Africa-Press – Angola. When economist and journalist Carlos Rosado de Carvalho dismisses his responsibility for impartiality on the program “Economia 100 Makas,” claiming it is an “author’s program,” he attempts to evade the basic duty of the profession: to guarantee the adversarial system and preserve the public interest.
His recent performance in an interview with UNITA president Adalberto Costa Júnior was anything but journalism. The interview turned into a thinly disguised propaganda operation. The interviewee was even challenged to back up accusations and promises—and to this day, he hasn’t presented any evidence for what he claimed. And the journalist… remained silent. He didn’t question. He didn’t balance the issue. He simply validated. It was a disservice to the public.
The argument that only the TPA should be impartial and unbiased misleads the public. And it cannot go unnoticed. I also speak here, with legitimacy, as a former Advisor to the Angolan Media Regulatory Authority (ERCA).
The idea that opinion programs on private media outlets are exempt from public scrutiny or the legal and ethical obligations of journalism is completely false — and undermines the integrity of the profession.
In Angola, all media professionals, whether working for public or private bodies, are subject to the same legal standards and ethical principles. The Press Law (Law No. 1/17 of January 23) — as updated by Law No. 17/22 of July 6 — the Broadcasting Law (Law No. 2/17), the Television Law (Law No. 3/17), and the Journalist Statute (Law No. 5/17) are clear in this regard. The legislation does not distinguish between public and private media outlets: all media outlets are subject to the same duties and obligations.
Article 3 of the Press Law establishes that “freedom of the press includes the right to inform, to be informed, and to be informed accurately, impartially, and timely.” Article 18 of the Journalist’s Statute defines essential duties as objectivity, social responsibility, and respect for the fundamental rights of citizens.
It’s true that public agencies, because they are funded by taxpayers, are naturally more exposed to public scrutiny. But this doesn’t mean private agencies are exempt. The duty of impartiality, rigor, and accountability is universal. To argue otherwise distorts the debate and devalues journalism as a pillar of democracy.
Apart from this gaffe by Carlos Rosado de Carvalho, what happened yesterday at MFM was even more serious.
THE ROLE OF THE MODERATOR
Reference authors describe the moderator as an impartial facilitator whose main function is to ensure the balanced and coherent flow of the debate:
Kristin Arnold (Powerful Panels, 2013) defines the moderator as someone who “adjusts each participant’s time, keeps the discussion informative, and ensures the audience leaves with a clear and organized experience.”
The Moderator’s Handbook (2011) highlights that the moderator is responsible for “preparing the debate, introducing participants in a balanced way, selecting relevant questions and managing eventualities without overriding the discussion”.
Journalist Doyle McManus states that the moderator “must keep everyone within the allotted time, ensure the opportunity for debate and prevent the debate from turning into a monologue.”
Portuguese researcher Anabela Gradim, in the Journalism Manual (2000), recalls that, in a world saturated with information, “journalists — and, by extension, moderators — become even more necessary as credible mediators”.
In his book Framing: The Framing of News (2016), Gradim adds that the frames created by the moderator directly influence how the public interprets the debate. Hence the seriousness of interference or manipulation.
THE MFM CASE
In the specific case of MFM, yesterday, Saturday the 2nd, it became clear that the moderator failed in all fundamental principles. Instead of allowing Carlos Rosado de Carvalho to complete his argument, he interrupted him in a hostile manner and threatened to expel him live—an act of authoritarianism that violates the essence of journalism and debate in a media outlet.
Journalist José Neto Alves Fernandes, who had previously been involved in a similar incident with Carlos Rosado and had subsequently issued a public apology, relapsed. He once again acted impulsively, confusing moderation with protagonism, interrupting, threatening, and attempting to silence—as if disagreement were an offense and contradiction an affront.
But radio isn’t the property of an ego. Even though it’s private, it’s a public service space. And the microphone isn’t a weapon against opinion—it’s an instrument to make it heard.
Carlos Rosado can be controversial, incisive, and uncomfortable for those who prefer a lukewarm debate, with bows and bows. But it’s this discomfort that’s missing in a country where a single-minded approach still reigns supreme.
It’s important to clarify that the fact that Joaquim Jaime is also an analyst on the program “O Estado da Nação” (State of the Nation) doesn’t exempt him from criticism, should anyone consider him to be impolite in any given news outlet. Being politely criticized is part of democracy. And, as far as the widely circulated videos show, Carlos Rosado never mistreated his colleague. He didn’t even manage to finish his argument.
When a moderator threatens a commenter with expulsion live—and the whole thing was recorded on video and widely shared—it’s no longer a personal mistake. It’s an institutional problem. Because the moderator is the one who should maintain the level playing field, ensure balance, and protect the space for freedom. The moderator can’t be an improvised censor.
What we heard yesterday wasn’t a debate. It was an attempt to domesticate critical thinking.
And even more serious than that has been the complicit silence of ERCA and CCE, entities that have a duty to intervene. Won’t they speak out, once again? Where is the institutional scrutiny? Where is the defense of the ethics they swear to protect? Are these institutions for show?
It’s not enough to show up when newspapers are bothering the political establishment. It’s also necessary to show up when freedom of expression is being crushed within the media itself.
Anyone who is bothered by free thought should change their role—or learn to moderate themselves.
The public is grateful.
And regulatory bodies must speak out.
Their silence is also an act of censorship — and complicity.
Carlos Alberto
Journalist and Director of the Portal “A DENÚNCIA”
Former ERCA Advisor
+244 936 059 314 (WhatsApp)
ANGOLA24
For More News And Analysis About Angola Follow Africa-Press
