PROMINENCE, DIVISIVE POLITICS AND A DIVIDED PRESS

Divisive politics is generally frowned upon by the Kenyan media. It does,  however, appear like the press has divided political loyalty. And if one cuts through the pretentious projection of editorial neutrality, a disturbing underlying political bias is likely to be encountered. That's how angling of a story and apportioning of prominence can be so divisive.

One paper decides to scream out an admonishment by the government directed at the opposition, in the context of a 'snubbed' invitation to a national day celebration.

Granted, an invitation to the ceremony was not honoured.

And probably, some people can impute this to be disrespectful to the Head of State.

Another paper though, provides a different perspective, that prominently explains the absence of the opposition, in the national day event.

It's as if Paper 2 is deliberately trying to undo any potential political damage emanating from what Paper 1 has published.

Or Paper 1 is deliberately trying to downplay the point being amplified by Paper 2.

Yet somehow, readers are supposed to rise above divisive politics, because a divided press says so!

SENSELESS NEWS NONSENSE: WHEN EDITORIAL AND PRODUCTION FALL APART

What makes sense to the media can be nonsense to the audience. And what amounts to nonsense in newsrooms can actually make a lot of sense to readers. But in a moment of extreme idiocy, that which is senseless, oozes lots of nonsense, for both the media outlet and its audience. It can happen, when a newspaper's editorial and production departments fall apart.

Indeed, there comes a time when minimum editorial judgement and maximum production senselessness are perfectly aligned, to publish, well...NONSENSE!

Grabbed from the flagship news product of the largest, (and 'misleading') media house in the region, the picture above, and its horrifying caption, astounded many a Kenyan reader.

It is not right on many wrong levels, rendered (using a presumably dead Latin language) in unintelligible morphemes like: "Quod mo intro utum at, egertum..." etcetera ad nauseam.

The central figure in the chaotic presidential campaign launch, is given the name of a vocal agitator of the rights of teachers, in a union with a prolific affinity to national strikes.

Here, at least the newspaper can be sued for wrongful representation of a highly recognisable political figure.

The custodian of teachers' welfare can likewise claim damages for being dragged into the murky world of politics.

Possible compensation models for aggrieved readers

Of greater concern to me is how the readers, (especially those who have invested their money in a news product, expecting to be better off, after consuming its content), should be compensated.

- Should they be allowed to return the 'faulty' newspaper to the news-stand, and ask for a refund?

- Should the paper's proprietors be compelled to provide a subsequent product for free, just like they do to advertisers, whose paid for commercial do not go out as scheduled?

- Should offended readers sue the paper for professional negligence, causing mental anguish and intellectual distress to law abiding citizens?

- Should the newspaper's publishers be penalised for violating their contractual obligation to take every care not to put out an erroneous product in the market, so as to uphold the sanctity of the buyer-seller covenant?

Too many unanswered questions...hopefully making sense.

Somebody ought to take responsibility for publishing the senseless news nonsense.

FROM SOCIAL MEDIA SPLOSH TO MAINSTREAM MEDIA SPLASH

There are days in the newsroom, when a scarcity of stories begets strange editorial decisions. Newspapers after all, still have to be produced daily, and the costs of production recouped, preferably at a profit. But the number of views of a video clip in social media, hardly constitute a front page story in mainstream media. A social media buzz does not automatically set mainstream media abuzz.

Okay. If we are talking about a billion views, a la Gangnam Style, it's justifiable to have such a story dominate the entertainment sections of any paper, globally.

Several million views? Perhaps still worth some prominent coverage locally, (inside pages of the entertainment section, don't you think?).

But a mere 200,000 views?

And we have a front page teaser, followed by a more substantial article that significantly amplifies the irrelevancies.

How can such a low number of views in social media be the news peg, in mainstream media?

If a prominent Kenyan politician takes a tumble, while addressing a public gathering, that agreeably, is newsworthy.

Very disagreeable, in my opinion, is to purport it's in the public's interest to know that:

"The incident elicited comments, with more than 50 likes and only 4  dislikes..."

Somebody enlighten me... we care about that because?

What's buzzing in social media circles, can be fuzzy in the mainstream media.

FROM JET SETTING TO AGENDA SETTING: HOW TO NEUTER KENYAN MEDIA

Agenda setting is an often forgotten role of the media in Kenya. The bigger emphasis is mostly on entertaining news, at times cleverly disguised as being educative or informative. The watchdog role shines through once in a while, but has not been proved to be immune from external or even internal interference. Local journalist thus delight in having a news agenda pre-set for them.

This probably explains the spectacle that was witnessed, during the coverage of the return of Kenya's former Prime minister, after his sojourn in America.

The local press was awash with details of the 'highly anticipated' return, prior to and after the event.

And right on cue, what the former premier spoke about has continued to dominate the local news agenda, days later.

Is there not the slightest of chance that the local media, in it's seldomly donned agenda setting garb, could have picked up on the need for national dialogue, or must this only have originated from the political sphere?

