China has invested heavily in Zambian media. But the deals are often opaque, making it hard to evaluate the costs and benefits, writes Gregory Gondwe.
China’s media footprint in Africa is a narrative interwoven with threads of influence, secrecy, and shifting narratives. What began as a promising chapter of cooperation has transformed into a tale marked by expanding influence, overt propaganda, and a more recent, curious silence. In Zambia, China once played a prominent role in nearly all news coverage, but its presence has now almost completely vanished. Today, there is little to no information available about China’s activities or the status of the partnerships it forged just a few years ago. This change opens a window onto a broader geopolitical strategy that raises fundamental questions about sovereignty, transparency, and the real impact of foreign partnerships on local realities.
In 2012, China’s strategic media expansion gained momentum under President Hu Jintao’s ‘going out’ policy. The idea was to reshape global information flows, improve China’s international image, and enhance its economic reach. Chinese media outlets began establishing themselves across Africa, with state-of-the-art newsrooms and a clear agenda. A key moment in Zambia came in 2017, when the national broadcaster, ZNBC, entered a partnership with TopStar, a Chinese digital television provider and subsidiary of StarTimes. This agreement handed over 60 per cent of ZNBC’s operations to TopStar, in return for a substantial digital upgrade financed by a £212 million loan from the Export-Import Bank of China.
This deal was shrouded in secrecy and raised eyebrows about transparency and potential undue influence. Zambian government spokesperson Amos Chanda justified the lack of documentation and announcement of the loans as a “matter of national security.” Then-President Edgar Lungu argued that publicising the Chinese loan would be unprofessional and cautioned that the government would “think twice” before enacting the Freedom of Information Bill, which aims to provide journalists with greater access to information. The threat is that the government will make life harder for journalists if they write about something it doesn’t want covered.
Initially, the partnership seemed a win-win. ZNBC received a much-needed boost in digital infrastructure, while China gained a powerful foothold in Zambian media. On the surface, this partnership seemed to reflect a shift toward higher-quality journalism to meet contemporary standards. However, beneath this facade lay troubling questions about transparency and control. Essentially, the true ownership of Zambia’s national broadcasting services (ZNBC) and government media, as well as the implications of Chinese control over advertising revenue, remain shrouded in mystery. There are concerns about potential media manipulation, with some fearing that China may act as a gatekeeper for Zambian media content. Unfortunately, those who have sought to investigate these issues further have faced severe consequences, including detention and direct threats to their lives.
By 2017, the coverage of Chinese activities in Zambian media had peaked, with overwhelmingly positive portrayals, especially in government and private media. However, this narrative shifted dramatically in subsequent years. Despite a wealth of China-related news shared on social media platforms, the mainstream media in Zambia has significantly reduced its coverage of China.
Taking it online
Today the media environment has changed, with only sporadic mentions of meetings between Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema and Chinese President Xi Jinping. This shift suggests a more contentious relationship between the two nations, especially given that Hichilema’s administration, which came to power in 2021, is perceived to be aligned more closely with Western interests. This political shift may partly explain the reduced prominence of China in Zambian news, yet the legacy of past agreements, like the ZNBC-TopStar partnership, remains significant.
Nonetheless, citizen journalists and social media platforms have become critical spaces for dissenting voices of their local communities. Essentially, individuals have continued to document the Zambia-China relationship, often reporting on Chinese business practices and alleged human rights abuses. The Facebook account Zambia Today recently exposed a case where a Chinese national allegedly attempted to bribe a Muvi TV crew with K25,000 to suppress a story about a public road being converted into a private plot.
And this is far from the only example. Munyaule Zambia, a Facebook page, claimed local politicians were involved in corrupt deals with Chinese entities to construct infrastructure. Veteran journalist Edem K. Djokotoe revealed serious concerns on Facebook about Chinese doctors practising in Zambia after obtaining their licenses from the Traditional Health Practitioners of Zambia, which raised doubts about the legitimacy and regulation of Chinese professionals. Additionally, Zambian social media influencer Simon Mwelwa Lane shared a video documenting alleged human rights abuses involving Zambians working for Chinese firms, further fuelling concerns about labour practices within Chinese-operated businesses in Zambia. These and many other stories from the local communities paint a different picture from the positive narratives once prevalent in government and private mainstream media.
The critical question now is whether Zambia’s partnership with China has delivered on its promises. The initial excitement over upgraded media infrastructure and enhanced broadcasting capabilities now stands in sharp contrast to concerns about the quality of these advancements and their impact on local media integrity. As Luckson Mulumbi, Mayor of Mushindamo in North-Western Province, pointed out on Facebook, “Our discussions about China are not about being anti-Chinese. We simply want the best deal for Zambia. Currently, China is connecting 10,000 African villages to satellite TV. #ChinaAID.”
While the promise of economic cooperation remains alluring, the reality of the deals and their terms, their impact, and transparency are increasingly questioned. Many believe that the significant decline in Chinese news coverage suggests a deliberate move to sideline controversial issues, while the shift from mainstream media to social media highlights a growing divide between official narratives and grassroots realities.
While some view China’s media investments as a form of new colonialism, others argue that it’s a misstep in an otherwise beneficial relationship. The truth likely lies somewhere in between, complicated by the opaque nature of international agreements and the often-unseen impact on local lives.
Photo credit: Author
