OF A NEWSPAPER ERROR AND ETERNAL HORROR

In live news broadcasts, things can go terribly wrong, even after meticulous planning. However, there's always a predetermined cause of action that can be set in motion, to save the situation. But a newspaper publisher can only watch in horror, as an error remains in view for like an eternity. 

In the newspaper page above, what could have gone wrong?

• The printer encountered technical challenges that could not be resolved within the set publishing deadlines
• It was discovered very late during the publishing or editorial process that some content of this page had 'life-threatening' risks, and had to be blocked by all, or any means
• An insider was paid to sabotage the work of the affected columnists
• It was the newspaper's way of showing solidarity with the racial injustice protests, across the world

The earliest some clarification could be made by the publisher is the following day, whilst the reader would probably desire a more immediate understanding of the actual reason behind this anomaly.

Poor print media...richness in ways to save face...when calamity strikes...is beyond reach!

That's a luxury reserved for broadcasting, where editorial or technical challenges can be addressed almost instantaneously.

In a TV newscast, the director can take a commercial or go to a break, to buy time and reorganise, in the event that the program experiences challenges. 

Actually, the viewer might not even notice there's something wrong, unless the screen goes blank for more than 3 seconds or so.

For online or digital news outlets, mistakes can be rectified as soon as they are spotted, and apologies published thereafter.

For print media, some editorial or technical errors, indeed, can seem like horrors frozen in time.

EDITORIAL SABOTAGE: THE MAKING OF MISTAKES WHILE CORRECTING MISTAKES

That editorial blunders abound in Kenyan mainstream newspapers is indisputable. English language deficiencies are regularly on display. But at times, one wonders if some mistakes actually emanate from acts of sabotage, by those tasked with cleaning copy, before publication. How else can one explain mistakes in an article correcting other mistakes?

The situation is difficult to understand, because the author of the article is one of the most accomplished senior journalists in the country.

And he is widely renowned for smoking out poorly written newspaper articles.

His grasp of the inner workings of global languages is authoritative and impeccable.

He can convincingly argue that the Indo-European question mark symbol, is etymologically linked to the mid-14th century fish hook, found in the Great Lakes region.

It is thus very surprising that this particular veteran can make careless spelling mistakes.

And more so, in a newspaper article deeply entrenched in his characteristic didactic role.

Drawing from his long experience in the industry, he had once again embarked on enlightening readers, writers and editors alike, on proper deployment of English language elements, to express intended meanings.

But unbelievably, this is what assaults the eyes:

...But note that the word aircract has no plural form. Except in the pages of one notorious Nairobi newspaper, there are no such things as aircracts. Aircract remain aircract (without an "s" at the end)...

All I can say is:

I Accuse the Press!

OF CRITIC, CRITIQUE, CRITICISM AND CRITICISING

He's an authority, when it comes to matters to do with language: from origin to modern usage of English, Nilotic, Germanic, Indo-European...and practically any tongue under, or even below the sun. So, when he's criticising, its hard to find fault in the critic, his critique and brand of criticism.

But one thing that Philip Ochieng excels in (etymological or otherwise), is confusing, especially the not so erudite members of his audience, (feel really free to include me in that category).

In his moving tribute to the late Professor William Ochieng, the renowned Kenyan journalist sought to clarify the positive impact of his 'literary attacks' of the historian. He says:

"...to criticise need not be the same thing as to denigrate and to degrade."

I immediately thought there was a contradiction there. To criticise denotes something negative right? The folks at Oxford dictionary even define it as:

"...indicate the faults of (someone or something) in a disapproving way."

Hang on. To criticise can also mean:

"...form and express a judgement of (a literary or artistic work

Still, there's a sense of negativity about the word criticise. And yet Philip Ochieng goes ahead to say:

"...criticism can function positively...."

My conclusion is that, the point Philip Ochieng is trying to drive home should have been better expressed, using a neutral word like critique, and not criticise, (criticism is fine, don't be quick to criticise).

And had it not been that the newspaper article was penned by the 'Philip Ochieng Institution' I would have straight away faulted the paper's editor, for choosing the wrong word to express the right context.

There is ample backup to suspect the daily's editor. Another article in the same paper, has a footnote saying the writer comments on 'typical issues' as opposed to 'topical' ones.

One other article did stir some intense interest in me. Another famous author David Mailu, was making a passionate appeal for Kenya's most recognised literary export, Ngugi wa Thiong'o, to return to his home country, from his American academic base.

FLASHBACK!

The main argument of this 2014 article, is exactly the same as what I had postulated in my very first published article, in the then People Weekly newspaper.

And the year was....1995!!!

Somebody get me a walking stick please.