BACK TO BASICS: GIVE US PURE NEWS

Kenyan media outlets often feel the need to rebrand or relaunch. If there's value addition, then the audience is bound to appreciate the changes. But is it really necessary to drastically change the way news is delivered? Opinions should never be disguised as factual news elements, in the name of a new horizon in news delivery. Go back to basics and give us pure news.

It has now become acceptable to start a news bulletin with a lengthy introduction of studio guest, complete with their profiles and career high points. Have news headlines gone that down the rundown pecking order?

Journalism as a function, is primarily designed to hep disseminate information, in an objective a manner as possible, and to allow the audience to draw its own conclusions.

And whereas interpretation is always welcome in news delivery, it should not be taken to the level of forcing the audience to partake of the news, through the eyes and at times 'no brainer' minds of a pre-selected panel.

There's certainly no harm in getting analysts to help the audience understand issues. But a news bulletin anchored on analysis, at the expense of the day's news, tends to deplete the available attention span.

Think about the agony of the sports fan, waiting for a segment that has been inconveniently placed towards the end of the news.

It also beats logic, for media house to be so agreeable to hosting the same news sources or guests, in spite of the fact that the same 'attention seekers' have already made appearances in one or two other stations, and 'exhaustively' generated more than enough noise about the same subject.

To make matters worse, these, so called opinion shapers and custodians of expert views, have been known to mostly generate heated but not enlightening debates.

But such is the extent of the local media's gullibility, that falsehoods and inaccuracies will be readily circulated without any serious or even professional interrogation.

So, it's only days later that the audience gets to learn about simple truths, like the real status of the man that is fighting hard to continue answering to the title of 'Embu County Governor'.

Again, I say. Newsrooms should go back to the basics. Give us a hefty serving of pure news, spiced with analytical condiments, not blase analysis.

DEACTIVATING HYPERACTIVE ACTIVISM

His brand of social protests in Kenya, captured the imagination of both friend and fiend. Many are the times he has mobilised support and engaged the authorities in very creative and sometimes chaotic demonstrations. But then he's human...with a limited risk tolerance...and a family. The media jumped on the story of his quitting activism, but could have done better.

For a high profile activist to call it a day, seemingly indicates either giving up on agitating for a common good, or selfishly re-evaluating the direct impact to one's loved ones, and whether one is prepared to seek social justice at the expense of one's family's well-being.

The coverage of this story in the press should thus not be limited to the reasons given by the now ex-activist. His fears needed to be interrogated further because they raise pertinent questions that could be directed to a psychologist and/or security or intelligence expert.

This would give the news story depth and perhaps more clarity about the resolve of the 'famed' activist to 'retire' at his prime. The reaction in social media platforms, as sampled below, shows just why this can be so useful.

PATHETIC MEDIA ETHICS ON KENYAN TV

Is there a time the Kenyan media's one hand does not know what the other is doing, just like the way the same media likes to label, especially the country's government? How else do you explain a reporter painstakingly upholding ethical standards in protecting somebody's identity, only to robustly reveal who they are, in the same news story?

This glaring contradiction and assault on acceptable media standards, has been brought to my attention, by an equally distressed observer.

A recent TV news report (as posted online above), about a witness withdrawing from the International Criminal Court case against Kenya's deputy President, simply defies logical thinking.

After blurring the image of the recanting ICC witness throughout, very private details of the same person are then extensively revealed to the whole world, when his affidavit is prominently displayed.

So the report hides the face of the witness, then goes ahead and makes known his full name, address and even the location of his physical residence.

This to me, is what ought to be described as Draconian!

ERRING TV NEWS EDITORS ALLERGIC TO RAPIDLY RECTIFYING MISTAKES

Unlike editorial errors in print media, incorrect texts that are broadcast can be amended almost immediately, while the news item is still on air. Unfortunately, most TV stations in Kenya appear to be allergic to rapidly rectifying such mistakes. So a blunder irritatingly lingers on the screen for eons.

This illustration of editorial incompetence has become an almost permanent feature of the story tag graphics, or lower third sections of local TV news bulletins.

So, from the above screen shot, it is perfectly in order for prisons to suffer physical injury, alongside other mortal beings, because according to the editor, 'Two warders, one prison...' got injured, '...in Kamiti prison chaos.'

And that is what was being repeatedly flashed on air, as if once or twice was not enough for the news production crew to notice and make amendments. But the news producer/editor in this channel, did at least refer to security officers, who work in prisons, as warders.

For this other station, the officers manning prisons are wardens. And, going by this flawed logic, those gallant men and women, who help protect wildlife, could be called 'game warders.'

Furthermore, abbreviating long titles of some news sources is admittedly not an easy task. And every media outlet does have an in-house style guide on how to render shortened titles.

But even in the interest of attaining brevity and economy of the lower third space, the communication aspect must never be sacrificed.

All I can see from, 'Ass. Commn Minister-Tanzania' in the above captioning, is that someone important might have inadvertently been referred to as an ass!!

ONE STORY, ONE NEWSPAPER, DIFFERENT FACTS

In yet another indication of the mediocrity that seems to have taken permanent residence in some Kenyan newsrooms, a story with contradictory facts has safely made it to the pages of a leading daily. The end result is one story, in one newspaper, but carrying different facts.

