When watchdogs fight back: resisting state surveillance in everyday investigative reporting practices among Zimbabwean journalists

ABSTRACT

The recognition that digital surveillance is becoming ubiquitous has prompted varied responses from targeted groups. This article explores the ways through which journalists resist state-driven digital surveillance in Zimbabwe. It is based on in-depth qualitative interviews with practising journalists, sampled from the print media. The article utilises panopticon theory, which holds that victims of surveillance alter their behaviour upon the realisation of being surveilled. The interviews were subjected to thematic analysis. The article finds, among other issues, that as forms of resistance to surveillance, journalists in Zimbabwe now reduce their ‘digital footprints’ and have started to re-think the spaces in which they engage with their sources. The article argues that journalists, as a discursive community, should keep the issue of state surveillance on the mainstream agenda and maintain both organised and ad-hoc forms of resistance as ways of ‘speaking back to the state’. Conscientising the public can, possibly, provide a positive starting point for responsible, transparent and fair regulation of state surveillance practices and assist in ‘fencing off’ state intrusion in the field of journalism. In addition, journalists should push for legislation that protects their news sources.

KEYWORDS:

• Journalism practice
• digital surveillance
• Zimbabwe
• journalists
• mainstream media
• investigating reporting

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 In 2013 Edward Snowden, a contract worker at the National Security Authority (NASSA) leaked a huge tranche of data the organisation had gathered illegally on individuals.

2 Lyon, Surveillance Society.

3 The Five Eyes refers to a group of intelligence-sharing countries – the United Kingdom, the USA, New Zealand, Australia and Canada, whose intelligence-sharing network can be traced back to the end of World War II.

4 Lyon, Surveillance Society.

5 Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage.”

6 Hawkins, “Beijing’s Big Brother Tech.”

7 Duncan, “Taking the Spy Machine South.”

8 Marx, “What’s New About the ‘New Surveillance’?”

9 Amoore and De Goede. “Governance, Risk and Dataveillance”; Domke, God Willing?

10 Duncan, “Taking the Spy Machine South.”

11 Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage.”

12 Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage”; Lyon, Surveillance Society.

13 Lindberg and Muller, In the Name of Security Secrecy; Agamben, “State of Exception.”

14 Duncan, “Taking the Spy Machine South”; Privacy International. “Drifting Towards Darkness.”

15 Hawkins, “Beijing’s Big Brother Tech.”

16 Ibid.

17 Duncan, “Taking the Spy Machine South”; Munoriyarwa and Chiumbu, “Big Brother is Watching.”

18 De Burgh, Investigative Journalism, 9.

19 Possetti, Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital Age; Pew Research Centre, “Investigative Journalists and Digital Security Perceptions.”

