Earlier today, Lilongwe Times published a strongly worded commentary arguing that Zodiac Broadcasting Station (ZBS), under the public face of Mr. Gospel Kazako, is “nosediving” and steadily losing its credibility. The article cited declining editorial quality, weak newsroom controls, and a recent controversial story as evidence that a once-respected media house is in trouble.
That criticism has ignited debate, and rightly so. Media scrutiny is healthy in a democracy, especially when it concerns institutions that shape public opinion. However, while the concerns raised deserve attention, the conclusion that Zodiak is in terminal decline misses a critical dimension of professional journalism: how a media house responds when it gets things wrong.
Journalism is not a divine calling; it is a human craft. Newsrooms are run by people operating under pressure, deadlines, and imperfect information. Mistakes will happen. The expectation that a media house will be infallible is neither realistic nor fair. What separates mature institutions from reckless ones is accountability—acknowledging error, correcting the record, and apologising to the public when necessary.
An apology is not a confession of failure. It is a statement of responsibility.
Malawi’s recent history offers a powerful lesson. During the academic freedom saga under former President Bingu wa Mutharika, the refusal by then Inspector General of Police Peter Mukhitho to apologise turned a manageable dispute into a prolonged national crisis. The confrontational stance hardened positions and delayed resolution for nearly a year. In hindsight, a simple apology would have demonstrated leadership, not weakness.
The same principle applies to the media. When a broadcaster reflects on its conduct and admits it fell short of its own standards, that is not evidence of collapse—it is evidence of institutional maturity. The real danger lies not in error, but in denial. A newsroom that refuses to self-correct risks arrogance, public distrust, and long-term irrelevance.
This does not mean Zodiak should be shielded from criticism. Editorial rigor, fact-checking, and ethical judgment must be constantly reinforced. Standards must remain high, especially for a national broadcaster with wide reach and influence. But criticism should be balanced with fairness and context.
Zodiak’s strength will ultimately be measured not by the claim that it never stumbles, but by its willingness to listen, to learn, and to correct course when necessary. In journalism, credibility is not built on perfection. It is built on integrity.
And integrity is shown most clearly when an institution has the courage to say: we were wrong, and we are sorry.
