WHEN MEDIA PREYS ON BELIEVERS' PRAYERS

A Kenyan media house has once again captured the struggles of administering mandatory vaccinations, to people, who don't believe in modern medical practises. To some, this highlights the retrogressive nature of some religious faiths. While to others, the 'dramatic' news provided comic relief. But does this amount to the media preying on the prayers of such believers?

First of all, the fact that this Kavonokya story involves children, calls for special considerations. They after all, have a right to absolute privacy. So, was consent granted by parents or guardians of those children, before the TV news crew started rolling away?

Secondly, as argued by my friend Rukwaro, is it fair for the media to capitalize on the plight of the terrified children just to get a news story?

But thirdly, isn't it justified to let the general public know the state will enforce its immunization targets, regardless of a people's religious faith?

Or fourthly, is sensitising the public about the need to have all children vaccinated against polio, in conflict with an 'insensitive' media, trying to raise awareness about the importance of such a noble government goal?

Fifthly, there's hardly any chance of reaching a consensus on all these issues. And the sample of reactions from the social media below, reflects this state of affairs.

BE BANISHED OH IGNORANT BRAND OF JOURNALISM

Is it possible for the media to invent facts and project them as actual reality? Very much so, it seems, when it comes to the press in Kenya. It is becoming increasingly difficult for consumers of media content to separate the truth from half-truths and non-truths, partly due to the ignorance of journalists. The mix-up over the marking of the Day of the African Child, in one local daily, aptly illustrates this.

According to the writer and/or editor of the above article, the 'world marks the International Day of the African Child.'

This, on the face of it would be such a worthy cause to generate maximum awareness around. But unfortunately, the 'International Day of the African Child' simply does not exist.

June 16th was the date set aside in 1991, by the OAU/African Union, to mark the Day of the African Child, in commemoration of deadly protest by schoolchildren in Soweto, South Africa, in 1976.

It should thus not have been merged or confused with the 'International Children's Day, usually marked on June 1st in many countries, or even the 'Universal Children's Day', which falls on 20th November.

It seems like this particular paper fell into the trap of trumpeting the agenda of International Day of African Childhood, IDAY, a network of civil society organisations, riding on the 'Day of the African Child' theme, to probably boost its visibility.

Such editorial missteps greatly water down the credibility of news organisations, more so because relevant and verifiable information often reside a click or two away, in the Internet, (which unfortunately is also a great source of misinformation).

In the wake of the heinous attacks in Kenya's Lamu county, local and even the international media exhibited similar behaviour of mixing real facts with 'official facts' and 'invented facts' in their coverage of the senseless killings.

On a different scope, the noble goal of packaging news in the present tense, to suggest freshness of the information, should not lead newspaper editors into the terrain of absurdity.

So yes. To say, 'The giant male elephant named Satao has been killed', denotes this beastly act (pardon the pun), happened not so long ago. But if the information is being published on June 16th, and the next paragraph states:

'He was felled by a poacher's poisoned arrow in Tsavo East National Park on May 30'.

...then, Wayaki Way, we have a problem.

And as for the eyesore below, you are on your own.

Only you can explain this mouthful of a non-erudite headline.

And this particularly 'smart' paper appears to be on a roll, when it comes to churning out howlers.

Now this is one expensive editorial disaster!

MAN UNITED IN THE WORLD CUP AND MORE MEDIA MADNESS

The World Cup is upon us. This top global sporting spectacle has a lot of history and rivalry behind it. And the 2014 edition in Brazil will dominate newspaper pages and broadcasts across the planet. Sadly, there are already signs that the Kenyan media might lead their audience astray.

How can a script from a journalist be edited, sub-edited and revise edited, and the article published, with such errors? The fact that it's a direct quote is inconsequential (there's no 'sic' even). The embedded facts remain as repugnant to any lover of the beautiful game. The vile section above reads:

"I must watch Suarez play Rooney in the match between England and Manchester United, and Ghana verses Portugal..."

It's unbelievable how mismatched facts can be stitched together, to yield such irrelevancy.

Manchester United...featuring in the World Cup? Match between England and Manchester United?

If the local media propels ignorance about the World Cup to such dizzying heights, what terrible fate awaits the not so knowledgeable readers, blindly trusting the veracity of such a story?

And it does not end there. Broadcast coverage of the World Cup is already sinking in the sea of uninformed news.

Maybe we should blame it on the erosion of institutional memories in Kenyan media houses. The rate at which youthful personnel are being thrust into the TV limelight, definitely has its downside.

Having a few 'old' hands capable of individually recollecting significant events of the 1970s, might be a tall order. But the discerning viewer has a right to feel short-changed, if a TV presenter appears unaware of salient facts about a World Cup held in the mid-1980s.

Broadcast news production being a team effort, it means the news producer, director, editor, and the graphics guy on duty, are also clueless about when exactly Diego Maradona wowed the world, with his 'Hand of God' goal.

Imagine the agony of those who watched that memorable match in 1986, and were tuned into this particular broadcast..especially on hearing the presenter verbalise the mistake, repeatedly!

But to err is human, and the dwindling pool of perspicacious local journalist notwithstanding, we should all enjoy this massive experience that is the World Cup.

