SECTOR 2 Scores: Individual scores: 1 Country does not meet indicator 2 Country meets only a few aspects of indicator 3 Country meets some aspects of indicator 4 Country meets most aspects of indicator 5 Country meets all aspects of the indicator Average score: 3.6 (2012 = 2.8; 2010 = 2.3; 2008 = 2.8; 2006 = 1.2) 2.3 The editorial independence of print media published by a public authority is protected adequately against undue political interference. Section 61(4) of constitution states that: All State-owned media of communication must a. be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications; b. be impartial; and c. afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions. However, what is set out in theory, is not necessarily done in practice. As one panellist noted, “there is massive evidence in the public domain of state interference. Read ‘The Politics of Mass Media: A Personal Experience by Elias Rusike’, which chronicles how in the 1980s and early 1990s stories were influenced, things planted, etc. They had situations where the Minister of Information would provide all the copy for the front page.” The perception of state interference is so rife at all levels, that when there was once a change of Ministers of Information, because of the idea that the Minister sees the publication before he goes to bed, the incumbent minister “demanded that he see the paper before it goes to print. The editor refused to allow that, but that minister had the perception that that is what the predecessor was doing.” A panellist from a state media house, however, contested the idea of state interference, noting that: “…I’ve been called to meetings by government officials to discuss issues; but in general, we don’t have interference from the state. AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER ZIMBABWE 2015 29