When the Daily Monitor tweeted that “governments choose their own media to protect themselves, not correct reporting,” many Ugandans simply sighed. Others laughed. A few even clapped not for the wisdom of the message, but for the courage it takes to throw stones while living in a glass newsroom with hairline cracks.
Because let’s be honest: if there is any institution in this country that should approach the word credibility with caution, it is the very platform that once reported a ghost shooting, promoted a witchcraft rumour, and consistently paints Uganda as a malfunctioning, collapsing project held together only by their brave headlines. Suddenly, the same Monitor now wants to teach us about “darkness” and “democracy.” The irony is so loud it deserves its own column.
In case the newsroom has forgotten, Uganda’s media laws actually expect journalists to tell the truth. Yes truth. That old-school, dusty concept. The Uganda Communications Content Regulations, 2019, for instance, require news to be objective, balanced, and free from distortion or exaggeration. They also discourage broadcasting reports based on “rumour, supposition or allegation” unless clearly contextualized. But if you’ve followed Monitor for the last decade, you’ll know that rumour has occasionally taken the afternoon shift, supposition works nights, and exaggeration picks up weekend overtime.
Not to be outdone, the Press and Journalists Act also prohibits publishing false information or content contrary to public morality. It expects ethical standards, accountability, and the simple courtesy of verifying facts. Yet here we are: in 2015, the Uganda Police Force had to publicly demand a retraction for a Monitor report claiming someone had been shot except, minor detail no one had. In another classic episode, UCC had to intervene when the paper ran a sensational story alleging that Rt. Hon. Rebecca Kadaga used witchcraft to win an election. Journalism? Investigative reporting? No. This was tabloid theatre with a press card.
And yet somehow Monitor behaves like a persecuted saint every time an institution demands accuracy. Instead of introspection, we get poetry: “Democracy dies in darkness.” Beautiful slogan, truly. But dear friends, democracy does not die in darkness. It dies when media houses mistake activism for accuracy, when they confuse sensationalism for courage, and when they become so addicted to negativity that even progress looks suspicious to them. Darkness is not the problem. A newsroom holding the torch backwards is.
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom to lie, insult, or destabilize. Even the libertarian media theory the one Monitor loves to quote when cornered states that press freedom excludes defamation and demands respect for truth. Social responsibility theory goes further: media must serve the public good, not just the political preferences of the newsroom. Publishing is not warfare. Criticism is not the same as sabotage. And journalism is not a competition to see who can portray Uganda as the bleakest place on Earth.
Let no one be fooled. The question is not why government prefers media that report facts. The real question is: why does Monitor expect trust from a country it often seems embarrassed to be associated with? Why demand loyalty from the very national soil you are constantly describing as a hazard zone? Why cry “censorship” every time the laws you are supposed to uphold are enforced?
Ugandans do not hate journalism. We hate double standards. We hate being misled. We hate watching our country being defaced by those who profit from its image while disowning its achievements. Uganda feeds Monitor literally and figuratively. The audiences are here. The advertisers are here. The infrastructure they use is here. The freedoms they exercise are protected here. And yet the headlines often read like they wish the whole house would burn down so they can report “BREAKING: Uganda on Fire” with exclusive commentary.
At some point, we must ask: is this journalism, or is this the theatre of perpetual outrage?
If the Daily Monitor truly wants to lecture us about democracy, then it must first demonstrate basic respect for truth, balance, and national integrity. Criticism is welcome. Scrutiny is essential. But both must sit on the foundation of factual reporting, not political performance. Until then, the darkness Monitor fears so much may not be coming from government at all. It may simply be the newsroom forgetting to pay its ethical electricity bill.