EVALUATION REPORT FOR “URUBUGA RW’ITANGAZAMAKURU” TALK SHOW PROJECT FOR INSTITUTE PANOS GREAT LAKES (IPGL), RWANDA/OCTOBER 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgement

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the interviewees and project partners for making this evaluation possible despite the COVID 19 pandemic which made physical meetings moments difficult.

More specifically is to thank Institute Panos Great Lakes (IPGL) in partnership with Rwandan Journalists’ Association (ARJ) and other media professional, journalists and civil society that we interacted with in the course of this study and for generously providing the time to share their insights and professional experience. Their participation has enriched this study and expanded our understanding of the linkage between this project and the entire media ecosystem in Rwanda. Without our interviewees, we couldn't have captured the nuances of the effect of this project among the target audience and indeed in Rwanda media sphere.

We are thankful to the Executive Director of PANOS GREAT LAKES for the opportunity to undertake this evaluation and in doing so gave us the opportunity to interact with the media and journalists in Rwanda . For this, we are most grateful.

Finally, we would like to extend our gratitude to the sponsors of this project, the Netherlands Embassy. This project has exposed the Rwandan citizens to issues of open and democratic debate, democratic governance, civic rights and access to information. These are important tenets in a progressive society and have laid a good foundation for further conversation and debate on media reforms in a democratic framework in Rwanda.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Often independent, public interest centred, professional and accountable journalism have been considered panacea for and indeed a cog in the democratisation process. However this in exclusion of a conscientized citizenry in use of media as a “public space” for discourses and conversations touching on fundamental issues of civil rights and duties, politics and governance, may not yield the desired results of creating a democratic culture characterised by free debate.

This project has played an important role in filling this gap. It has through the weekly live task show created awareness among the Rwandan citizens to use media to amplify their voices and make known their views and opinions on diverse issues of public importance. The citizens now understand the importance of free press and their role in reaching to their leaders and government officials. They are able to hold them to account “right on air through call-ins during the show.

It has also contributed in helping citizens to gradually change their mindset about media and society. The fact that media was indicted for funning conflict and genocide in 1994 has created deep mistrust of the media by citizens. This project has contributed in building confidence and trust in the media.

The project has also created a pool of more analytical, critical and professional journalists that are able to guide in media debate on diverse issues of national importance thereby opening up the field for more authoritative journalism in Rwanda. It has besides, helped create a culture of collaboration and synergy which could grow into a coalition of reform minded media. This is in addition to building capacity to organise debate, interact with professionals and civil society.

Collaboration and synergy has addressed the problem of cost of content production among small and community media outlets significantly contributing in their effort towards viability and sustainability.

Lastly, on media regulation and freedom of expression, the project has raised the awareness of the need for a more professional and accountable media based on a media ethical system. It has contributed in creating awareness among the government officials that analytical media is “good for governance and tackling malpractices”. We have “a more listening government now than before”


SECTION ONE

FOCUS OF THIS EVALUATION

1.1 Aim and scope of the project

This is summative evaluation research of “Urubuga rw’Itangazamakuru” Talk Show, a project sponsored by the Netherlands Embassy and implemented by the Institute Panos Great Lakes (IPGL) in partnership with Rwandan Journalists Association (ARJ) and 10 radios and a TV stations in Rwanda between 2018 and 2020.

This project aimed to promote the use of media as a public space to freely engage with the state authorities and civil society on matters of democracy and governance. It aimed at building the capacity and competencies of journalists to produce more public interest content and to refine their tools as professionals. Within this context, the project was going to improve the tenets of freedom of expression, access to information and self-regulation. Across-cutting component in the project was to ensure inclusion of women both as journalists and experts in various subjects of public interest. The project was going to be as participatory as possible bringing citizens/audiences on board in making choices on the subject or topic to be aired in the talk show, express their opinions and share their diverse ideas through live debate, however controversial, and therefore generally contribute to their general welfare.

1.2 Specific objectives of the two-year project

The project aimed to strengthen professionalism among journalists in Rwanda particularly in relation to ethical principles for the practice of journalism in Rwanda. It was subsequently going to accord an opportunity to politicians to discuss topical issues with civil society, citizens and journalists.

Secondly it was going to give the Rwandan citizens an opportunity to express themselves freely through call-ins and related social media feedback and to access firsthand information on various civic issues including participation in democratic debate and related civic activities.

It was also going to contribute towards developing a culture of media synergy in Rwanda where radio and TV work together to deliver content of national and social importance.

