The politics of language, tabloidisation and sustainability of African language newspapers

Existing research shows that, besides being late-comers in the newspaper industry, Kwayedza's and uMthunywa’s survival has been turbulent. Whilst Kwayedza’s inception in 1986 was followed by an uninterrupted existence, uMthunywa’s road to a continuous presence had a false start. According to Mabweazara (2006), prior to 2004, uMthunywa was initially established in 1985 to cater to the Ndebele audience. However, the newspaper encountered viability problems connected to low circulation, which led to the newspaper being reduced in size from twelve pages to four pages in 1987. In 1988, uMthunywa was combined with Kwayedza, resulting in the name of the newspaper changing to Kwayedza-uMthunywa. The year 1993 marked the death of uMthunywa, as the Ndebele section disappeared in Kwayedza-uMthunywa. The demise of uMthunywa was attributed to the failure of the newspaper to stand as an alternative source of information, for it was a mere Ndebele translation of English language newspapers at Zimpapers (Saunders 1999).

The above mentioned experience shows the struggle of Kwayedza and uMthunywa to compete and survive in the market when they existed as mere translations of English language newspapers. That is, if African language newspapers contain the same news that is reported in The Chronicle and The Herald or other English language newspapers, they struggle to attract readership. This means that African language newspapers need to create a niche market of readers that is different from readers of English language newspaper. Due to the rooted English language hegemony in Zimbabwean society, with the same stylistic and subject content, African language newspapers do not stand a chance against the competition of the English language newspapers in the market. As discussed earlier, readers prefer English language newspapers. Thus, readers who opt for African language newspapers should be attracted by something different, over and above language. Once again, this shows that African language newspapers’ struggle in the market is directly related to the excesses of the colonial and post-independence language policies and practices that

African language press in Zimbabwe 49 galvanised English language hegemony at the expense African languages. The other point to note is that, while uMthunywa had a false start, Kwayedza’s existence has continued uninterrupted since its inception for the reason that the newspaper has a wide readership since Shona is spoken by approximately 70% of the Zimbabwean population.

As a result, typical of African language newspapers, publishers of Kwayedza and uMthunywa have resorted to tabloidisation as a strategy of survival (see Mpofu and Salawu 2018b). Tabloidisation relates to three distinct aspects: the format of the newspapers, the style of reporting and the subject of a newspaper (Norris 2000). Thus, African language newspapers are generally smaller than broadsheet papers. The reporting style of tabloids emphasises sensationalism, that is, the use of photographs and dramatic headlines. As tabloids, Kwayedza and uMthunywa evade every day economic and political issues, which are generally covered in The Herald and The Chronicle. Rather, they concentrate on sensationalised township and village stories that revolve around scandals, witchcraft and bestiality; among other attention-grabbing but trivial stories.

The explanation that is often given for the prevalence of sensationalism in African language newspapers is connected to the commercial purpose of raising revenue through increasing sales and attracting advertisers by capturing readers’ attention (Salawu 2015; Mpofu and Salawu 2018b). Thus, the survival of uMthunywa after its comeback in 2004 was ensured by its adherence to the inventive and market-driven tabloid format (Mabweazara 2005, 2006). The newspaper circulation statistics show that, through tabloidisation, African language newspapers at times outsell some English language newspapers. According to a survey of weekly newspapers by the Zimbabwe Advertising Research Foundation (2017), Kwayedza has 15% of total distribution and is ranked second behind The Sunday Mail, which has 27%. This indicates that Kwayedza and uMthunywa thrive on sensationalism as a means to penetrate the Zimbabwean newspaper market (Mpofu and Salawu 2018c). The culture of sensationalism in Kwayedza and uMthunywa is expedient for the survival of indigenous language press in the face of steadfast competition from the English language press.

The foregoing discussion exposes the excesses of colonial and postindependence language politics, which resulted in language policy, ideologies and practices that favoured - and still favour - English at the expense of African languages. The shared belief among readers that English is the language of the media has adversely affected the development of African language newspapers. Kwayedza and uMthunywa have resorted to tabloidisation to stay alive, a practice Mpofu and Salawu (2018b and 2018c) perceive as retrogressive to the African languages, the African language newspapers and development communication. They argue that sensationalism and the avoidance of political and economic issues in Kwayedza and uMthunywa folklorises indigenous languages and legitimises English’s vitality as the language with the functional value to carry specialised and contemporary' development communication. The content of the newspapers also negatively projects Shona and Ndebele cultural communities as primitive and backward. Therefore, the underdevelopment of African language newspapers in

Zimbabwe is intricately connected to the politics of language beginning in colonial and post-independence Zimbabwe.