MEDIA, CLEAR INFORMATION AND VAGUE HEADLINES

Information channelled through the media needs to be unambiguous, if it's to be useful to the audience. The challenge though, can come by way of using a not so straight-forward language like English. And the press in Kenya appears to be prone to linguistic shortcomings, which at times result in vague headlines or even doubtful information.

The heading of the above editorial can leave the reader a bit confused because though it may not be apparent, the chosen words make it open to two interpretations.

Crafting headlines is an endeavour that seeks to maximise the impact of chosen words, sometimes against minimal use of available space.

It thus becomes very necessary to leave out 'empty' words like determiners or definite and indefinite articles such as 'the', 'a', 'that', 'an', etc.

Instead, emphasis is put on keywords that are l'oaded' with 'meaning' and words that convey a powerful sense of 'action'.

After all, news revolves around something happening, and reporting this involves use of words that capture the action well.

Going back to the article above, the chosen action word is 'clear' meaning 'remove', 'act' or do something about changing a situation.

Well, the same word also conveys the sense of something being evidently easy to perceive, and hardly possibly to disprove.

So, is the newspaper calling for the 'clearing' of any doubts around a new polio vaccine?

Or are readers being told there are 'clear' doubts about this vaccine?

I need to 'clear' my mind, (you probably should do the same).

OF AMBIGUITY AND HEADLESS HEADLINES

Is ambiguity the new method being employed by Kenyan newspapers to show they are non-partisan? It's either that by a very long shot, or some writers of headlines for local papers have not been doing a good job. 

Going by the recent trend, the challenges of English grammar are proving to be more than a handful for editors, who normally have a mouthful of expletives for reporters with wanting language skills.

In the front page above, two scenarios are possible. One alludes to an answer from Raila, Kenya's Prime minister, to Mudavadi, Kenya's Deputy Prime minister, as a reaction to Mudavadis' exit, (from ODM: the political party)

It is similarly possible and correct to infer that the headline talks of Raila's answer to Mudavadi, as a reaction of Raila's exit, (from God knows what!)

So which scenario did the headline writer intend the reader to use in making sense of the paper's splash? Going by an understanding of local politics, the answer is obviously the former.

In this front page, the emphasis appears to have been placed on making sure the words chosen for the headline fit within the allocated two decks, as opposed to them making grammatical sense, which is a pity for a leading daily.

'To Defend,' simply hints at somebody doing an action. So the doer of the action here is Raila, I suppose. And the headline should thus have read, 'Raila plans to defend ODM's Western turf.'

Or going by the pattern of being ambiguous, it would also have been correct if the sentence was changed to, 'Raila's plan to defend ODM's Western turf.'

And a wild interpretation would be, the paper was 'urging' Raila to plan to defend ODM's Western turf.

And this last example is just a plain massacre of the English language, and a shameful violation of the noble role of any credible mass media outlet: to communicate clearly!

Where did the Ministers sends (sic) the NHIF chairman?