SECTOR 1 “SNAJ struggles to be effective, while the Editors Forum struggles to be consistent.” chapter of Gender and Media Southern Africa (GEMSA); the Swaziland Editors Forum; and MISA-Swaziland. Some panellists felt the media itself is divided. “The trouble is journalists don’t take an interest in issues affecting them, therefore SNAJ struggles to be effective, while the Editors Forum struggles to be consistent.” Others felt media owners are compromised. “There are people in civil society who say things are fine as they are; even media owners, because they are benefiting from the status quo. Those of us inside the media have a lot of concern about what is happening, but we are not taken seriously. Our employers divide and rule us. SNAJ at one point was a very strong lobby group, but they were crushed.” One panellist felt uncomfortable with the decision of media editors to meet regularly with the King. “If the King says ‘don’t write this’, they have to do his will. Therefore, it’s wrong for editors to go there in the first place. It’s not an order. They haven’t been invited. It’s the editors’ initiative.” Defending the editors, another panellist said: “The King needs to be told what is happening directly. The King has taken an interest in the media. When you explain how we operate, he understands … It’s not that we want to be friendly with him.” Other sections of civil society have decided it is not worth engaging with the King in this way because “the King’s word is law”. “Once he pronounces that’s the end of the matter. That’s the danger.” Countered another panellist: “Isn’t it worth taking the risk of that in the hope of getting your point across? Unless we take the risks, nothing will change.” 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: 24 AFRICAN MEDIA BAROMETER SWAZILAND 2011 2.2 (2009: 2.2; 2007: 2.3; 2005: 2.1)