FROM SOCIAL MEDIA SPLOSH TO MAINSTREAM MEDIA SPLASH

There are days in the newsroom, when a scarcity of stories begets strange editorial decisions. Newspapers after all, still have to be produced daily, and the costs of production recouped, preferably at a profit. But the number of views of a video clip in social media, hardly constitute a front page story in mainstream media. A social media buzz does not automatically set mainstream media abuzz.

Okay. If we are talking about a billion views, a la Gangnam Style, it's justifiable to have such a story dominate the entertainment sections of any paper, globally.

Several million views? Perhaps still worth some prominent coverage locally, (inside pages of the entertainment section, don't you think?).

But a mere 200,000 views?

And we have a front page teaser, followed by a more substantial article that significantly amplifies the irrelevancies.

How can such a low number of views in social media be the news peg, in mainstream media?

If a prominent Kenyan politician takes a tumble, while addressing a public gathering, that agreeably, is newsworthy.

Very disagreeable, in my opinion, is to purport it's in the public's interest to know that:

"The incident elicited comments, with more than 50 likes and only 4  dislikes..."

Somebody enlighten me... we care about that because?

What's buzzing in social media circles, can be fuzzy in the mainstream media.

TWO PHOTOJOURNALISTS, ONE PHOTO BUT TWO NEWSPAPERS

Perhaps it was one of those very remarkable coincidences. That two photographers clicked away from the same position, with the same subjects in frame, and other pictorial perspectives also being constant. Or maybe, it's a case of two photojournalists, one photo, but two newspapers.

It definitely is that classic portrayal of one significant moment frozen in time. And even a momentary glance offers ample evidence why the picture was splashed on the 'coveted' front page spot(s).

The subject in the foreground is just about to kick some bu...wait...the bu...hold on...yes, has kicked a ballot box... or presumably some other election/nomination related material.

And because the Kenyan press is possessed with posturing, such a photo had to be given prominence, so as to profit from pandering to partisan politics.

Now swiftly getting back to the two photojournalists, one photo but two newspapers-

- is it remotely possible that one identical scene can be captured simultaneously by two photographers, and be similarly framed but differently cropped?

Maybe....not!

Looks can be deceiving but deceptions can also look alike.

OF AMBIGUITY AND HEADLESS HEADLINES

Is ambiguity the new method being employed by Kenyan newspapers to show they are non-partisan? It's either that by a very long shot, or some writers of headlines for local papers have not been doing a good job. 

Going by the recent trend, the challenges of English grammar are proving to be more than a handful for editors, who normally have a mouthful of expletives for reporters with wanting language skills.

In the front page above, two scenarios are possible. One alludes to an answer from Raila, Kenya's Prime minister, to Mudavadi, Kenya's Deputy Prime minister, as a reaction to Mudavadis' exit, (from ODM: the political party)

It is similarly possible and correct to infer that the headline talks of Raila's answer to Mudavadi, as a reaction of Raila's exit, (from God knows what!)

So which scenario did the headline writer intend the reader to use in making sense of the paper's splash? Going by an understanding of local politics, the answer is obviously the former.

In this front page, the emphasis appears to have been placed on making sure the words chosen for the headline fit within the allocated two decks, as opposed to them making grammatical sense, which is a pity for a leading daily.

'To Defend,' simply hints at somebody doing an action. So the doer of the action here is Raila, I suppose. And the headline should thus have read, 'Raila plans to defend ODM's Western turf.'

Or going by the pattern of being ambiguous, it would also have been correct if the sentence was changed to, 'Raila's plan to defend ODM's Western turf.'

And a wild interpretation would be, the paper was 'urging' Raila to plan to defend ODM's Western turf.

And this last example is just a plain massacre of the English language, and a shameful violation of the noble role of any credible mass media outlet: to communicate clearly!

Where did the Ministers sends (sic) the NHIF chairman?

MEDICAL SERVICES MINISTER SHUNS HEALTH MATTERS FOR POLITICS

Kicking someone, while they are on the ground  is universally derided. Yet Kenya's Medical Services minister, Prof. Anyang' Nyong'o invited criticism, when he opted to talk politics instead of responding to critical issues of an ailing government hospital.

Hardly a week had passed after the story of Nyong'o's battle with Prostrate Cancer was the subject of a Citizen TV news feature.

And on his return from America, where he had gone to seek 'the best' available treatment, the minister had pledged to help revamp the provision of medical care in the country, although his main thrust was the need for a national social health insurance policy.

So one would naturally have expected Nyong'o to maintain that momentum, especially in the wake of the shocking story of an overstretched and understaffed Kiambu Districts Hospital.

The allure of fighting political battles with perceived enemies however, perhaps became too strong for the Medical Services minister, such that he could comfortably call a press conference to discuss ODM party affairs at the Health Ministry head offices.

And to make matters worse, when a question was posed to him about the sorry state of the hospital in Kiambu, he brushed it aside and said  he had only planned to discuss political matters on that particular day.



Trust a politician to elevate politics over a life and death issue for many citizens, never mind their medical welfare is a significant part of Anyang' Nyong'o's ministerial docket.

The clause requiring government ministers not to be elected politicians, should perhaps have been effected immediately after the new Constitution was promulgated.