| The best Zimbabwe news site on the world wide web |  |
| NEWS |
| FORUMS |
| NEWS ANALYSIS |
| READERS' FORUM |
The essence of debate; a rejoinder to Clemence Manyukwe
By Alex
T. Magaisa
CLEMENCE Manyukwe,
of the Financial Gazette is, on the evidence of his response (READ)
to my article (READ) not a happy
man. He appears to have taken umbrage at what he interpreted as insinuations
in my article to the effect that he may have plagiarised material in
his article which appeared in the Financial Gazette on 8 November 2007
(READ).
Having read and used his work in the past, I like to think that Mr Manyukwe is a decent and hard-working gentleman, who admittedly, is working under very difficult conditions. I therefore, have no hesitation to offer my apologies to this gentleman, as it appears I may have, by my words, caused injury to his person and/or reputation. That, to be sure, was not my intention and as I always say to my correspondents, the last thing I am concerned with is attending to personalities instead of focussing on the key issues that affect us as a people. It is for that reason that, as a matter of principle, I tend to steer away from responding to any personal attacks that may come my way.
And it certainly is not my intention to do otherwise in this response. I am too insignificant in the scheme of things regarding Zimbabwe to warrant a defence or a whole article to that effect. I think readers are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions. There is a proverb in Gambia, that if a donkey kicks you and you kick back, you are both donkeys. I only wish to state my views on the essence of debate on matters of public interest, especially when they have been placed in the public domain.
In some cases, it is inevitable that names have to be mentioned in reference to points that have to be made. This was the situation in this case. I could not possibly comment on Manyukwe’s article without making reference to his authorship. In my line of work, referencing and acknowledging sources is often unavoidable. Though I might have been tempted to omit Manyukwe’s name, that would have been dishonest of me. Consequently, Manyukwe’s name became inevitably associated with the comments that I made in that article. It could have been any other writer, so it is nothing personal against Manyukwe.
An inescapable consequence of writing in the public domain is that one’s work is prone to different interpretations by different people depending on the positions they occupy. Similarly, there is always the possibility that it will be subjected to critical thought and analysis. Those of us in the fields of research and I am sure the same applies to journalism, appreciate that our work will be scrutinised by consumers, who will, from time to time, point to its strengths and weaknesses.
We are, sometimes, disappointed, when what are considered to be weaknesses are criticised but conversely, we are gratified when we get the plaudits and in some cases, even win awards, which we are all too happy to announce to the world at any given opportunity. But I do think that much as we are prepared to refer to our successes, it is also fair to anticipate and accept criticism without necessary taking serious offence.
In making our substantive points, do we all really have to announce our awards and achievements? I do not think it is necessary, because each of us would be reduced to opening our trophy cabinets and certificates, and in the process the whole purpose and essence of the argument is lost. Not even a Nobel Laureate is immune from making the odd mistake or indeed from criticism. Awards are important. They make us proud of what we do. But they do not validate everything that we do or say. We ought to learn to live with criticism and use it purposefully, which is why in this case, I will certainly consider Manyukwe’s criticism, which may be useful for my own personal development. That way, I think, we engender a conducive atmosphere for debate on those things that really matter.
Therefore, I wish to make it clear that the point of my article was not to attack Manyukwe’s person and professional standing. It was simply to debate on the issues that were raised by his article and make suggestions on how best the wider public could benefit from such work. To the extent that Manyukwe’s work provoked such debate, one might perhaps give him credit for raising it in the first place. It is not very often that newspaper articles instigate wider debate and instead of taking offence, Manyukwe might wish to stand proud that, at least, what he is doing is instigating scrutiny and debate. Indeed, it means we, the readers are paying attention to his efforts. If we do point out any weaknesses, the challenge is to improve on that effort.
Some people have written in the past, criticising the quality of journalism in Zimbabwe. I don’t want to believe that our standards are as bad because I think a lot of people are doing great work under, admittedly tough conditions. But I also think that it is important to be self-critical – to look into those aspects that could be improved.
I do not think it is helpful to summarily dismiss an argument simply because it has been made by someone who is outside Zimbabwe. Most media houses, including the Financial Gazette, publish online versions of their newspapers. This means that the newspaper is designed to reach even to those outside the country. Should they, because they are supposedly in the “safe” havens of their foreign bases, simply consume the news without commenting on it? Is not the substance of the argument more pertinent? To be sure, I consider that to be an unnecessarily cheap shot. I only mention it because it is not uncommon to encounter such lines of thought in the debates appertaining to our country’s situation.
Finally, whilst I am unable to conclusively determine how readers should interpret my work, I would like to make it clear that it was not my intention to steer readers in one way or another in respect of the public figures, whose work I discussed in the article. To claim otherwise would be arrogance of a high order on my part.
In making reference to the sources of information about Mnangagwa and Joice Mujuru, hopefully, readers were able to see for themselves the data on the websites and form their own opinions. Not many may have known that their leaders are actually being innovative and staking their claims in cyberspace, so, hopefully, a useful by-product of that effort was an advertisement of those websites. One hopes they can make further improvements and add more data so that readers can make better use of it. Then again, if I had not commented on Manyukwe’s article, that free service may never have been provided to the two leaders! So all matters considered, Manyukwe’s efforts have to be applauded.
As I said, noting that Manyukwe may have been offended by my article, I wish to apologise to him, and hope others similarly injured by my words would be generous enough to understand and extend their forgiveness. I only wish in future that we could create and tolerate decent debate on matters that affect us, particularly when we put them in the public domain.
Alex Magaisa can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN
THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com
All material copyright newzimbabwe.com
Material may be published or reproduced in any form with appropriate credit to this website