INFIDELITY THAT BURNS WHEN TRUTH BECOMES TOO HOT TO HANDLE

Winds blowing from a stinging editorial in Kenya's top newspaper, have swirled into a public storm. The publisher is trying hard to convince a sceptical audience that the paper's independence is not in jeopardy. But the reality suggests that even though the truth can be too hot to handle, infidelity against it truly burns.

Angry reactions have followed this attempt to sanitize an unpopular decision, which seem to even rile past and current senior staffers of the same media organization.

I...I am....well...I have this 'evil' feeling some sentiments, like those being expressed above are not entirely sincere.

Call me an over-analyser and give me a breathalyser...I just can't help but wonder about the possibility of the media group on the spot, deploying its 'social media monolith' to tenderize the harsh spotlight.

Rarely can one find strong opposition to a decision, so closely stitched with words like, 'To his credit...' strategically leading to the self-criticism-worshipping quote, and link to the big boss's rejoinder.

....I mean, it just appears too calculated, like the post is also intended to achieve a covert purpose.

What do you think...or can we safely conclude that I'm crazy?

Below are other reactions from a fired up social media space.

STILLBIRTH SUCCESS: A TV STATION'S PIGGYBACK RIDE ON TWITTER

One million followers. The most engaged media brand on Twitter in the East African region. This particular feat had to be sounded off from the mountain top. But a little historical context of how it all began could offer intriguing insights. And such a success should be measured in terms of your own online real estate, not your brand piggyback riding on another popular platform. 

Fact is, five years ago, Twitter was a very neglected social media platform in this particular channel.

Actually, my main point when called upon to address the big editorial meetings, was the need for the newsroom staff to open Twitter accounts and especially how this would be useful in breaking news scenarios.

Okay. A disclaimer first. I was the pioneer Online Editor of the channel in question, (a disastrous one perhaps?). 

Now that we have that out of the way, I would like to disassociate myself with any impression that I'm writing this out of bitterness, (the bile is just for emphasis).

Very strangely, there was resistance to officially use Twitter on air, from very high places.

I vividly recall the day I was on reporting duties, and I asked the video editor to put my Twitter handle, alongside my name, as he rendered my piece to camera.

In my excitement, I told the boss to watch my story on air, with the hope of being among the first TV journalist in Kenya to have a Twitter handle on air, and eventually turning this into a common practise in the newsroom.

But that was not to be. My then overall boss, in a rare panic mode, ordered me to remove my Twitter handle on the story (hardly five minutes prior to it going on air).

So I always marvel at the way Kenyan broadcasting stations and even mainstream print outlets, nowadays freely display Twitter handles of their institutions and even individual journalists. And there's plenty of hashtag this or that.

Why was this a difficult thing to do five years ago, and yet internationally, this had been an approved trend, even much earlier? Or it's just the usual fear of change? (Or was the problem me taking the credit?).

So now the same TV station feels very proud to have registered a supposed highest number of Twitter followers regionally.

This could as well be a fallacy, because all the accounts in this mega count are not verified. A single follower could be operating several Twitter accounts, using different handles.

But what I find most unusual, is the objective given to the channel's digital team, to get people away from their Internet-enabled mobile phones and directing their attention to the content airing on TV.

I'm of the opinion that the reverse should be the sequence of events: get those watching TV to go online for more related content or latest updates, especially given that most stories airing on local TV have already done the rounds on the Internet.

This mentality, partly explains why many Kenyan media outlets have found it hard to maintain truly dynamic websites, laden with compelling content to sustain the interest of their online communities.

In any case, isn't it a bit foolhardy for a media outlet to boast about how well its brand is doing on another external platform?

It's similar to boasting how one's rented house is magnificent, while at the same time identifying who the landlord is.

Again, your brand's worth as a media outlet on the Internet, should be measured from the performance of your very own online real estate!

23/12/2015
Postscript:

It seems the futility and vanity of mainstream media riding on their external social media presence is still not apparent to everyone.

Behold! Wading through the social media wilderness can lead to the promised land of likes and followers.

But a day will come when it becomes apparent that the online audiences of these local mainstream media have been willingly delivered to global competitors.