NB: The presenter in question did acknowledge his mistake at the end of the newscast, after it was pointed out by a keen viewer. (I'm not sure if it was a 'valid mistake' though!)

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.

NEWS YOU CAN USE AND A BOTTOMLESS BOTTOM LINE

The conversation continues. Conversation this...conversation that. The narrative...interviews... and more talking, is what you're likely to find in abundance in Kenyan news broadcasts. Good old news you can use is evidently preferable to a bottomless Bottom Line. And one local channel might be onto something good.

It was quite refreshing to watch a very informative segment, ensconced within an 'oddly' named newscast the other day. Either out of pure curiosity or even serious interest, many Kenyans are likely to be keen on knowing the inner working of the matatu industry.

It was thus a viewing pleasure to watch and learn so much from, 'That's what it takes' especially due to the simplicity in the delivery of key elements that drive the public transport sector.

And the producers were not done yet. What followed was another example of how news can be empowering. The story laid bare the secrets of successful farming of onions.

In these days of scarce employment opportunities, it is indeed vital to disseminate viable income-generating alternatives.

Moreover, the important role of capital or credit facilities in such ventures cannot be gainsaid. It was immensely appropriate to then have a studio discussion about interest charges in formal banking.

I again applaud this particular brand of responsive journalism.

This sharply contrasts with another channel's 'gallant' effort to have all voices heard, with regards to a perceived pressing problem.

The concept of bringing together a multiplicity of views in a TV platform, to interrogate an issue from a broad perspective, is not entirely bad. Great ideas can emerge and the engagement can yield possible solutions to problems afflicting the society.

However, I have misgivings about letting people only express themselves in front of cameras, and hoping by so doing, their problems would be magically solved.

After all the talking and the TV crew packs up, claims of healing rifts and fostering reconciliation, remain just that...CLAIMS!

OF RECYCLED STORIES AND A THREE-BENCH JUDGE

The Kenyan media never disappoints, when it comes to 'delighting' the audience. Every so often, one comes across interesting editorial creations that not only 're-invent' the English language, but also craft astonishing 'intended' meanings. Cue in the magnificent three-bench judge.

So, we are actually looking at two things here: a bench and a judge. But the sentence is alluding to three benches and a judge. Or is it a judge who sits on three benches? See what I mean? Some meanings are hard to comprehend.

But hang on. There was another story, in the same newspaper, on the same day, which used a similar expression.

It says here, 'a three-judge bench' meaning, three judges, probably sitting on a single bench. This, in both legal parlance and everyday speak, does make sense, as opposed to three benches sitting on a judge!

Story: present. Reporter/Writer: present. Editor: absent!

Once in a while, a day is slow in terms of generating news, and it can so happen there's not much of unused stories or timeless pieces. It thus become quite a challenge to fill up the pages of a newspaper.

And in the ensuing pressures, a story might even look misplaced, as per the exhibit above.

But. It shows little respect to the readers' intelligence, if a story is prominently repeated, especially, if attempts are made to pass it off as a different article, while the content loudly says otherwise.

Story: present, present. Reporter/Writer: present. Editor: absent!

Then there are language skill matters that simply annoy, and in some cases, even destroy the original meaning conveyed in an article.

Who is the 'him' implied in the paragraph below?

For those who've been following this story, it is so apparent that the subject is not the one unwittingly being indicated in that section of the story.

Story: present. Reporter/Writer: present. Editor: Absent!

In addition, it is widely speculated that numeracy skills of many journalists, are wanting at the very least and shocking at most.

In the sample above, the mix up of figures is atrocious. 320,000 shillings in four months cannot be of a lesser value than 768,000 in four years! You seriously can't prefer making 16,000 per month, to raking in 80,000 every month.

Story: present. Reporter/Writer: present. Editor: absent!

Sadly, there is not much interest in publishing apologies for grossly misleading readers, unless the potential consequences are grave.

However, mixing up the names of leaders of an esteemed country, is one editorial mistake that's likely to make a newspaper publisher consider doing the honourable thing.

MATERNAL NEWS MISMATCH ON PRIME TIME NEWS

The experience of motherhood is very special, to many women. A newly-born baby is a source of so much joy and cause for celebration. There's nothing wrong with wanting to share the good news with all and sundry. But...at the prime(st) of time...in a live news broadcast...on national TV? That's far from taking it too far. It's nearer to near-self-interest.

The questions to ask are very simple. Was it in the public's interest, to dedicate the time before the actual dissemination of the day's main news, to laboriously let Kenyans know why a certain news presenter has been missing from the airwaves?

And was it of urgent necessity to then delve into the whys and wherefores of maternal throes and thrills, or the balancing of careers and family life, for women in the media?

How justified is it, to similarly splash pictorial snippets of one's private life, in a very public sphere, while regaling the audience with very personal accounts of what motherhood means to one particular individual, who other than being a public figure by virtue of the occupation, had nothing remarkably close to constituting part of the day's news agenda?

Yes. Words cannot even adequately express the motherhood phenomenon. The fact that it's extraordinary can hardly be disputed.

But though it may be miraculous and differentially special, to every individual involved, one thing will always remain constant:

It is not, and forever will not be the first time for it to happen!

This piece of good news as is, I beg to move, is not newsworthy.