TEMPTING THE DEVIL IN DAREDEVIL TV REPORTING

The journalist kept pleading. But the security officers were adamant the law had been breached. The journalist explained there was no better way to tell the story. And the response was that a court of law would be the best judge of that. This did not happened. But it does describe a possible hazard for a scribe with a borrowed firearm, who is tempting the devil in daredevil reporting.

So, imagine a very brave and quite outstanding journalist seeking to highlight the security gaps in public places. She courageously straps a real and loaded gun on her back.

She manages to go past the security desk at the entrance of a popular mall and heads straight to a supermarket, and mingles with the shopping multitudes.

To further test the security apparatus in the mall, she positions herself next to CCTV cameras and daringly reveals the lethal weapon dangling on her back.

Nothing on Cam 1, not a bleep on Cam 2 and Cam 3 is not even functioning.

As she makes her way out, she gets this urge to turn and look back. What she sees are three heavily built security officers, who first floor her effortlessly, before rapidly frisking her and hoisting her shoulder high, after retrieving the firearm.

What follows in the back room is a ruthless interrogation, punctuated with actual bodily harm. The questioning is rigorous and furious:

"Have you been licensed to carry a firearm? How did you get past the metal detectors? What is your motive? Why did you scare our shoppers and cause panic in the mall?

"I'm a journalist. I'm an investigative journalist."

"Do you have a firearms certificate?"

"No. I briefly borrowed the gun from a licensed gun holder."

And then the journalist is told she will be charged with contravening the Laws of Kenya, Chapter 114 Firearms Act, Part Two, Section 4 (1), which states:

No person shall purchase, acquire or have in his possession any firearm or ammunition unless he holds a firearms certificate in force at that time.

Yes. This never happened. What we saw was a chilling, yet compelling reality check of how major security lapses continue to exists in public places, even after deadly terror attacks.

This may have made a great TV news investigative piece. However, things might have taken a dramatic turn to the detriment of the journalist, keen on delivering a public interests expose.

Journalism, indeed, is not a career for the faint-hearted. But journalists do have a heart, which needs to be preserved, even while chasing the greatest story.

Do have a hearty 2015!

ILL-ADVISED DASH TO DISH OUT A DELICIOUS DILLISH EXPOSE?

Who said Investigative Journalism has to be centred around unearthing the vile, despicable, deceitful, hidden atrocities or malpractices? Must the exposes focus on matters to do with crime, scandals or injustices? Kenyan media outlets need to also churn out investigative pieces with a happy ending.

A recent undercover story, heavy on dramatic narration and liberal use of shocking (unethical)? footage, indicates just how much resources can be put at the disposal of journalists, to very much facilitate their 'detective' work, so much so as to 'rival' that of official law enforcement agencies.

If this challenges the police, for example, to up their game, then it's largely agreeable. However, investigative journalism should not just be confined to 'comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable', in my view.

Compare the intricate, time consuming preparation and the elaborate delivery of the print and broadcast series on terrorism, with the rush to break and move forward the story about the identity of the father of the 'Namibian' winner of Big Brother Africa, and his Kenyan roots.

Going by the precedent set by the same media house, why wasn't a team from the investigative desk dispatched to Namibia, to talk to the mother of Dillish Mathew, and Dillish herself, after establishing contact with the Kenyan man claiming to be the father of Dillish?

The interviews in Kenya and Namibia would then be recorded, including the initial online chat between the Kenyan man and the mother of Dillish, where she puts the man's assertion to the test.

Then the journalists would find a way of exclusively covering the upcoming birthday of Dillish, and the resultant reunion with her hitherto unknown father. Imagine the drama from Dillish's denial of her 'Kenyan father' until her mother intervenes and intercedes to finally bring the two together, as the cameras role.

Then the investigative desk weaves the tale, tying up all the loose ends and ensuring their is a coherent flow and maximum suspense build-up, with all the trappings of TV exposes, like an arresting sound track.

And then creatives will be tasked with crafting an effective promotion across various media platforms, as a teaser, aiming to generate a deafening buzz about an upcoming family saga like no other, featuring the winner of 300,000 dollars, at this year's Big Brother Africa, and the surprise Kenyan twist.

Then on the chosen transmission date, the story is broadcast either in one piece or in instalments, within the usual newscast, or as a stand alone program.

But, my dreams aside, what did the TV station decide to do? Step one: 'exclusively' air the story of a man claiming to be the father of Dillish, and capture the denials from Dillish on social media.

Step two: hurriedly arrange for an Internet video chat between the supposed father of Dillish in Nairobi, and the mother of Dillish in the Namibian capital, and also broadcast this. Less than 5 days and the deed is done and dusted!

While its efforts are commendable, the allure of a short-lived glory, derived from breaking the story, denied the media house a wonderful opportunity to potentially present an investigative masterpiece, (with a happy ending).

That is why I strongly feel there was an ill-advised dash to dish out a delicious Dillish expose!

INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM: FROM THE FRISKY TO THE RISKY

The realm of investigative journalism requires a not so common combination of passion and professionalism, and a healthy dose of risk tolerance. That is why media practitioners devoted to uncovering hidden truths for the public good, need to be applauded. But where does one insert 'too' before frisky and risky?

A recent expose in one of the 'not so popular' Kenyan TV stations, though thoroughly engaging, pointed to some often ignored but probably important ethical considerations.

- If journalists illustrate the ease of purchasing hard drugs by actually posing as clients and getting the narcotics, can they in turn be charged with possessing the proscribed substances?

- Is it sufficient to merely point out drug peddlers and the availability of hard drugs, without passing the information to authorities and capturing their response, to balance the story by featuring the side of law enforcers?

- Is it safe for a journalist to lie to or trick sellers of hard drugs into availing the substance, only to expose them on TV? Is it sane for the journalist to blatantly showcase how the subterfuge was achieved?

Random thoughts maybe, but worth some sober reflection don't you think?