SERVE ACTIVISM WITHOUT PATRIOTISM AND LET JOURNALISM SUFFER

There's activism and advocacy. There's patriotism and public service. Then there's journalism. But within journalism can be found all the aforementioned elements. The distinction is that these are not expressed in their raw form. They are editorially refined, to best project the public interest. That's why there could be a thin line between suffering for, and serving Kenya.

If a media outlet decides to embark on an investigative piece touching on core national security matters, it thus becomes critical to serve public interest by telling the story, without setting up the country for untold suffering.

I strongly believe it's the duty of the press to uncover shortcomings of the government and state agencies, to make them more accountable and true to their mandate and responsibilities to citizens.

But I equally expect some conscious effort to balance that sacrosanct watchdog role of the media, with the need to preserve the entity being exposed, especially if it's what we collectively call our country.

You see, it borders on being pointless, if the media reduces itself to just being a trophy hunter, uncovering scoop after scoop of the dirtiest secrets of state and society.

Okay. So in the process, there could be some real positive changes and measures taken to address issues raised.

But in the larger scheme of things, those desired changes still need a state and society in which they can manifest themselves in, and importantly, for the difference they make to be appreciated.

In other words, you can't meaningfully change the state of affairs in a state, by compromising the state's very own existence.

So, we've seen the deplorable working and living conditions of policemen, in practically a war zone.

The government can be shamed into swinging into action (to improve the situation and/or deal with the source of the unauthorised disclosure to the media).

But more dreadful, the country's enemies can exploit the weaknesses highlighted in the expose, to further their deadly intentions.

The investigative piece could serve NGOs well, as they solicit for donor funding, to facilitate their often self-rewarding interventions.

However, the media must be alive to the fact that the government needs to be engaged fairly, for it to respond effectively to matters of public interest.

After all, many Kenyan journalists have been serving and suffering, in the course of discharging their professional duties, and yet the media is often too quick to expose the plight of other people.

Indeed, if you serve activism without patriotism, it is journalism that will suffer.

VISUAL TORTURE, SASHAYING CENTRE PIECES AND TV NEWS PRESENTATION

Two eyes one brain. That's all viewers of broadcast news have, to appreciate the visual elements. The field of view is 180 degrees. But it places an awful lot of strain on the eyes, if a TV news screen has many areas of focus. There could be added value from the presentation style, but at times, this is reduced to visual torture, delivered in multi-screens.

Already, Kenyan TV station managers have conspired to divert attention from the news content to the deliverer of the news.

So there is always a walking, talking, smiling and sashaying centre piece, oozing raw sex appeal, often disguised as sophisticated news presenters (seldom anchors).

Then you throw in screens behind to further add to the futile competition for attention with the centre piece, possibly laden with supposed relevant pictures or computer graphics.

But it's simply mind-boggling trying to understand the complex reasoning that necessitated having the exact same elements repeated in two windows/screens.

It could also be a novel way of trying to expand the coverage of an issue, by having multiple angles, as highlighted by a battalion of news presenters and TV reporters, all squeezed into the safe areas of a TV monitor.

Some find this engaging. But I see it as too much work for my slow brain, tasked with picking up all these visuals, and trying so hard to have an enriched sense of the day's main news.

Insisting on delivering the news via a 'mass choir' of presenters, equally delivers the same killer punch to my 'besieged' eye-brain co-ordination inadequacies.

This also poses auditory discomforts, when the sopranos and bass 'representers'...voila...go into interlocution mode at the same time, al a off key!

La la...la la la... la la...lalalalala.

IMPERSONATOR IN STUDIO: MEDIA NEEDS A DOSE OF ITS OWN DUE DILIGENCE GOSPEL

The Kenyan media never seem to tire, in advising members of their audience to carry out due diligence, before parting with money or committing to something. But do the media houses partake of their own wise counsel? So, one moment you are all excited about hosting someone in your studios, then days later, it turns out the same person is a suspected criminal.

Should those charged with sourcing guests for TV programmes, e.g., be required to do a thorough background check, before clearing potential guests?

It certainly looks bad for a TV channel to host somebody in their studio, only for it to later emerge that the same person could be behind a heinous impersonation scheme, which also targets staff members of the same station.

So, before a host got all mesmerised (on behalf of the audience), marvelling at the 'magical' cards skills of the studio guest, it perhaps would have been useful to ensure there is nothing sinister up the sleeves of the 'trickster', beyond the visual deception or sleight of hand.