This evaluation therefore was meant to assess the extent to which this project met these objectives using a framework of analysis of international assessment standards which constitutes the following elements: project relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. It has given findings, recommendations and lessons learnt at all stages of the project cycle including its management and wider implication of the outcomes to the media and information ecosystem in Rwanda.

1.3 Summary of main findings

• Citizen use of the media as a “public sphere” or space for conversation and exchange of ideas and opinions on issues of public importance including current affairs and governance has increased.

• The level of media professionalism among journalists has improved albeit persistent official and self- censorship on political issues which are considered sensitive in the country.

• Journalists are more aware about access to information though the extent to which official information is accessible has not been tested. While journalists have not faced any restrictions to official information, none of them has demanded for information that would be considered sensitive. Most of the topics covered have not called for investigation that would require official documents

• The capacity of the media and journalists to organise radio talk shows and broadcast in synergy and in collaboration has increased. radio stations are able to organise other talk shows and broadcast in synergy.

• Media houses are more sustainable and some have reported an increase in advert revenue by 50 percent. The fact that over 70 percent of the advert revenue comes from the government has continues to raise questions on editorial independence of the media in rwanda.. Nevertheless, government media relationships have contributed significantly towards viability and sustainability.

• Citizens have grown courage to engage government officials openly on air while journalists have grown their professional skills to facilitate public affairs debate. The government has swiftly acted upon issues and challenges raised by citizens through call-ins during the live show.

• The citizens trust on the media has improved while the government out of necessity is working closely with the media

• There are incidents of threat and intimidation of journalists by authorities while citizens who participate in live debate by calling in have been followed and questioned. This has had a risk of turning listeners into passive citizens.

• Editorial independence is still struggling particularly where talk show hosts are summoned for facilitating in what is termed as sensitive topic or even when compelled to withdraw a planned topic from airing.

• The topics covered in the talk shows are less analytical, less incisive opting to focus on obvious issue.There is still a high degree of self-censorship .

• Professional and ethical journalism is still reeling and struggling in Rwanda stifling the effort for a self- regulatory media accountability system.

1.4 Summary of recommendations

Creating effective Synergy

While the project has gradually been able to create a culture of synergy and collaboration between media houses particularly in joint production and transmission of content, it isimportant  that  the  programme  is  aired exactly  on  the  scheduled  time.  Starting  the programme late interrupts   programming of individual radio partners creating dissatisfaction. The programme looks unreliable and indeed disorganised in the eye of the audience which eventually affects their participation.

Graduating synergy to coalitions

While synergy is central in raising the awareness of its importance in holding the leadership to account through open debate, it isn't sufficient in pushing for the debate further to encompass issues of freedom of expression, access to information and self-regulation. Efforts to lobby for more media reforms and expanded space for free speech is better and effectively  done through  coalitions  of  civil  society,  media  professional  bodies  and associations. Concentrating efforts and energy will also address the challenges of duplication of efforts in addressing the media situation in Rwanda.

Emphasise training and capacity building in areas of ethics and role of media in governance and use of data.

Increase the capacity of journalists to focus on more broad issues including human rights, access to information and democracy in a manner that is ethical and therefore avoid the more apparent conflict with the government often in Rwanda associated with poor journalism.

Strengthen media accountability system

This calls for building capacity for the self-regulatory mechanism starting from identifying focal points persons/ethics champions in the newsroom (public editor/ombudsman ) who will ensure the enforcement of the code of conduct including the development of editorial guidelines. In-house based self regulatory mechanism would eventually help mainstream ethics in journalism.

Diversity income sources for media houses.

Media system that is state dominated and where the private and commercial media rely on the government for advertisement cannot push for reforms and their quest for editorial independence is quashed. There is a need therefore to train media houses on modern methods of media management, innovation and monetising of their online content to diversity their sources of income.

Addressing what matters and what resonates with the audience

The talks show should be more active and focus on getting the story to an audience. Though the live coverage of the show has had significant effect on reaching a wider audience, there should be effort to livestream the conversation online so as to broaden their audience base as well as have Q $ A sessions in order to engage the audience.

Start journalist clubs in the regions

It is apparent that journalists at regional level and in the capital have no place or space to coalesce, discuss challenges affecting them, a space that has facilities such as computers and internet from where they can file their stories either as correspondents or freelancers.. Forming such centres will create space for engaging local authorities, community leaders and civil society on emerging issues within their locality It will also be used as a place where peer review can be carried out and ethical issues discussed.

