ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the digital surveillance and harassment experiences faced by female journalists in Zimbabwe in the 2023 pre-election period covering the year 2022 up to August 2023. The examination is based on interviews conducted with seven purposefully selected female reporters and editors in Zimbabwe. It suggests that within our information-driven society, both personal data and physical bodies are subject to surveillance; for female journalists in particular, this surveillance materialises as instances of harassment occurring both online and offline, including within newsroom settings. Evidence shows that there is both the physical and psychological intimidation of female journalists and periods of political unrests are particularly unsettling. Female journalists are subject to unique forms of hostility absent in their male counterparts’ experiences. To cope the journalists, adopt various survival strategies, from cyber defence techniques and keeping a low online profile to outright evasion or extreme cases of leaving the country. The female journalists advocate for thorough protection measures, including legal reforms, strict penalties, and holding online platforms accountable. They emphasise the importance of mental health support, training, and guidance from media organizations, in addition to institutional and legislative action. The chapter employs a feminist perspective to highlight the importance of power dynamics in surveillance. Feminist politics within media call for women not only to be visible but also heard, which can only occur if they have representation in decision-making processes that shape news coverage and can write stories without fearing harassment. Drawing inspiration from the Panopticon theory of surveillance, this chapter explores the idea that individuals may be monitored without their awareness. With this framework in mind, three key questions are addressed: Did journalists experience any form of digital or physical surveillance? Were they subjected to any type of harassment stemming from such monitoring? And did they receive support from media organizations during these incidents?
