana’s current political leadership has itself recognised aspects of this problem. It acknowledged the longstanding concerns about political influence and disproportionate coverage.