SECTION TWO

2.0 INTRODUCTION

In more than one decade, Rwanda has witnessed exponential growth of media outlets characterised by multiplicity of ownership, plurality and diversity and at the same time undertaken substantive media reforms which have significantly expanded space for freedom of expression and free press. The government through the constitution and attendant legislations, has protected media freedom, freedom of expression and access to information which are fundamental tenets of a free and civil state.

Further, through the national media policy, the government recognised the centrality and progressive element of free media by providing for the creation of a media self-regulatory system under the Rwanda Media Commission (RMC) where journalists regulate their conduct and behaviour through ethical principles of journalism. Thus journalists have had free space to pursue responsible and public interest journalism and create a public sphere where citizens can engage and discuss civic matters touching on democracy, governance and their rights as citizens.

Further, Rwanda is one of those countries in Africa that have recorded the fastest growth in online prompted by internet penetration and affordability. Therefore, online media including social media have grown exponentially in Rwanda opening public space further to those citizens hitherto excluded from mainstream public conversations.

Journalism as a profession has also grown. With the establishment of the School of Journalism and Mass Communication of the University of Rwanda and setting up of Rwanda Media High Council to train journalists on emerging issues as well a host of other media development support groups and Non Governmental Organisations to support reforms, journalism in Rwanda is poised to forge ahead.

Despite these reforms and media development, the media in Rwanda has never been able to shape a real “public sphere" where citizens are free to effectively participate and articulate civic, democratic and governance issues touching on their lives. Journalists lack skills and knowledge to articulate and moderate conversations on issues of public interest while the level of trust between the media and the public is still reeling. The level of tolerance on divergent views and opinion is still a concern while awareness by the general populace that the media is a public space where they can engage their leaders is still low.

Besides, journalists view themselves simply as workers in the media space as opposed to playing the social and political role of raising citizen awareness on the need to participate in civic duty of governance pursuing their rights as citizens besides using the media as a transformative tool in their development agenda. Thus there is low citizen participation in public debate.

Further, given the disruption of the media financing model by the internet media and ensuing viability and sustainability challenge, most media outlets are financially constrained to produce and host public interest programmes and instead focus on more simplistic entertainment programmes that are cheap to produce. Most of this content is more appealing to the urban elites and middle class and excludes the rural forks.Thus the media space is characterised by replication and homogeneity in programming that has less public remit orientation.

Although media in Rwanda is substantively gender sensitive with comparatively more women reporters than men, inclusion of women as sources of news particularly in the rural areas and their level of participation in national debate is still low. We need more women inclusion at all levels of public interest discourses particularly those touching the majority in the rural areas.

It is under this circumstance that the “Urubuga rw’Itangazamakuru” was started in 2013. Implemented by Institute Panos Great Lakes (IPGL) in partnership with Rwandan Journalists Association (ARJ) and funded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands Embassy, Kigali, the projects aimed to strengthen the culture of democratic debate and freedom of expression through accurate information and citizen participation. In doing so it was hoped that the programme was going to promote media professionalism and freedom of expression through open and free participation in live TV and radio debate in synergy. The fact that the project was broadcast at the same hour i.e from 2:00 PM – 3:30 PMO across all the 11 media outlets meant that it was going to reach a critical mass at the same space and time creating substantive impact on citizen awareness.

SECTION THREE

METHODOLOGY AND FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS

3.1 Introduction

The Summative evaluation aimed to assess the extent to which “Urubuga rw’Itangazamakuru” met its aims and objectives using framework of analysis of international assessment standards which constitutes the following elements: project relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. It also aimed at finding out how the outcomes and lessons learnt from the project had a bearing on the wider media and information ecosystem in Rwanda.

3.2 Rationale and Scope

This is the first radio and TV talk show in Rwanda focusing on access to information and the use of the media by ordinary citizens as a public space for engaging leaders. It's also the first programme to adopt partnership and synergy approach in production and broadcast of content. It more significantly encouraged h democratic debate and free speech.. It was imperative that its role be assessed with a hope that the findings were going to make a significant contribution in improving the state of the media profession and open exchange of ideas and opinions between the citizens, the government and the civil society. The lessons learnt were also going to inform the next phase of the project.

3.3 Research approach

We reviewed documents on project conceptualisation including periodical reports and carried out dozens of interviews with journalists, listeners, academics, civil society, programme hosts and moderators of debate. The PANOS Great Lakes arranged for interviews though some respondents were identified through snowballing techniques based on those interviewed. Due to Covid 19,some interviews were conducted remotely and others on phone.

3.4 Data collection instruments

We sent out questionnaires to project reporters (the focal point ) and questions guides to conduct Lister Group Discussions in all the provinces.In total, we carried out five listener Group Discussions (LGDs), ten Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), and got 51 percent response on our questionnaires targeting editors, reporters, and talk show guests.

