Tendai Ruben Mbofana
That word instantly caught my attention — and not for the reason they intended.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
I found myself asking, what exactly made this award so “prestigious”?
What was the criterion for that label?
It got me thinking about how today’s journalism, particularly in Zimbabwe, seems to have lost its sensitivity to language and the careful choice of words that once defined good reporting.
It is now common to come across expressions such as “state of the art”, “prestigious”, “massive”, or “world-class” thrown carelessly into stories — with little to no justification or understanding of what these terms truly mean.
Words that once carried weight and demanded accuracy have become fillers to decorate otherwise ordinary reports.
This lazy and unthinking approach to language erodes not only the credibility of the story, but also the very integrity of journalism.
I was reminded of my days as a journalism student in the 1990s.
One of our courses was English for Journalism, taught by the then renowned journalist, Alson Mufiri.
From him, I learned one of the most important lessons of my career — that in journalism, words are not mere ornaments; they are tools of precision.
Every word chosen must be deliberate, meaningful, and contextually sound.
We were taught to never use a word unless we were absolutely certain it was appropriate and accurate for the message we intended to convey.
Take, for instance, the popular phrase “state of the art”.
It is perhaps one of the most overused and misused expressions in Zimbabwean media today.
Recently, state media described a newly opened school in the Globe and Phoenix mining area of Kwekwe as “state of the art”.
But was it really?
The term “state of the art” refers to the most recent stage in the development of a product or facility, incorporating the latest technology, ideas, and features.
So, when a journalist uses this phrase, the report should clearly show evidence of such advancement.
What exactly about that school reflected the newest educational technology or architectural innovation?
Were there smart classrooms, advanced digital systems, or energy-efficient designs?
Or was it simply a newly painted building with modern desks?
A responsible journalist would have qualified their statement by providing examples — details that justify the use of such a powerful descriptor.
Without that, the phrase becomes empty, misleading, and even deceptive.
Words like “state of the art” should never be used to romanticize mediocrity or advance propaganda.
The same problem extends to other common terms in the media.
Words such as “most”, “many”, or “majority” inherently carry a quantitative meaning.
Therefore, any journalist who uses them must back them up with verifiable data.
For example, saying “most people welcomed the government’s rehabilitation of the new road” is meaningless without statistics to prove it.
How many people were consulted?
What proportion expressed approval?
A credible journalist would write something like, “of the 11 residents this news crew spoke to, seven expressed satisfaction with the road rehabilitation”.
Or, if backed by survey data, “2,545 out of 3,246 residents said they were happy with the road rehabilitation project”.
Accuracy is not just about facts and figures — it is also about the discipline of language.
Words have power.
They shape perceptions, influence opinions, and determine how the public interprets events.
When journalists use imprecise or exaggerated language, they cross the fine line between reporting and manipulation.
This is why, in my own writing, I never simply claim that “the majority of Zimbabweans are living in poverty”.
That would be careless.
Instead, I cite reliable statistics — such as the World Bank’s finding that over 80 percent of Zimbabweans live below the poverty datum line.
That is responsible journalism.
Sadly, the decline in linguistic discipline among journalists today reflects a broader erosion of professional standards.
The disappearance of courses like English for Journalism from training curricula has not helped.
Journalists are increasingly being churned out with technical skills in broadcasting or social media, but without the solid linguistic foundation that ensures accuracy, balance, and credibility.
Good journalism is built on precision.
It demands that words be chosen carefully, facts verified rigorously, and statements supported with evidence.
When journalists throw around grand-sounding phrases without thought, they do not merely weaken their stories — they undermine public trust in the media.
Language is the backbone of journalism.
It defines how truth is told, how power is questioned, and how citizens are informed.
Once journalists lose control over their words, they lose control over their message.
And when that happens, journalism itself becomes just another form of propaganda.
- Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +26715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/