most media houses have not been able to procure adequate personal protective equipment for their staff due to the high cost of conducting business for media houses, discussed further in the economic environment in 3.3 below. In this vein, government through the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit donated personal protective equipment to forty-five public and private media houses16. The donation was mainly comprised of 250, 000 face masks and 650 litres of liquid hand sanitiser. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the media cannot be overemphasised and it is commendable that DMMU stepped in to ease the burden. It is hoped that a long-term programme (socioeconomic) will be developed to safeguard the safety and sustainability of media enterprises. One of the respondents surveyed, a media practitioner, recounted the impact of the COVID pandemic in the quarter under review, stating that: It wasn’t easy to gather news because sources would prefer phone interviews to physical meetings for fear of the pandemic, however due to limited resources, it was challenging to get all the required information on phone, also coverage of online events such as zoom meetings proved to be a huge challenge due to inadequate bundles and internet connectivity issues. Despite being front line workers, our outlet could not provide adequate protective clothing due to lack of resources, making it difficult for us to go out in the field freely. Another respondent stated that The COVID-19 pandemic created an extremely hostile situation; sometimes you may not even know the risk you are subjecting yourself to during the course of duty. This affected news gathering as there were a lot of restrictions. Even covering State House has been left to a few media houses, especially television. Most of the respondents bemoaned the high cost of working remotely as well as the increased workload due to preventive measures such as rotational work schedules as well as staff under mandatory quarantine. Overall, the socio-political environment in the second quarter was generally calm with no major incidents of violence/harassment against media houses/practitioners, a significant positive change when compared to the first quarter. The media were affected by the resurgence of the COVID-19 pandemic in what was believed to be the third wave, thereby restricting their ability and latitude to effectively gather and disseminate information. 3.2 Legal Environment The legal environment in the fourth quarter was not as eventful as that recorded in the previous quarter which saw enactment of the Cyber Security and Cyber Crimes Act with several provisions that pose a threat to freedom of the press. Most respondents viewed the quarter as less severe and more stable with no instances of repression of the media using arbitrary legal instruments or provisions, even in the wake of what was a landmark legal case on the eligibility of President Edgar Lungu. Some respondents, remarking on the legal environment in the quarter noted that they had “not received any warnings or arrests compared to last year around the same period under review”, the legal environment was “somewhat compromised or gagged” and that “justice could not be served properly” because of “political interference” and that it was “not protective for those who are not connected to political power”. 16 As reported by the Zambia Daily Mail on 27th June, 2021. See http://www.daily-mail.co.zm/dmmu-aids-journalists-withmasks-ppes/ State of the Media in Zambia 9