3.5 The research objectives

1. Assess the extent to which the talk show contributed in strengthening media professionalism among journalists particularly ethical principles for the practice of journalism in Rwanda.

2. Assess the extent to which the project accorded opportunity to politicians to discuss topical issues with civil society, citizens and journalists.

3. Establish the extent to which the project offered the opportunity to citizens to express themselves freely through call-ins and related social media feedback and to access first hand information on various civic issues including participation in democratic debate and related civic activities

4. Establish whether the project has had any effect in establishing a culture of synergy and collaboration among journalists and media houses in production and broadcast of high impact public interest content in Rwanda.

SECTION FOUR

FINDINGS OF THE STUDY

4.1 Introduction

From the questionnaires administered, we got a 51 percent response rate rate which is statistically significant. We aimed at collecting knowledge, attitude and behaviour of the respondents related to their role in the project and their general view on the outcome and effect of the project as set out in the project.The questionnaires targeted focal point persons (correspondents), chief editors and radio managers, talk show hosts and guests. The data collected was analysed through SPSS.

4.2 Demographic characteristics of respondents

4.2.1 Professional background and qualifications of journalists in the talkshow

On the education background of all the three categories of journalists involved in the talk show that is the chief editors, focal points and talk show hosts, it was apparent that they were of good standing with all of them besides one focal point holding degree level education. See Table 1 below.

Table 1: Professional background and qualifications of journalists in the talkshow

4.2.2 Professional qualifications of journalist in years

On professional qualifications, a majority of the respondents at 76 percent were trained journalists, 14 percent trained in political science while the rest were qualified in other social sciences (see Figure 1 below). All the five focal points /correspondents/reporters interviewed were journalists by professions. This is an exemplary blend of professionals able to articulate issues from an analytical and informed position.

Figure 1: Professional qualifications of journalist in years

4.2.3 Length of experience of journalist in years

On experience, the chief editors and talk show hosts ordinarily involved in the gatekeeping process and deciding what goes on air, 7 out of the total of 10 had over 10 years of experience in the media while the rest had between 5 and 10 years as indicated in Figure 2 below. This shows that the programme was executed by highly experienced journalists besides their professional training in journalism. See Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 : Length of experience of journalist in years

4.2.4 Gender Distribution of journalists involved in the talkshow

When we consider gender distribution of the respondents totalling 12, who comprised 5 focal points and 7 chief editors, gender representation was skewed towards male journalists at 9 (75 percent ) and only 3 female journalists, representing 25 percent. See Table 2 below. This over representation of men in media is a reflection of gender imbalance in media houses, media organizations and professional bodies at national level.

Table 2: Gender Distribution of journalists involved in the talkshow

4.3 Financial viability and sustainability, and technical competencies associated with the talks show.

4.3.1 Sustainability and viability of the media attributed to the talk show.

To assess whether the talk show had any impact on viability and sustainability of the media house working in synergy to broadcast the talk show, we sought to establish the views of the station managers. All the respondents from the 7 radio stations reported that their stations had recorded improvement in financial performance . They reported growing their audience numbers and listenership which they have leveraged on to solicit for adverts from both private and public sectors. They reported that over 70 percent of their business revenue came directly and indirectly from the government. As indicated in Figure 3 below, the majority of the radio stations at 57 percent reported that their revenue had grown between 25 and 50 percent.

Figure 3: Percentage income growth of media houses associated with the talk show

4.3.2 Media and Journalist capacity and competency to produce task shows

From the follow up questions, the radio managers reported that their journalists had improved their capacity and competencies to organise talk shows. One radio station manager reported that they are running a talk show in synergy with other four radio stations, each improving

their reach and revenue. Another manager of a community radio station reported that without the programme, their community radio station could not have been able to hire skilled talks show hosts to produce such quality programmes. That through this talk show, their listeners have access to media experts from the capital Kigali.

4.3.3 Public trust on media attributed to the talk show

On whether the talk show has increased public trust on the media, all categories of the respondents reported it has, as shown in Table 3 below. They attributed this to the fact that citizens have experienced a very effective media particularly where issues raised on the talk shows and those identified and reported through the focal points were acted upon by the authority. They subsequently started viewing the media as a platform that amplifies their voices and as a sphere where they dialogue with the local authorities and national government on pertinent issues touching on their lives. They said that this talk show has been a turning point in Rwanda where there has been high mistrust of the media given that it was indicted for instigating genocide in the past.