20 Munoriyarwa and Chiumbu, “Big Brother is Watching.”

21 Mare, “A Qualitative Analysis.”

22 Privacy International. “Drifting Towards Darkness.”

23 Ibid.

24 MISA Zimbabwe. “Reflections on the United Nations Human Rights Council.”

25 Privacy International. “Drifting Towards Darkness.”

26 Ibid.

27 Privacy International. “Drifting Towards Darkness”; Human Rights Watch. With Liberty to Monitor All.

28 MISA Zimbabwe. “Reflections on the United Nations Human Rights Council.”

29 Gillon, Overseers of the Poor, 152.

30 Schulhofer, The Enemy Within.

31 Gillon, Overseers of the Poor; Bennett, “Privacy Advocates, Privacy Advocacy and the Surveillance Society.”

32 Fernandez and Huey, “Is Resistance Futile?”

33 Schivelbusch, “The Policing of Street Lighting.”

34 Gilliam, “Resisting Surveillance.”

35 Ball, Lyon, and Haggerty, eds. Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies, 45.

36 Hollander and Einwohner. “Conceptualizing Resistance.”

37 Martin et al., “Understanding Resistance to Digital Surveillance”; Fernandez, and Huey, “Is Resistance Futile?”

38 Martin et al., “Understanding Resistance to Digital Surveillance,” 212.

39 Hollander and Einwohner, “Conceptualizing Resistance.”

40 Richards, “The Dangers of Surveillance,” 87.

41 Ball, Lyon, and Haggerty, eds. Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies.

42 Waters, “The Effects of Mass Surveillance on Journalists’ Relations with Confidential Sources.”

43 Christofoletti, “Perceptions of Brazilian Journalists on Privacy.”

44 Waters, “The Effects of Mass Surveillance … ”

45 Duncan, “Taking the Spy Machine South.”

46 Bentham, “The Panopticon”; Foucault, Discipline and Punish; Elmer, “A Diagram of Panoptic Surveillance”; Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage.”

47 Elmer, “A Diagram of Panoptic Surveillance.”

48 Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage.”

49 Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage”; Norris, Spies in the Sky; Caluya, “The Post-Panoptic Society?”

50 Norris, Spies in the Sky.

51 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 91.

52 Norris, Spies in the Sky.

53 Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage,” 23.

54 Lyon, Surveillance Society; Monahan, and Wood, eds. Surveillance Studies.

55 Marx, “What’s New About the ‘New Surveillance’?”

56 Monahan, and Wood, eds. Surveillance Studies; Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage.”

57 Haggerty and Ericson. “The Surveillant Assemblage.”

58 Caluya, “The Post-Panoptic Society?”

59 Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism.

60 Marx, “What’s New About the ‘New Surveillance’?”

61 Caluya, “The Post-Panoptic Society?”; Flaherty, Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies.

62 Zelizer, The Changing Faces of Journalism.

63 Ball et al., eds. Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies.

64 Mare, “A Qualitative Analysis.”

65 Ball, Lyon, and Haggerty, eds. Routledge Handbook of Surveillance Studies.

66 Gilliom and Monahan, “Everyday Resistance,” 39

67 Gilliom and Monahan, “Everyday Resistance.”

68 Mare, “A Qualitative Analysis.”

69 Munoriyarwa, “Have They Got News for Us?”

70 Mare, “A Qualitative Analysis.”

71 Ibid.

72 Gilliom and Monahan, “Everyday Resistance.”

73 De Burgh, Investigative Journalism.

74 Munoriyarwa, “Have They Got News for Us?”

75 Mabweazara, News-Making Cultures in Africa.

76 Munoriyarwa, “Have They Got News for Us?”

77 Chuma, Mediating the Transition.

78 Masunungure, Zimbabwe’s “Militarized, Electoral Authoritarianism.”

79 Chuma, Mediating the Transition.

80 MISA Zimbabwe. “Reflections on the United Nations Human Rights Council”; Mano, “Press Freedom, Professionalism and Proprietorship.”

81 Chuma, Mediating the Transition.

82 Mano, “Press Freedom, Professionalism and Proprietorship.”

83 MISA Zimbabwe. “Reflections on the United Nations Human Rights Council.”

84 Davis, “Journalist–Source Relations.”

85 MISA Zimbabwe. “Reflections on the United Nations Human Rights Council.”

86 Munoriyarwa and Chiumbu, “Big Brother is Watching.”

87 ICA (Interception of Communication Act), 1.

88 Veritas. “All Forms of Communications Can Now Be Intercepted Under ICA.”

89 Ibid.

90 Flaherty, Protecting Privacy in Surveillance Societies.

91 Veritas. “All Forms of Communications Can Now Be Intercepted Under ICA”; Privacy International. “Drifting Towards Darkness.”

92 Sachikonye, When a State Turns on its Citizens.

93 Di Salvo, Digital Whistleblowing Platforms in Journalism.

94 Sachikonye, When a State Turns on its Citizens.

95 De Burgh, Investigative Journalism, 11.

96 Lashmar, “No More Sources?”

97 The Zimbabwe National Army has been fingered in many reports as the chief culprit in the looting of diamonds in the east of Zimbabwe. The diamonds fields have remained under tight military control since about 2005.

98 Respondent 2, 5 October 2019, Harare.

99 Munoriyarwa, “Have They Got News for Us?”

100 Ian Burrell. “Investigative Journalism Is Getting Harder – But We Need It More Than Ever.” The Independent, 17 March 2014; Possetti, Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital Age.

