If you feel a news story does not measure up to expected journalistic standards, bring it to the Journalism Dry Cleaner. Through our collective wisdom, we will strip it of all offensive dirt.




Thursday, 30 October 2014


It is expected that public interest should be the top most priority in Kenyan news organisations. But if there is a slight hint that other interests are being projected, be they commercial or personal, then the value of a media outlet diminishes in the eyes of the public. A News presenter hawking products amounts to conflict of interest, by promoting self-interests and abusing newsroom privileges.  

It's mildly tolerable to see a thinly veiled product endorsement during the delivery of TV news. But to covertly make a sales pitch, by channelling the attention of viewers to what a news presenter is wearing, and later using social media, to indicate where such an attire can be purchased, is broadcasting narrow interests.

Are we saying the news presenter should also be looked at the same way one checks out a mannequin, while shopping for clothes?

To be honest, I would personally have no problem if the news presenter showcases outfits by underprivileged people in society, for example, struggling hard to eke an honest living, because the provided visibility will go a long way in uplifting lives.

Granted, using your access to newsroom cameras, to advertise products from a company you have vast if not controlling interests in, is deviously ingenious.

But the devil in the finer details of what a news presenter is wearing, should not be the primed focus of the prime time viewer.

Wednesday, 22 October 2014


It's amazing how many Kenyan media outlets just never seem to permanently want to deal with quality issues. Revise editors, sub-editors, news editors and any other similarly titled newsroom 'officers' tasked with cleaning up print or broadcast stories, need to 'grammar up' their gate keeping. Failure to do so amounts to scoring editorial own goals against their media teamwork.

So, if the publisher of the above 'starring paper' is to be believed, when Southampton scored eight goals against Sunderland in the English Premier League, one of the goals was called 'Wanyama.'

In other words, the captain of the Kenyan football team was not among the goalscorers of Southampton, because in the land of the semantically challenged, he was instead one of the eight goals.

Such carelessness raises credibility doubts because, if a newspaper or TV station mistreats the manner of transmitting or displaying information to the audience, then who knows if factual elements are also ill-treated?

Take for example, this 'gallant' attempt by a Kenyan TV station, to give rare prominence to news events happening elsewhere in Africa. Apart from the Nairobi studio analysis, there was also a live signal from Pretoria.

However, there was one glaring eye-sore of a mistake, during this particular duration of the live coverage. The name of the main subject in the story was spelt wrongly.

This court case had been attracting copious global media attention and yet a respectable local media house has the guts to get the spelling of 'Pistorius' wrong on air for so long!

But such shortcomings have become a frequent sighting in the local press. And, as captured by my colleague, some errors are too comical to be considered tragic.

But whether it was a slip or the editor was asleep, it remains awfully sloppy

Tuesday, 14 October 2014


To be in the glare of studio lighting, eyes on the prompter, ears bombarded with instructions and being able to flash smiles promptly, while always thinking on your feet, is no mean feat. The emotions of a TV presenter, however, have to be on a short leash, lest tears lead to ruined makeup.

For the longest of time, I've been hearing the fear of ladies ruining their makeup from crying, only being verbalised. Then comes this night, when a TV presenter actually sheds tears, while interviewing her guests.

It's true. Teardrops can cut through makeup from the foundation to the top layer.

So, what is a presenter supposed to do, when being human, combined with being passionate about one's job, yields tears in a live TV setting?

I will not even pretend I have an answer for that.

The presenter here, said she 'cries' when she laughs a lot. To be fair, she looked amused, although I didn't sense any particularly hilarious comment from her guests, which could have triggered her 'weeping' in studio.

Thankfully, the guest for the subsequent week's interview was an actual comedian. My anticipation was that after a few killer jokes from the funny-man, a stream of tears would gush from the TV presenter. I was monitoring the makeup.

Alas! Despite the comedian's best efforts, the tears were a no show in this show.

The closest it came to the tear zone was a cheeky reminder to self by the TV presenter, to keep her cool, now more aware of the need to keep the makeup on her cheeks region unscathed, by any outpouring of emotions of the laughing-crying type.

And so the mystery remains: crocodile tears aside, were the tears tearing through the TV presenter's makeup, tears of joy or tears of coy?

Feel free to tear me apart.

Tuesday, 7 October 2014


The Kenyan Constitution is widely and readily available. Yet, despite all manner of legal experts interviewed in the local press and frequently brought into TV news studios, no journalist or media house in the country, could make a wild guess as to what Uhuru Kenyatta's final move would be, ahead of his ICC summons. That is the bane of a backward looking, clueless Kenyan media.

The press, in this part of the world, chooses to be 'shocked' alongside the consumers of the information it distributes.

The media specialization it seems, is in churning out hordes of stories and endless analysis, exploring every available new angle, but only after a story has 'broken' then literally bombarding the audience with excessive information.

It might be a long shot, but I strongly believe that a closer look at the country's Constitution, 'ably' aided by the input of legal minds and 'all-knowing' analysts, should have made one gem of a journalist out there, consider the possibility of Kenyatta invoking Article 147 of the Constitution.

Yes. Thank you for the reminder. I'm part of this massive failure.

It's no wonder that national Agenda Setting is a very minor role of the local media, which lives and thrives on purveying the interests of political or commercial forces, camouflaged as public interest.

There's simply no capacity being invested in, to strategically empower the media to be able to see what's coming, ahead of the rest of the country.

At least it should be 'comforting' to know that if calamity strikes, the local media and its audiences will all be terribly caught unprepared.

Thursday, 2 October 2014


Coverage of children in the media warrants utmost of sensitivity. Their vulnerabilities should not be amplified, while seeking to highlight their plight. That's why it was almost absurd for a Kenyan broadcast station, to deem it fit to have a news item of children demonstrating against a 'rape' case. It's a case of the media righting wrongs against child rights the wrong way.

It's first of all an indictment of a society that cannot protect its own children, leaving the little helpless ones at the mercy of beastly miscreants, who rob them of their innocence, in the vilest of conceivable ill-manner.

The intention of the media may be noble, in covering such debased behaviour by adults, preying on defenceless tots. But even so, care must be taken not to worsen a bad situation.

Aside from the need to get (written) consent from parents or legal guardians, before filming and broadcasting the protest, it's highly likely the children were prompted by adults to participate in a public demonstration.

And the fact that they were demonstrating against sexual assault, means there is a chance this sensitive matter was discussed either amongst the children or with grown-ups.

Such a negative context is surely not the way to impart sexual education to post-toddlers and pre-teens, via the media.

The TV station erred in opting to broadcast the story, without even a care about concealing the identities of the demonstrating children.

Ethics should always apply in coverage of children in the press, especially because their right to privacy is absolute.

Abso-godam-lutely! (sorry).