Table 3: Distribution of views on public trust of the media attributed to the talk show

Public trust on media due the programme

Attendant to this was that 85 percent of the respondents across the board reported that the talk show displayed high professional standards in terms of execution and quality of debate. Quality referring to relevance of the topic, style of execution as well as public participation through call-ins and text messages.

4.3.4 Public trust of the media

On a follow up question on whether the government trusted the media given that major topic in the show pointed to the gaps in the local administration and questioned some of the national government policies, all the three show hosts interviewed reported that the relationship was ambivalent and that the government felt it should work with the media out of necessity but not out of trust. Nevertheless they reported that the government was more comfortable working with professional media that did background and fact check on sensitive subjects before going on air. They also reported that from the 105 shows they have hosted in addition to public participation and interaction with the show through telephone calls and feedback, there had been an increase in public trust of the government.

4.3.5 Comparison of public trust of the government and the media

In comparing public trust of the government and the media, the results were interesting. While we reported earlier in Table 3 that there has been an increase in public trust of the media, the responses across the board as shown in Table 4 below, 86 percent of the responses indicated that listeners trusted the government more than the media. The reasons given being that the government has demonstrated its swift response to public issues expressed through the talk show. Only 13 percent of the respondents indicated that the public trusted the media more than the government while 15 present indicated that both the media and the government had equal measure of public trust. This is unlike the rest of East African Community member states where the public trust the media more than the government (Media Council of Kenya , 2019). As discussed later under Listener Group Discussions (LGDs), this view could possibly be attribute to historical facts where media was indicted for castigating genocide in 1994.

Table 4:Comparative public trust of the media and the Government

4.3.6 Government tolerance to media and public criticism

On whether the government is more tolerant to media criticism now than before, all the chief editors interviewed reported that the government is comparatively more tolerant. Media has become progressively more analytical and incisive and has displayed significant improvement. They said that the government is more comfortable with a professional media that is able to verify allegations before going to air. Regarding this, all the talk show hosts, focal point persons (correspondents) and chief editors reported that the level of press freedom and democratic debate has increased in Rwanda

4.3.7 Safety and security of journalist related to the talk show

All the categories of journalist in the talk show namely the focal points, talk show hosts and chief editors of media houses totalling 15 were asked whether they have in any way faced threat or intimidation in the course of their work related to the talk show. 13 of them accounting for 87 percent reported no intimidation or threat while two focal points reported to have been threatened and intimidated in course of their duty. On whether any of the talk show hosts had been compelled to withdraw a topic at the last minute for any reason, two of the three reported that they had, while the other refrained from answering the question. See

Table 5 below.

Table 5: Distribution of threats and intimidation between different categories of journalists

4.6 Talk show guests’ view on citizens courage to engage government authorities

We sought to find out from the talk show hosts whether the citizens were more bolder in engaging the government and local authorities. Assessing this from listeners' feedback through call-ins, short messages services (SMS) and other social media interactions such as Facebook, two show hosts reported that citizens had become bolder in engaging the authorities. However one show guest reported that the questions asked by citizens are simple and not directly touching on deeper issues and therefore doubted that citizens have become more courageous in democratic engagement through radio .See Figure 5 below.

Figure 5: Distribution of talk show guests’ view on citizens courage to engage government authorities

4.7 Role of the talk show on freedom of expression and democratic debate

To assess whether the talk show has improved freedom of expression and encouraged democratic debates, all the three talk show hosts and five focal points responded that there was a noticeable improvement on the two aspects. However it's important to note that this has not translated to courage to engage the government authorities as observed in section 4.6 above. See Table 6 below.

Table 6: Journalists’ view on the status of freedom of expression and democratic debate

4.8 Media independence and access to information

To assess the status of media independence and access to information, we sought the opinion of the talk show hosts and focal points who were more directly involved in looking for information about the talks show and directly on air either as hosts or reporters or correspondents. Two of the three hosts reported no restriction on accessing information they needed for the talk shows. Only one reported facing difficulties in accessing information on sensitive political matters. See Figure 6 below.

Figure 6: Journalists view on access to information

On their views about media independence, five focal points and two talk show hosts gave differing opinions.While 4 of the 7 respondents viewed media in Rwanda as independent the rest three reported that media is not yet independent. Further probing indicated that the government is still intolerant to criticism and their level of media trust is still low. However one talk show host reported that the government is confident in the media as long as it's professional and able to verify allegations before going on air.