Again, if the 'hacker was hacked' to possibly reveal the person behind the elaborate yet devilish prank, does it imply the same news channel condemns and condones hacking in the same breath?

As somebody has pointed it out already, the local media does seem to be abdicating its moral compass responsibilities, going by how a person, who recently failed to pay a private debt, ended up being given so much public prominence.

Next time, don't act so surprised, if you see the same ills that the local media highlights, flourishing in the very same media houses!

UNPARDONABLE SIN AND 50 SHADES OF INSENSITIVE JOURNALISM

Everyone is allowed to hold an opinion. But this does not negate the need to respect other people's views. If journalists happen to also have an opportunity to publish their opinion, a measure of restraint is required. And if you mix Godly matters with your criticism, be wary of the unpardonable sin, as you practise your 50 shades of insensitive journalism.

You may have reservations about the decision to ban a film, based on what in your estimation, constitute flimsy and untenable grounds.

But why not just entirely dwell on the material facts, instead of singling out the personal attributes of the perceived decision maker, as if there's no institution he's representing?

There's little value addition in using a false dichotomy to defend your position, and amplifying the perceived irony of a bishop having to decide whether a film has pornographic content.

Then comes the usage of a trope that is heavily laden with insensitive religious 'overtones' in advancing the argument:

Yes, a bishop heads the body that classifies films in Kenya and decides what is approved for public viewing. He probably comes straight from Bible study to a board meeting, still levitating from the power of the Holy Spirit

This is not only demeaning to majority of the faithful in Kenya, but comes dangerously close to illustrating a perfect timing for the use of fire and brimstone!

Some would say it's an unpardonable sin.

I call it 50 shades of insensitive journalism.

I REBUKE THE MEDIA FOR PERSONIFYING THE KENYA WE DON'T WANT

It's becoming clear the Kenyan media is degenerating. The competitive nature of the news means content is now constantly being primed to generate profits, pageviews, viewership, readership, ratings, retweets, likes and online hits. I rebuke the local media for personifying the Kenya we don't want.

I rebuke the media for being opportunistic: 
Journalists conveniently overlook the fact that they are in a position of actualising positive change, given the nature of their careers. They instead choose to score points by posing as the conscience of society. And yet a glance at Westgate attack coverage, shows the shameful prejudices being castigated in the media, are frequently perpetuated by the same media.

I rebuke the media for being selfish: 
Laws become draconian mostly if they threaten the profit margins of media houses. For any other sector, the aggrieved are encouraged to move on.

I rebuke the media for being inept at portraying the big picture:
The President might have been away from the country, but the Presidency was very much around. If the Deputy speaks in the absence of the President, the Presidency can be said to have spoken.

I rebuke the media for being inconsistent: 
One moment the President is praised for being accessible to the public, then it becomes excessive PR, before selfies become despicable.

I rebuke the media for being shortsighted. 
Media representatives are invited to State House and despite very ominous signs, hardly anyone has the foresight of raising the issue of insecurity, preferring mostly to wallow in shameful soliciting for state appointments. How then does one transform into a latter-day saint for reminding the President to firmly deal with insecurity?

I rebuke the media for being a philanderer: 
Maintaining close links and benefiting from illicit relations with political and commercial interests, while public interest and editorial integrity wither in the background.

I rebuke the media for being insensitive: 
Reporting about a horrific tragedy, with the dominant image of a smiling face.

I rebuke the media for being incurably reactive: 
The strange irony of castigating the government for only scrambling to contain a bad situation, long after the diabolic event. Yet that's exactly what the media does, when providing coverage, in spite of the tethered hordes of resident analysts.

I rebuke the media for being gifted in parachute reporting:
Pretending to understand the underlying issues shortly after landing in a conflict area.

I rebuke the media for being quick to misplace priorities: 
Irresponsibly reporting about weapons being allegedly found in places of worship, and then wailing the loudest, when radicals use the skewed coverage to justify the massacre of Kenyans.

I rebuke the media for being allergic to reason:
The media allocate acres of space and tonnes of airtime to highlight maniacal and debased sexual assault in the guise of upholding decency standards. But ignores its own contribution, through its hyper-sexed news delivery.