It's understandable for a number of editors to seek to fine tune details of one story, at different stages in the production process. But there must not be more than one version of the final story, in the same paper. 

That this happened in a newspaper from the stable of the largest publisher in this part of Africa, makes the error in editorial judgement even more monumental, if not perplexing.

The front-page teaser of this story about a violent matatu protest, states that a tout was allegedly killed by a police officer, in a row over fare. 

On turning to page 22, for the full details of the story, the facts amazingly metamorphose, and the cause of the altercation between the police officer and the tout, is now attributed to a demand for a bribe.

Moreover, there's reference being made to a policeman, an unknown gunman, and even armed men, as 'allegedly' having been at the centre of the dispute that sparked the protest.

If the newspaper editors are not sure about the salient facts of a story, alleged or otherwise, (as indicated by the different versions published), how is the reader expected to believe any information contained in the same story?

No wonder it's so easy for people to say, "Don't believe what you read in the papers."

NATIONAL VS PUBLIC INTEREST - THE MISSING UNATTENDED BAG

Kenyans were recently treated to what some described as a shocking display of the country's precarious security, courtesy of a broadcast investigative report. But supposing the same routine of leaving a bag unattended, had been extended to the media outlet's own offices? Would that bit have been aired, if the same laxity would have been exhibited?

Yes. The 'brilliant' story was probably designed to gauge the security preparedness in public places, hence the choice of the airport, hospital, police station, supermarket, and public transportation.

But, in as much as the 'eye-opening' feature firmly established Kenya, indeed, could be a playground for terror elements, and did subsequently scrambled security agents into corrective action, there are those who feel the investigative piece compromised national security.

The reasoning being advanced is that it is not appropriate to publicise the country's vulnerability, security-wise, even if the main objective is to make the nation more secure.

In this case, this argument goes, the national interest should have prevailed over the public interest and the right of citizens to know the state of security alertness.

So, going back to my hypothetical scenario, had the investigative team also planted a bag at their own office's reception, and monitored people's reaction, what would have happened? What if the security personnel there were also reckless?

Chances are extremely high the editors/managers at the TV station would want that part left out. Why? They certainly wouldn't want to implicate themselves in their own channel, as the expose showcased security lapses in various other places.

And therein would have been a fine example of how the truth can sometimes be sacrificed, for the sake of a perceived greater common good... a case of selfishly protecting one's professional reputation in the public eye, as well as minimising the risk of potential future threats.

In the same line of thinking, is it preposterous to ask even journalists to selfishly safeguard matters of national security, when these are in competition with public interest affairs?

It's now nevertheless been re-established that Kenya's level of alertness in identifying security threats, is generally wanting, (despite the public reaction after the feature suggesting it's a new discovery).

And as hearty congratulations are heaped on a proactive media initiative, for an exemplary public service from a responsive press... let's all be reminded that maintenance of security is a process in perpetuity.

The same security agencies being condemned or castigated in the mass/social media, are the same ones to run to, during any eventual attack. Demotivating them might leave the public more exposed to any lurking danger.

CASE FOR AN APOLOGY FOR EDITORIAL BLUNDERS

Should a news source be allowed to sue for defamation, if they are quoted in a very badly written newspaper article? They're being linked to a product that potentially may damage their reputation or lower their standing in society, after all. Or should the papers be compelled to publish an apology for editorial or glaring grammatical blunders?

This is the common practise in instances, where newspaper articles propagate inaccuracies or deviate from the factual representation of the truth, especially where subjects are adversely mentioned. But perhaps the same should now apply to poorly written articles.

What's the desired meaning of this paragraph, from a recent article, by the largest newspaper publisher in the East African region?

"When one borrows money with the intention of buying land  or property through marriage, the borrower also various rights guaranteed by law."

Then a source is attributed saying, "...the where the charge provides for variable interest, the lender must give the borrower at least 30 days' notice in writing if it wants to increase or reduce the interest rate."

Should such grammatical cum semantic assassinations be allowed to go unrebuked in the public eye?

The same article seems to have 'invented' the use of ONLY closing quotation marks, in a paragraph that is not linked to any particular person or statement.

This syntactic 'innovation' is replicates somewhere else, only this time the opening quotation marks are deployed in isolation.

There are a couple of other editorial blunders, in this 'gem-packed' article, which raise concern about quality control inadequacies in Kenya's leading newspapers.

And is the concept of using direct quotes for emphasis, so hard to grasp? For identical information, you can either choose to use direct or reported speech, not BOTH at the same time!

In this front page article, the writer/editor reports that the Labour Cabinet Secretary said: "... the national safety net fund has already flushed 1,400 ghost beneficiaries from the disability component of the fund."

Then immediately after, the reader's eyes are accosted by a direct quote from the same Labour Cabinet Secretary saying, "We have already struck off 1,400 ghost recipients from the disability fund..."

Is it that the reader is not supposed to trust the reported facts attributed to the Labour Cabinet Secretary, unless the same have been backed by direct quotes by him? Or does the need for emphasis, override the pain of wanton repetition?

This front page story, according to the editor, continues on Page 6. But if you turn to that particular page, the article is nowhere to be found. One encounters the rest of the story on Page 4, instead!

The case for an apology for editorial blunders may be far-fetched, (for now), but one does rightly expect that newspaper gatekeepers ought to be capable of preventing 'minor' yet 'massive' errors from getting published.