4.9 Media development and training

4.9.1 Professional Development of Journalists and relevant of trainings received

To assess the relevance of the project in building capacity and competencies of journalists including the talk show hosts, all the 8 respondents reported that the training received improved their journalistic skills and met their professional needs. When asked to assess the quality of the training received, 60 percent of the focal points and talk show hosts said they were excellent while the rest or 40 percent said it was good. On how many training sessions they had received, all but one reported that they had received two training sessions each.

4.9.2 Topics and areas of interest to talk show hosts

To assess the subjects of interest and competencies of the talk show hosts to moderate the talk show debate, all the 3 talk show hosts said that they feel more competent to engage and moderate debate. On areas of interest, 2 of them said that they were interested in political issues while one said that she was interested in governance and service delivery. Interestingly and as discussed later and as presented in Figure 10, only 6 out of the 105 topics were of political nature. Meaning that as much they are interested in politics as a subject, only a few were discussed and as explained, owing to sensitivity of politics as a subject of discussion. One of the veteran journalists who moderated a talk show on politics and election in the run up to the 2017 general elections was summoned at the ruling party headquarters and this could have sent warning to the other talk show hosts.

4.9.3 Citizen participation in the talk show

The “Urubuga rw’Itangazamakuru” talk show was supposed to be listener driven where through focal points, topics considered salient by listeners were going to be forwarded to the editorial team in Kigali either directly or through whatsapp group platforms, phone calls or in meetings. On the question whether topics proposed by the audiences were considered for discussion in the talk show, all focal points responded in affirmation (100 percent). However on whether the topics forwarded were actually adopted for discussion, only 20 percent said they were while 80 percent of the respondents said their weren’t. Indeed out of 105 topic discussed only 15 of them or 14 percent came from the listeners. This is understandable given that there are many other factors that the editorial team considered before arriving on an appropriate talk show topic including the availability of a guest expert to speak on the subject, political sensitivity and subjective view of editors on the relevance of the topic. See

Figure 8 below.

Figure 8: Proportional comparison between talk show proposed by the citizens and those that were discussed

4.9.4 Diversity of sources and experts in the talk show

On diversity of sources measured by the number of times guests have been invited in the talkshow, over 85 percent reported to have been invited more than twice while over 14 percent were invited twice. In other words, all the talk show guests have been invited more than once. While subject experts are ordinarily few and issues specific to their specialty or public offices keep on recurring explaining why they are invited more than once, attempts should be made to diversity sources. From Listener Group Discussions presented later, there was a recommendation that talk show experts from the provinces should also be invited as experts in the show. Urban dominance of discussants marginalised the voice of the community as much as their proposed topics found their way to the centre for discussion. See Figure 9 below.

Figure 9 : Percentage distribution of the number of times talk show host have been invited as subject expert

On whether the media has become a free and open space for dialogue and conversation between the citizens and the government and leaders, 85 percent of the talk show guests reported that the media has improved as a public sphere of dialogue in Rwanda. However 14 percent of the respondents held that the government is still intolerant to criticism. This is further discussed under key Informal Interview (KII) results on status of media freedom of expression in Rwanda. See Figure 10 below.

Figure 10: Importance of the Media as an open public space for dialogue and conversation

4.9.5 Listener groups ranking of importance of the topics discussed in the talk show

In comparing perceptions on the importance and relevance of the talk show topics between the rural and urban lister groups, focal points of the talk show were asked to rank subjects in order of importance as informed by their interaction with these communities. While it is not possible to fully delink their personal views from those of the communities, their two years of experience was good enough to give a reliable response on this question. The response was that, across all groups in rural areas, education was ranked as the most important subject at 100 percent followed by politics and social categorisation both at 80 percent. The third in order of importance was social development and gender violence both ranking at 20 percent.Their view of politics however had more to do with decisions made at local level and issues of resources distribution. This order of ranking differed slightly from the urban listeners group ranking with transport considered as the most important subject as 60 percent. The rest of the subjects were treated with equal importance. The governance and human right, politics, Social categorisation and education were ranked at 40 percent.