I rebuke the media for allowing politicians to frequently set its agenda:
The relevance of an issue is many a times, inversely proportional to how many politicians have raised it, and directly proportional to the square root of nonsense!

A CON SHOW INTERVIEW OF KONSHENS

The purpose of media interviews is to extract useful information from persons of interest. The information must be about or from the person of interest. And you use background information to bring fresh information to the fore. This was hardly the case in recent TV interviews of a Jamaican dancehall artiste, ahead of his performance in Kenya.

For starters, it's good broadcast practise for some professional distance to be maintained, between the interviewer and their subject. Even the choice of words should reflect this imaginary but crucial space.

So, it was shocking to hear the host in one of the TV station react to the mere name of the studio guest by saying:

"It's kinda cute name...I like it..."

Cute? I like it? Are the opinions and feelings of the host adding value to the interview?

And when the guest said he was 'in love' with Kenya, again the host let out an unbelievable:

"Yeeey!!"

But it gets worse. At some point, she claps and mumbles something like (it):

"...brought a tear in my eye..."

Then shortly afterwards, she yet again gets all emotional. The Jamaican dancehall artiste says he believes success is a journey not a destination, to which the host replies:

"My gosh I have to write that down...that's awesome..."

It has profusely been already pointed out that this TV presenter was awestruck and openly 'attracted' to the interviewee ('I'm your biggest fan alive'). And I tend to agree. But I'll be quick to also point out that it's part of being human.

I can relate because the time I was on assignment in Kingston, Jamaica, I visited Harmony House production centre, home to reggae living legend, Beres Hammond.

As I awaited a reply to my interview request, I moved to the records shop but had difficulty pointing out to the attendant, which particular song I wanted, in the many CDs on sale. I knew the tune but not the words, let alone the title of the song, so all I could come up with was a terribly off-key hummed rendition.

Then the shop attendant gave me the surprise of my life. Visibly fed up with my awkward query, he suddenly brightened up and told me:

"There's Beres behind you. Let's ask him. Hey Beres....?

I turned and sure enough Beres was there in person. Needless to say, I froze. Up to this day, I can only remember Beres saying he was too busy at that point to grant a TV interview. Nothing about the song I wanted to buy. I eventually took a guess and got the CD with the song, 'Not Over Till It's Done' but I digress.

The point I'm making is that once in a while, one does get overwhelmed to the point of 'acting funny' while in the presence of someone they regard in very high esteem.

However, reason must always prevail in a live studio situation. And that means keeping the focus on the guest. Does the host have to tell us, (and her probably bored interviewee) that in her family, she's in the middle, just like the Jamaican, but only has brothers?

It does help to do thorough research, before the interview, to avoid sounding very ignorant. The artiste comes from Jamaica, an island, meaning the place is surrounded by water. So why ask the guest whether he will be interested in visiting the beaches along Kenya's coastline?

The other host from the TV station that simulated a 'Live' interview of the same artiste, equally failed in this respect. He gloriously displayed his limited 'overstanding' of Jamaica's local music scene.

And when the guest mentioned Bob Marley, I expected a follow-up discussion on the continuing posthumous influence of the late King of Reggae, decades later. But all I got was:

"Do you have a favourite Bob Marley song?"

I'm now more convinced there's no master of all subjects in Kenya, when it comes to conducting TV interviews. Maybe getting a co-host, who is a specialist in the relevant topic, will help bridge the knowledge gap.

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.

OF LIVE TV AND MULTI-TASKING, MULTI-TALENTED REPORTERS

Live location TV news is a very complex and hard to perfect broadcast. It's however, not too much for the viewer to expect to see a smooth and coordinated production. That is why a location producer and support staff are vital. It is not a pretty sight, when the reporters and camera crews are 'left' on their own.

Picture this: Reporter A and B (sharing one camera on location), alternate in giving the live commentary, and also share the task of sourcing for people to interview.

Reporter A tries to persuade, nay beg potential guests to come to the 'mobile set' for a quick chat, as the camera is rolling. Some agree to be interviewed, but some seem least interested. The rejection beamed live to viewers.

Reporter B then walks into the live shot and engages Reporter A. Amazingly, Reporter B asks Reporter A a question, but Reporter A is busy scouting the area for a 'prized' interviewee.

