OF ROYALTIES AND MISPLACED LOYALTIES

In Kenya, the combination of music and politics has proven to be vital in securing an election victory. Musicians have now wisened up and are demanding their pound of flesh from politicians. As politicians seek to shore up voter loyalties, the musicians are demanding royalties for use of their productions. For the the media, though it's a case of royalties and misplaced loyalties.

In this part of the world, certain communities have a penchant of messing up pronunciation of English sounds, referred to as mother-tongue interference.

This could be a logical explanation for the mix-up of the lower news story tag above, which states:

'KAMP, PRISK demand loyalties from politicians'

You see, the mind could be playing a terrible game on the writer of the caption, such that the way they are used to saying, 'royalties' is how they spell it as well.

Or worse still, the person truly thinks he or she's typing 'royalties' and is even unperturbed by the sight of the word 'loyalties', because the mind is stubbornly 'seeing royalties'.

I wouldn't want to put my money on the probable fact that, here, we are dealing with a case of the writer not using the word, 'loyalties' in the right context.

I also strongly want to believe it is wrong to conclude the entire news production and studio crew in this TV station, on duty then, could not distinguish between 'loyalties' and 'royalties'.

After all, royal media has loyal viewers. (I hope you don't see what I did there).

PICTURES, WORDS, CAPTIONS AND CORRUPTION OF MEANING

Yet again, editorial nonsense has graced the pages of a Kenyan newspaper. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then it's better for words to be banished from pictures, if the caption ruins the meaning of the picture. Of what use it is to seek to add understanding of what's happening in a picture, only to end up subtracting its overall comprehension?

That's what is apparent in the picture above, from a national paper.

It shows people in a sort of commotion, probably fighting or in a physical confrontation.

But instead of adding clarity, the explanation supplied on the side of the photo, heightens the confusion.

"Police officers protect irate women from attacking a suspected conmen..."

What is one supposed to make of this description, members of the press?

- That the women doing the attacking are the ones being protected?

- How do you even 'protect from attacking'?

- And since when is it proper to say, 'a suspected conmen'?

The competence of this sub-editor is suspect, I suspect!

THE NOT SO OBVIOUS STATEMENT OF THE OBVIOUS

Repetition of facts for emphasis is acceptable in the media  But tautology is usually frowned upon since different words end up repeating the same meaning, where even one word would have sufficed. What remains unbearably irksome though, is the stating of obvious facts.

It might be that editor is unaware of the irritation they are unleashing upon their audience.

Or perhaps steeped in blissful ignorance, the editorial gatekeepers couldn't care less if there's material that doesn't add value but potentially subtract interest levels.

In the above article's postscript, the reader is being told that:

"The writer is a writer..."

If I may add, the writer wrote a well-written write-up!

- This blogger is a blogger, journalist and news editor.

OF FORGED LAND AND NEWS FORGERIES

The media plays an important role of enlightening the public. Yet, when partaking from Kenyan news outlets, one at times is left feeling dumber. Confused wondering if one could be the only one not understanding the content. Or worse still, convinced that the media cannot be mistaken and whole-heartedly believing even news forgeries.

What does the word forgery actually mean?

According to the online Cambridge dictionary, forgery:

...is an illegal copy of a document, painting, etc. or the crime of making such illegal copies.

So, going by this definition, the heading of the newspaper article above wants the reader to perhaps visualize an original piece of land, and then stretch the imagination a little more and see the accused person making an illegal copy of the same land.

Forged land?

Ridiculous, right?

One is left wondering what wrong one has done to deserve such an editorially-induced mental anguish.