4.9.6 Diversity and frequency of topics discussed

Under relevance of the tals shows, we sought to establish the diversity of topics and discussions and the frequency at which they were discussed. From the list of 105 topics discussed in the project period, we categorised the topics into eight broad categories of:-Political, economic, social cultural , environment, geopolitics and diplomacy, health, general national development and governance. Economic issues touching on livelihood of the society and business environment accounted for 24 percent of all the topics discussed ( equivalent to 25 topics). This was closely followed by governance issues touching on human rights , local administration, implementation of community empowerment programmes, leadership and accountability. You note that politics, considered a sensitive subject in Rwanda accounted only for 6 percent of all the topics equivalent to 6 stories. Political stories for example touching on national security and conduct of the ruling party are generally a taboo and so are issues touching on democracy, competitive politics and conduct of state officials. The findings are represented in Figure 10 below

Figure 10: Diversity of topics and frequency of discussion

4.10 Responses from Listener Group Discussions (LGDs)

4.10.1 Appropriateness of the talk show

The aim of this project is to promote a culture of open engagement with the state authorities, civil society and between individuals and communities on matters of civic rights, governance and democracy. We assessed how much effect the talk show has by conducting five 5 Listener Group Discussions (LDGs) distributed in all provinces. The feedback from the participants reveals deep interest to participate on subjects on social economics aspects of the listeners and in particular on service delivery and social protection. Participants said that they were bolder in raising such issues with the authorities and were happy that all issues they raised through the talk shows were swiftly addressed by those concerned. They confirmed that there was an increased sense of responsibility and accountability but also opportunities to bring out new ideas and opinions both from individuals and collectively from communities through the listener group meetings.

Talk shows were seen as an important platform to question policy decisions that the communities felt were not addressing their predicaments. A case in point is the social categorisation of the Rwanda citizens which often denied deserving students government financial support to pursue university education. Arising from the talk show on this topic, the Ministry of culture reviewed the social economic categorisation of citizens addressing misplacement of many families and reassigning them to appropriate categories which eventually opened up many opportunities for support of university students by the government. Additionally, feedback from citizens requested that more such topics that question government policies be aired. Expressing the impact of the talks show, one listener group discussion participants of Izuba radio reported that “in the Kabarondo sector, we had a problem of high water prices, the talk show talked about it and it was resolved ”.

There was also evidence of listeners’ interaction with the talk show content through Short Message Service (SMS) , whatsapp texts and call-ins which was an effective way of ensuring inclusion of their voice into the programme. Participation through listener group meetings facilitated by the designated focal point persons ensured that their views were incorporated into the topics which were appropriately expounded by the invited guests in the talk show.

On whether the programme was relevant to the listeners, there was a census in the groups that communities are able to reach the central government through the talk show and report matters of inaction or inefficiency in service delivery by the local authority.

It is expected that if the target audiences see and feel themselves and those close to them reflected in the radio programme, then they would be receptive to the messages. From the LGD discussions, some participants expressed excitement when they heard their voices asking questions or clarifying issues presented. Others felt extremely satisfied that the issues they raised were swiftly addressed by the local authorities. In one instance,a listener was excited that the topic that he proposed had been taken up by the organisers of the programme and was a subject of discussion. As discussed earlier and as much as most of the topics proposed by the communities were not considered for discussion in the talk show, they were happy that some were. This programme was to some extent participatory and substantially. appropriate in meeting its objective of encouraging open debate and dialogue between the citizens and the government official.

4.10.2 Trust on the government and civil society

While listeners arrived at a consensus that they are able to reach the central government and air their views freely besides being informed on what is happening at national level, one citizen alluded to the fact that the government cannot fully be trusted because at times they “harass citizens who called during the talk show”. On their trust of civil society, the listener groups reported that they trusted them because they are human right defenders. That they defend their human rights issues. Possibly a coalition between the media and civil society would deliver better results.

4.10.3 Management and execution of the project

There was consensus from the LGDs that the project does not keep time and is often as late as 30 minutes. This discourages audience participation and particularly those that would like to interact with the content through call-ins. Secondly, they raised concern that the organisers invited the same guest all through constraining diversity of sources and expertise. They proposed that experts from the provinces are also invited while more live talk shows should be organised in the provinces to encourage more community interaction with journalists and the programme content.

4.11 Responses from the Key Informant Interviews

4.11.1 Project appropriateness

We assessed the appropriateness and possible effect of outcomes of the talk show from the Key Informant Interviews (KII) at three levels. The individual level focusing on professional development of journalists, organisational level looking into capacities of project partners, and institutional level changes focusing on the contribution of the project to the media freedom, freedom of expression and democratic debate between the citizens, government authorities and civil societies. To establish these, we interviewed media regulators, veteran journalists, talk show hosts, guests and academia in the field of journalism. The results were interesting.

At individual level, talk show hosts reported that they have become “media personalities who need no more introduction” according to one talk show moderator. They have had an opportunity to meet more people and it has become easy for them to reach key personalities to give comments on subjects of national importance. They have grown professionally and are now competent enough to organise such talk shows on their own. One reported that she is already running a talk show independently in one of the radio stations. They however mentioned the challenge of identifying experts for various subjects and occasional disappointments where guests cancel their appearance in the last minute.