If indeed there is need for such dialogue across the political divide, it's Kenyans who will continue to suffer from the political posturing that has since ensued, which represents another missed opportunity for the press to drive the national agenda.

But the real tragedy for local journalists, is being caught up in the whole hero-worshipping of politicians malaise.

The first paragraph in the article above states that:

"...a group of journalists also eagerly awaited Kenya's leader of official Opposition to say a few wise words."

Eagerly...Wise words! Has there been an empirical study that solidly established that this politician always speaks wise words, before a newspaper editor hazards such a 'highly educated' guess?

Wisen up scribes. Don't ascribe what's not. Just describe what is.

OF PEACEFUL POLLS, ELECTORAL INJUSTICE & THE KENYAN MEDIA

In the just concluded General Election, should the Kenyan media have put more emphasis on a peaceful process or a just one? Ideally, both would have been equally desirable. But, it appears, peace got more media attention. Tough luck for those citing injustices in the electoral process.

But injustices, thankfully, can now be pursued in the corridors of justice. But as for peace, there's no telling what could happen if that is no longer obtainable. With hindsight, though, Kenyans have a pretty ugly idea of what that could entail.

So, should the local press be demonised for putting a higher premium on peace campaigns and deliberately shielding their audience from potentially destabilising statements from politicians?

Isn't it so much better that even after the announcement of the election results, those aggrieved have an opportunity to seek credible legal redress, as opposed to their supporters pouring out in the streets and causing mayhem?

It is easy, especially for those, who never experienced first-hand, the effects of the flawed 2007 presidential election in Kenya, to castigate the local media's collective decision to trod on the safe path of 'patriotic journalism.'

Granted, it might be true, as argued by Michela Wrong that:

The Kenyan media's self-restraint reveals a society terrified by its own capacity of violence

But I applaud this decision because even in the face of disagreements about the poll results, the country is holding together. Kenyans are taking this electoral dispute in their stride, the polarising public discourse notwithstanding.

Moreover, it's hard to believe that Wrong missed the irony of the CORD team claiming it was being denied media coverage. She laments that:

Television broadcasts of Odinga's announcement that he would challenge the outcome of the election before the Supreme Court switched to Uhuru's acceptance speech before the Q. and A. with Odinga had even begun.

But none other than the owner of Kenya's most popular media outlet, sits in the coalition's top political organ and was present at this very same media briefing.

Is the so defined preoccupation with peace an illusion? Nicholas Benequista postulates that:

Kenyan media cannot forever remain a polite space where differences are swept under the rug to be replaced by a consensually agreed (rather than imposed) agenda of nationalistic propaganda.

This, in my opinion, is debatable. I would rather the media elects to have divisive or inciting elements kept away from public domain, than e.g., 'irresponsibly' broadcast people being attacked after being pulled out of a public transport vehicle, like it happened during the 2007/2008 post election violence.

The Kenyan media should not be unduly faulted for proactively seeking to foster peace, because being reactionary and desperately calling for peace, when the country is already burning, is no longer tenable.

On this account, the local media's self-censorship, can be directly linked to the country's self-preservation.

TV INTERVIEW CUM CROSS-EXAMINATION CUM POLICE INTERROGATION

It's all well for a media house to bask in the glory of an exclusive story. And my, one Kenyan news channel has just 'achieved' this fleeting 'high' of journalism. But, given the sensitivity of the subject matter, the exclusive interview could easily pass for a media inquest cross-examination, or even a police interrogation.

The questions were in rapid-fire mode. And the short responses only served to hasten the pace of the interview, because the reporter was gallantly unrelenting.

Inevitably perhaps, the line of questioning started approaching the legally unsafe waters. Unsafe, in my not so legal mind, because the interviewee has pending court cases, and an official inquiry, whose main substance is what the reporter was prodding him to state his position on.

With due consideration of the role of the media in seeking to unearth the truth, its fidelity to public interest, and that the reporter did intimate that what went on air is what was legally safe, I still feel this interview prejudiced efforts to unravel the mystery behind this alleged police impersonator.

One can also argue that this particular case was now being politicised, especially given that the interviewee told a national television audience that he was willing to make damning revelations.

This, before making known his desire to only pass the information to high-ranking government officials, like Kenya's Prime minister. And, there's no prize for guessing how this story developed, less that 24 hours later.

The 'fake' cop's request was one of the talking points of the Prime minister's address, at a political rally. One can even argue that it has now become an election campaign issue, going by the way the Prime minister used it as an entry point, for his pledge to bring changes to the 'tainted' police force.

Obviously, my observations come with no guaranteed veracity.

But suffice it to say that two people are now very happy. The alleged police imposter, because his plea has been heard by the Prime minister. Whether he gets to have his wish fulfilled as promised, is besides the point, because his point has been made.

And yes. The reporter will be pleased with himself, for setting the agenda for none-other than the country's Prime minister, now confirmed as one of the presidential candidates, in Kenya's approaching General Election.

Or could we remotely contemplate, albeit wildly, the possibility of this entire turn of events, having been orchestrated? Only if it's a movie script!!!