The authorities in Mali have suspended for three months TV5 Monde, accusing the French channel of lack of “balance” in covering a recent deadly drone strike.
The High Authority for Communication (HAC) on September 11, 2024, announced the suspension, the second such measure against a French channel in just a little over a month.
During its Africa programme aired on August 25, TV5 Monde had reported on a drone attack in the town of Tinzaouatene, which resulted in at least 15 civilian deaths.
The HAC condemned the channel for its coverage of a drone strike, accusing it of failing to take into account the Malian army’s version of the event.
In response to the suspension, TV5 Monde in a statement, expressed regret at the HAC’s decision, adding that it did not get a hearing with the High Authority for Communication for its version of what it had been accused of. The channel stated that it directly contacted the Malian army to provide their version of the incident before broadcasting, to which they did not respond. The management of TV5 Monde explained that, when the military put out its version, their channel reported it.
Mali has been ruled by military leaders since back-to-back coups in 2020 and 2021. The junta, breaking away from its former colonial ruler, France, has been cozying up to Russia. Since taking power, the junta has suspended a number of French media outlets in the country, including France 24 and Radio France Internationale (RFI). France 2 was later suspended in early 2024.
Journalists and the media in Mali have been under intense pressure to conform to the one-track thinking imposed by the military leaders. Several of them, especially those working with foreign media, have self-censored or left the country.
The Media Foundation for West Africa (MFWA) is deeply concerned about this umpteenth suspension of international channels in Mali, and urges the Malian government to reconsider its suspension of TV5 Monde. The channel’s unanswered call to the military authorities for their reaction to the Tinzaouatene drone attack, and its later publication of the army’s version, when it became available, is enough evidence that the media outlet acted in good faith. The sanction is, therefore, unjustified and unfair.