4.11.2 Organisational level effect

The project manager of the Urubuga rw’Itangazamakuru” talk show at PANOS reported that the organisation has been running the programme for over 7 years and has built competencies in mobilising radio stations and other partners to run such talk shows in synergy. Through training, there has also been remarkable improvement in the technical capacity of the media houses and journalists to organise such talk shows on their own. However the show hosts and media regulators reported that there has not been any training on the subject of media and freedom of expression, access to information and democracy and that the capacity building has been limited to technical competencies and not the subject matter of the talk show.

There was an observation that media community radio stations have gained national exposure because they are able to air content that otherwise they would not have been able to broadcast without the synergy based programming.

There was also a report on improved financial performance of the radio partners owing to their improved listenership which has attracted adverts from the various sources chiefly from the Government and attendant local authorities.

At the national or institutional level and on the subject of media freedom, access to information and open democratic debate, the regulators were of the view that the level of professional journalism is still low in Rwanda and is difficult to talk about media freedom without responsibility. They argued that most of the radio stations are run by editors tha have minimal experience and unable therefore to give guidance to reporters on matters of ethical journalism.They opined that as long as journalism doesn't demonstrate depth in reporting, analysts in their talk shows and their editorial independence is deliberately compromised by powerful individuals, the government will always have a tense relationship with the media. They argued that self-regulation will be untenable as a media accountability system as long ethical systems of journalism are not part and parcel of the media and governance discourses. They recommended training on ethics, subject matter of public information, press freedom and media and governance.

Nevertheless , they felt that the programme has contributed in changing the mindset of the citizens from that of being disillusioned by the media that was in the past accused of funning violence to demonstrate enthusiasm to express themselves because they know there is someone in high authority listening to their concerns. This has improved freedom of expression and open conversation with the authorities. It has created awareness on peoples’ rights and responsibilities as citizens. The show in their view contributed in building citizenship.

4.11.3 Access to information

On ease of access to official information, the talk show hosts reported that they have not had instances where they were denied information as they prepared for the talk show. They added though that the freedom of access to information can only be tested when one requests for sensitive government records that touch on public interest matters. So far they have not had such sensitive topics.

4.11.5 Sustainability of the project

In the context of this project, sustainability would refer to the continuation of the media outlets (TV and radio) and professional journalists to produce such talk shows and programmes to enlarge the space for freedom of expression, enhance dialogue between the citizens, the government authority and the civil society, and to encourage the citizens to use media as a public space to converse fully and freely in matters of governance, civic rights and democracy. It will also mean growing and deepening public trust between the media, government and citizens, and cultivating solidarity between media players such as the professional organisations i.e. Rwanda Community Radios Network (RCRN) and the Association of Journalists (ARJ) and encourage collaboration and joint production and broadcasting in synergy matters of public interest. To establish the extent to which these sustainability parameters are likely to be met,we looked at sustainability at various levels as follows.These we would consider as a net benefit of the project.

The respondents felt that there has been an increased level of accountability on part of the political leaders. The government has on various occasions as pointed earlier, taken corrective measures where policies discussed in the talk shows tended to negate the fundamental welfare of the citizens. “We have a more listening government” than before one scholar opined. This accountability cuts across all levels of government and state and local government officials. Media has become a key source of information for government officials they reported. Sustaining such an impact through more incisive and authoritative public interest programming is likely to spiral to all facets of governance.

Secondly the respondents argued that for such debate to be more meaningful and impactful, there is a need to conduct Media Information literacy (MIL) on access to information, media use and freedom of expression. On part of the journalists, more training on the subject matter of media freedom, democracy and public participation and media self regulation and accountability is essential. This is in addition to safety and security of journalists which will help them be aware of how to respond to threats and intimidation.They expressed their misgiving that such a programme would have a national wide impact on open democratic participation without addressing the gaps in the entire media ecosystem
.

Conclusion

“URUBUGA RW’ITANGAZAMAKURU” TALK SHOW project has demonstrated that if upscaled to involve many other partners, and if supported by other related media reforms projects including training of journalists on ethics including the introduction of the in-house media regulation system, building solidarity and support amongst journalists and professional associations, establishing of journalists clubs and Media Information literacy programmes, its possible to bring about a national impact in terms of encouraging democratic debate, freedom of expression and access to information. It's possible to build a critical mass of journalists and media houses to focus more on public remit and current affairs in Rwanda.

APPENDICES

Lister Group Discussions

LISTENER GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Talk show project partners

Radio Show Topics between 2018-2020