So the question literally hangs in the air, on air. Then Reporter A bolts out of the live shot and leaves Reporter B to fly solo in the narration.

And before long, Reporter A is back, with a guest in tow. Microphones clumsily change hands, as Reporter B physically 'wipes' out of the camera view.

I'm all for creativity and spontaneity, in energised walk and talk, live presentations. But at some point, all these movements become tiring to the eye.

TV has a big element of showbiz and showmanship. But visual 'chaos' adds little value to the overall delivery.

That's why the location producer(s), could perhaps have played a more prominent role here, to ease the burden placed on the 'awesome' Reporters A and B, and lessen the viewing pain for the audience.

And also, the chances of one hearing, "President Uhuru Kibatta" or "Mwai Kinyatta" could have drastically diminished.

FACT: THE FACT CHECK WON'T ALWAYS CHECK OUT

A Kenyan news channel has a 'Fact Check' segment, which aims to enlighten the public about what is factual in the coverage of topical issues. But, as bare as the facts might appear to be, they often need to be interpreted well. That's why it's safer for journalists to resist the urge to appear as sagacious 'Mr. Know-It-Alls' with the power to make value judgement.

You see, the veracity of what is presented as 'facts' is not always that easy to establish. That's why news outlets are required to cross-check with multiple sources, to ascertain the 'facts' of a story.

And on the same breath, it is highly recommended that the input of people with relevant expertise be copiously factored in, for the analysis to be balanced, fair and truthful.

A case in point is the raging debate about whether Kenya, as opined by the out-going President Mwai Kibaki, is a unitary state. The verdict, from the aforementioned segment, was that Kibaki was wrong.

And this was conclusively premised on a definition from an 'unknown' dictionary!!

                             
Just like I had been contemplating, the country's Attorney General was to later state that Kenya's political system defies known descriptions, and its hybrid of devolved and national governance is a yet to be properly defined constitutional creation.

The subsequent 'Fact Check' mercifully had the input of an expert. But still, volunteering to either call it black or white, and ignoring the very possible grey areas, is swimming in dangerous waters.

Fact: Facts are sacred.

Fact: There's no guarantee that facts will always be interpreted in the right or proper context.

Fact: Inaccuracies can be made to look dashing, when clothed as facts.

TV INTERVIEW CUM CROSS-EXAMINATION CUM POLICE INTERROGATION

It's all well for a media house to bask in the glory of an exclusive story. And my, one Kenyan news channel has just 'achieved' this fleeting 'high' of journalism. But, given the sensitivity of the subject matter, the exclusive interview could easily pass for a media inquest cross-examination, or even a police interrogation.

The questions were in rapid-fire mode. And the short responses only served to hasten the pace of the interview, because the reporter was gallantly unrelenting.

Inevitably perhaps, the line of questioning started approaching the legally unsafe waters. Unsafe, in my not so legal mind, because the interviewee has pending court cases, and an official inquiry, whose main substance is what the reporter was prodding him to state his position on.

With due consideration of the role of the media in seeking to unearth the truth, its fidelity to public interest, and that the reporter did intimate that what went on air is what was legally safe, I still feel this interview prejudiced efforts to unravel the mystery behind this alleged police impersonator.

One can also argue that this particular case was now being politicised, especially given that the interviewee told a national television audience that he was willing to make damning revelations.

This, before making known his desire to only pass the information to high-ranking government officials, like Kenya's Prime minister. And, there's no prize for guessing how this story developed, less that 24 hours later.

The 'fake' cop's request was one of the talking points of the Prime minister's address, at a political rally. One can even argue that it has now become an election campaign issue, going by the way the Prime minister used it as an entry point, for his pledge to bring changes to the 'tainted' police force.

Obviously, my observations come with no guaranteed veracity.

But suffice it to say that two people are now very happy. The alleged police imposter, because his plea has been heard by the Prime minister. Whether he gets to have his wish fulfilled as promised, is besides the point, because his point has been made.

And yes. The reporter will be pleased with himself, for setting the agenda for none-other than the country's Prime minister, now confirmed as one of the presidential candidates, in Kenya's approaching General Election.

Or could we remotely contemplate, albeit wildly, the possibility of this entire turn of events, having been orchestrated? Only if it's a movie script!!!