This study investigates the complex role editorials – a newspaper's institutional voice – play in highly-polarised political contexts. Employing Van Dijk's insight that editorials "are usually not only, and even not primarily, directed at the common reader: rather they tend to directly or indirectly address influential news actors" (1992: 244), the study focuses on how the editorials of two Zimbabwean daily newspapers – The Herald, a perceived pro-government newspaper, and NewsDay, a perceived pro-opposition newspaper – speak to those in power. The study looks at these two newspapers' editorials from 1 June to 31 December 2013, which covers the period prior to, during and after the 2013 national elections. The 31 July, 2013 elections took place after four years of an uneasy government of national unity (GNU), which comprised ZANU-PF and the two MDC formations (Raftopoulos, 2013:978). Given the polarisation that is pervasive in the Zimbabwean politics and media, the study draws on Hallin and Mancini (2004)'s "Polarised Pluralist Model". In this model the media are used as instruments of struggle in conflicts, sometimes by dictatorships and by movements struggling against them, but also by contending parties in periods of democratic politics (Hallin and Mancini, 2004:61). Further, the methodological approach that informs this study is primarily qualitative. A qualitative content analysis of 30 editorials seeks to identify themes covered in the editorials. The study also employs a rhetorical analysis of 12 editorials and in-depth interviews and these form the adopted three-stage research design. The findings of this research somewhat contradict the common view in Zimbabwe that the privately-owned media blindly support the opposition while the stateowned media do the same to ZANU-PF (Chari, 2009:10; Mabweazara, 2011:110). Although The Herald openly supported ZANU-PF prior to the election, it shifted after the election as it pushed the ruling party to fulfill pledges made on the campaign trail. Some ZANU-PF officials were also censured by The Herald, although this selective criticism can be linked to factionalism in the party. NewsDay editorials reminded the newly formed government to mend the economy and provide basic services. While, the daily constantly censured Mugabe and ZANU-PF prior to the election, it also occasionally berated the MDC, which can be attributed to its participation in the GNU as that took away the privilege it previously had of not being hold accountable by the press.

This research is premised on the understanding that media texts are discourses and that all discourses are functional, that is, they refer to things, issues and events, in meaningful and goal oriented ways. Nine articles are analysed to explicate the sorts of discourses that were promoted by The Chronicle during the Gukurahundi conflict in Zimbabwe between 1982 and 1986. It is argued that discourses in the news media are shaped by the role(s), the type(s) of journalism assumed by such media, and by the political environment in which the news media operate. The interplay between the roles, types of journalism practised, and the effect the political environment has on news discourses is assessed within the context of conflictual situations. This is done using insights from the theoretical position of peace journalism and its critique of professional or mainstream journalism as promoting war/violence journalism. Using the case of The Chronicle's reportage of the Gukurahundi conflict in Zimbabwe, it is concluded that, in performing the collaborative role, state owned/controlled media assume characteristics of war/violence journalism. On the other hand, it is concluded that The Chronicle developed practices consistent with peace journalism when it both espoused the facilitative role and journalistic objectivity. These findings undermine the conventional view among proponents of peace journalism that in times of conflict, the news media should be interventionist in favour of peace and that they should abandon the journalistic norm of objectivity which they argue, promotes war/violence journalism.