101 Several government officials including current and cabinet ministers, have been fingered in the looting of the national pension fund which robbed the fund of about US$390m according to certified audits reports.

102 Respondent 3, 7 October 2019, Harare.

103 Respondent 5, 10 October 2019, Harare.

104 Hawkins, “Beijing’s Big Brother Tech.”

105 Respondent 8, 14 October 2019, Harare.

106 Privacy International. “Drifting Towards Darkness.”

107 Respondent 11, 14 October 2019, Harare.

108 Respondent 4, 15 October 2019, Harare.

109 MISA Zimbabwe. “Reflections on the United Nations Human Rights Council.”

110 The code name for the military operation that removed Robert Mugabe from power.

111 Respondent 6, 13 October 2019, Harare.

112 Respondent 9, 11 October 2019, Harare.

113 Respondent 3, 7 October 2019, Harare.

114 Respondent 3, 7 October 2019, Harare.

115 Paterson, “The Public Privacy Conundrum.”

116 Carlson, On the Condition of Anonymity; Abramowicz, “Calculating the Public Interest.”

117 Paterson, “The Public Privacy Conundrum.”

118 Ibid.

119 Berkowitz, “Reporters and Their Sources”; Zelizer, The Changing Faces of Journalism.

120 Carlson, On the Condition of Anonymity.

121 Waters, “The Effects of Mass Surveillance on Journalists’ Relations with Confidential Sources.”

122 Respondent 10, 12 October 2019, Harare

123 Respondent 4, 15 October 2019, Harare.

124 Higgs, The Information State in England.

125 Privacy International. “Drifting Towards Darkness.”

126 Hawkins, “Beijing’s Big Brother Tech.”

127 Sternadori and Thorson, “Anonymous Sources Harm Credibility of All Stories.”

128 Respondent 10, 12 October 2019, Harare.

129 Respondent 6, 13 October 2019, Harare.

130 Lowenthal, “Surveillance Forces Journalists to Think and Act Like Spies.”

131 Respondent 7, 16 October 2019, Harare.

132 Rantanen, “The Globalization of Electronic News in the 19th Century.”

133 Tuchman, Making News.

134 Lashmar, “No More Sources?”

135 Rantanen, “The Globalization of Electronic News in the 19th Century.”

136 Respondent 7, 16 October 2019, Harare.

137 Respondent 8, 14 October 2019, Harare.

138 Respondent 7, 16 October 2019, Harare.

139 Sternadori and Thorson, “Anonymous Sources Harm Credibility of All Stories.”

Respondent 10, 12 October 2019, Harare.

140 Bagdikian, “When the Post Banned Anonymous Sources.”

141 Sternadori and Thorson, “Anonymous Sources Harm Credibility of All Stories.”

142 Burrell, “Investigative Journalism Is Getting Harder”; Schudson, “The Politics of Narrative Form.”

143 Respondent 1, 9 October 2019, Harare.

144 In 2007, China offered to build a defence college for the Zimbabwe National Army. In 2012, the two countries signed an agreement in which China was to equip the college with about US$100 million worth of equipment. The college is largely believed to be the centre of the state’s surveillance activities.

145 Respondent 1, 9 October 2019, Harare.

146 Respondent 4, 15 October 2019, Harare.

147 Respondent 6, 13 October 2019, Harare.

148 Respondent 7, 16 October 2019, Harare.

149 Lowenthal, “Surveillance Forces Journalists to Think and Act Like Spies.”

150 Possetti, Protecting Journalism Sources in the Digital Age.

151 Dencik and Cable, “The Advent of Surveillance Realism,” 78.

152 Lowenthal, “Surveillance Forces Journalists to Think and Act Like Spies.”

153 Mabweazara, News-Making Cultures in Africa; Mano, “Press Freedom, Professionalism and Proprietorship.”

154 Bennett, “Privacy Advocates, Privacy Advocacy and the Surveillance Society.”