Kenya's mainstream newspapers are known to strive to differentiate their content, in a bid to retain their respective audiences. However, even publishers know that in the news business, there's little that can be done to render facts in one story differently. It's therefore quite odd to see the same information take different forms. The angles can differ but not the truth.
In the coverage of the story above, it appears like either one paper did not have it's facts right, or the other was being economical with the truth.
What is the title of the main subject in the story?
Paper 1 alludes to the fact that the Nairobi County Assembly Majority Leader is embattled but still in office.
Paper 2 though, refers to the same majority leader as having been ousted.
If one has not been following the going ons at the Nairobi County Assembly, this indeed could be quite confusing, and frustrating.
But for one who's familiar with recent developments of the same assembly, it would be very apparent that the main subject of this story is no longer holding his previous position.
And that then raises the question of why one simple fact can yield two interpretations.
Or, is this a credible editorial omission, or a commission of a discreditable edit?