LEAVING BIRD IN LOCAL MEDIA HANDS & CHASING GLAMOROUS MONACO BIRDS

Kenyan media crews travelled thousands of kilometres to European shores, to cover the crowing of the World Male Athlete of the Year. But there was no reporter dispatched to the home of the eventual winner, who gave his acceptance speech from Kenya. In other words, the local media left the bird in hand in Kenya, and opted to chase many other glamorous birds in Monaco.

This editorial embarrassment went a notch higher, in one of the news reports sent from the venue, for a local broadcast.

There was no sense of shame in including a video conference clip of the winner in the story, given the irony of the TV channel not being able to get a reaction in its own neighbourhood.

You see, it was extremely likely that the World Athletics Awards will feature the Kenyan, and yet no effort seemed to have been made to cover this story from a local angle.

Granted. The awards ceremony could have been a live event, with a recorded insert of the winner giving his acceptance speech.

But there's hardly anything that could have prevented the local crews deployed to Monaco, from pre-taping or pre-interviewing the winner in anticipation, while still in Kenya.

Or is it a case of once beaten, forever shy of taking risks?

I do recall a nightmare scenario about 8 years ago, highlighted here, when one of the sports journalists dispatched to the recent awards ceremony, had an article published, proclaiming what he felt was a sure bet winner.

The only problem then, was that the organisers named somebody else, leading to one of the most glaring yet 'unreported' media contradictions.

One full blown article with the wrong 'winner' got copious prominence, while in the sports section of the same newspaper, another story by the same writer, got the facts right.

Yikes! Just don't do it.

FACTUAL INFORMATION AND A FICTIONAL NEWS SENSE/TENSE

That the truth can be stranger than fiction is hardly disputable. And fictional accounts in the mainstream media have their own special sections, where the truth is not a key consideration. But when reporting the news, the press has to be accountable for the shared facts. It is strange to come across content that's based on factual information, yet ends up looking fictional.

That's what's apparent in the article above, and it has all to do with the conveyed sense, from the headline.

Let's try and break it down. The editor saw it fit to call attention to the story by stating:

'3 in priest murder case plead later'

So, did the suspects take the plea?

Not really, contrary to the insinuation from the headline.

And what is actually meant by 'plead later' and is that even a possibility?

Plead suggests the action already happened, so to assign it a future time frame, is nothing short of an absurdity.

It's most likely the editor intended to say the suspects would 'plead later' but perhaps due to space constraints, ended up omitting the one innocuous word that would have made all the difference.

'3 in priest murder case TO plead later'

Yes. This even tallies with the details in the story because the suspects didn't take plea.

Please editor, heed my plea and plead guilty for this editorial offence.

WHEN SAME INFORMATION TAKES DIFFERENT FORMS

Kenya's mainstream newspapers are known to strive to differentiate their content, in a bid to retain their respective audiences. However, even publishers know that in the news business, there's little that can be done to render facts in one story differently. It's therefore quite odd to see the same information take different forms. The angles can differ but not the truth.

In the coverage of the story above, it appears like either one paper did not have it's facts right, or the other was being economical with the truth.

What is the title of the main subject in the story?

Paper 1 alludes to the fact that the Nairobi County Assembly Majority Leader is embattled but still in office.

Paper 2 though, refers to the same majority leader as having been ousted.

If one has not been following the going ons at the Nairobi County Assembly, this indeed could be quite confusing, and frustrating.

But for one who's familiar with recent developments of the same assembly, it would be very apparent that the main subject of this story is no longer holding his previous position.

And that then raises the question of why one simple fact can yield two interpretations.

Or, is this a credible editorial omission, or a commission of a discreditable edit?

RARE PASSION, MOTIVATION AND SELF-DRIVEN JOURNALISM

The journalism space in Kenya has experienced tremendous growth over the years. Naturally, as old hands exit the limelight, new faces light up the media landscape. But one aspect mostly amiss with the new talent, is the right motivation and passion for the job. That's why those who remain true to the cause, in a self-driven manner, need to be applauded.

One such individual is the writer of the newspaper article above, more known for TV business news reporting, but one who delights in engaging in a different news segment, on a different medium!

Now that is rare passion.

Away from the familiar territory of business coverage, he ventures into a not so well-known sport locally, and delivers it eloquently, such that the editor has no worries about giving the story almost an entire page.

It truly is an inspired initiative, especially given that not so many regular sports reporters have a grasp of the intrigues and mechanics of Formula One racing.

Vroom-vroom...Zoom away.... to greater heights...Alex!

SIGNATURES WITH NO SIGN OF SIGNIFICANCE

Communication should be a simple and even natural process. Information is shared or exchanged between to or more people or entities. It is imperative for that information to be meaningful though, or one that sense can be derived from. And for news media especially, context is very critical for the content being passed to the audience to be useful or impactful. 

What's the significance of the signatures being highlighted in the story tag above?

The viewer is not given any clue as to who the signatures belong to.

In the next set of on screen graphics, there's more reference of the signatures, and them being about to be vetted.

But, it's still not clear who the signatures belong to, or their intended purpose.

There's more information displayed... a little more about the background of the signatures.

But if the viewer is not following the discussions, or happens to just tune in, there'll still be no sign of the significance of the signatures!