MEDIA MISMATCH, LOCAL NEWS AND CONTINENTAL TITLES

Influential people often get extensively featured in the media. Politicians definitely get more than their fair share of coverage. A number of such Kenyan leaders have multiple roles and attendant titles. Is it too much to ask that when captioning such personalities, their identities be put in the relevant context? Continental titles in a local news setup is clearly a mismatch.

It's all good to recognise important roles or status of newsmakers, and in the process, also help a viewer to appreciate why the views of the person appearing on TV are significant.

A Special Envoy of the African Union in a broadcast, is likely to add value and also help sustain attention in a news story.

But how is this even remotely related to...wait... not even a national matter...but a very local county governance issue?

The editorial competence on display here, I suspect, is suspect!

FIGURATIVE WHIP AND LITERAL WHIPPING

Information is most effective if its shared in a way that directly makes sense to the intended audience. That's why the media ought to communicate in a clear and simple manner. If the words deployed in an article are ambiguous, it could lead to an unintended interpretation. Whipping figuratively could conjure images of weeping, after a literal whipping.

That's why the use of jargon is especially discouraged, where the context is not immediately familiar to everyone.

For those aware of parliamentary procedures, the headline above makes no allusion to legislators being 'flogged' so as to follow a particular political inclination.

There could, however, be a group of 'clueless' readers, who would proudly profess their ignorance on matters politics or the conduct of parliamentary business.

Indeed, someone could have been made to believe that Kenya's former Prime minister assaulted Members of Parliament using a whip, to dissuade them from abandoning a political line.

But the whip needs to be cracked on ambiguous headlines!

ELECTION PETITION AND PARTITIONED MEDIA COVERAGE

Kenyans are awaiting the verdict from the Supreme Court, after a marathon of court hearings. There are two main political sides in the presidential election petition. It thus looks mighty suspicious, when a section of the press chooses to give prominence to one side, without openly having declared any allegiance, beforehand.

The placing of the story above could easily create the impression that the selected party is the one that matters the most.

The content for the other side in this dispute can only be accessed by turning the page, in this particular publication.

And whereas the headline of the 'preferred' article has proper attribution, the other one is kept vague, almost as if it's taboo to make a direct reference to the petitioning side.

Notice too, the picture selection in one story depicts a lawyer engrossed in arguing the case, wheres in the other, we see senior opposition politicians concentrating more on their phones.

Gladly though, this apparent bias was note elevateldy reversed in the rival daily, as is 'normally' the case.

Articles of both sides in this dispute are placed next each other, (try and ignore which side comes first).

The treatment of this important story by the press perhaps would potentially affect how a particular media outlet is treated by the side that emerges victorious.

My lords and ladyships, it is my humble submission though, that it's in the public's interest for the press to accord balanced coverage in this electoral dispute.

NEWS SLANT, SKEWED OBJECTIVITY AND PRETENTIOUS PRESS NEUTRALITY

Biases in media coverage can be subtle. They can also be very blatant. During this electioneering period in Kenya, the press is trying to project some semblance of balance, in the coverage of various political camps. But such pretentious neutrality becomes evident, once in a while. The news slant translates to skewed objectivity.

Notice how similar disruptions in two campaign rallies were accorded different headlines in the two leading dailies in Kenya.

Each paper appears keen to limit embarrassing it's 'preferred' presidential candidate.

In other words, one paper gets to be nice to the political establishment, and very liberal in giving prominence to negative aspects of the opposition.

And the other dishes the reverse treatment across the political divide.

So, it's like the country's main dailies have entered an election coverage pact, either between themselves, or with their political affiliates.

It will be interesting to find out if the dividends of this arrangement are political or purely commercial!

FRESH DISAPPOINTMENT AND NEWSPAPERS PEDDLING STALE NEWS

The pace at which news is produced is now remarkably faster, because the work of journalists is greatly supplemented by ordinary citizens, and the digital space also demands frequent updates of posted stories. This means traditional media outlets ought to figure a way of taking significant stories forward, to remain relevant. Newspapers peddling stale news are a fresh disappointment.

So, a prominent Kenyan politician is taken ill and predictably all the major papers have this story on their front page.

The different editorial teams, it appears, had the same motivation of milking dry this unfortunate development, to whet the readers' appetite and possibly shore up sales.

Back to the content though, and one story conjures up a number of scenarios, according to the assigned headlines.

The opposition politician either is:

- still admitted in hospital due to food poisoning

- still unwell at the time of publication of the story

- out of danger after being treated for food poisoning

The date of publication of this story is Thursday 9th March 2017, the same day that the key subject was reassuring the country about his health!

Hear ye...Hear ye...!

- The former prime minister fell in on Tuesday 7th March 2017.

-  He was discharged from hospital on Wednesday 8th March 2017.

Is this an admittance of failure to get this story when it was still hot?

And if the information was released late, and privacy issues were at play, should the story still have dominated the headlines, so belatedly?

With almost all major media outlets having an online first policy, when it comes to pushing stories to the audience, it's mighty odd for this story to be prominently retold in retrospect in the dailies.

But you've got to respect the resolve to cash in on a 'freshly squeezed' juicy stale story!

POLITICIANS, MEDIA OWNERSHIP AND NEUTERED NEUTRALITY

It has been argued before that news coverage neutrality is likely to be neutered, where media ownership is linked to politicians. Editorial independence and putting public interest first comes a distant second to proprietary interests. And this is coming to the fore as Kenya navigates through an electioneering period. 

The bias can be oh so subtle. But the media owner's influence can also be elaborately projected.

In this newspaper front page, there is an obvious attempt to offer a balanced coverage of the ruling and opposition coalitions.

What is not so evident, is the calculated placement of the articles.

The splash has a prominent person/party of immense interest (from the paper's perspective), and an accompanying big image to underscore the 'special' treatment.

A pseudo-sidebar story, is then thrown on the periphery of the front page, where chances of eyeballs landing are deliberately diminished

But directly below it comes the clever stuff.

What comes to mind when the averagely educated person comes across the acronym NASA?

Something to do with space exploration right?

In what could either be a mockery of Kenya's main opposition outfit, or a crafty political masterstroke, what is placed in close proximity to the NASA article is a strategic deviation to:

"Seven new planets with water discovered"

Yes. Astronomy.

If you think this is a mere coincidence, enjoy your flight of fancy!

MEDIA SCHOLARS INADEQUACIES, FEMALE BASHING AND A MALE REDEMPTION

Finally. The beginning of what could raise the bar a little bit, when interrogating the workings of the Kenyan media and the coverage of topical issues. A lonely voice in the urban jungle had bemoaned the inadequacies of media scholars appearing on local TV,  in adding value to debates. And the topics don't often come hotter than the presidential ambitions of one politician.

The supposed findings of an opinion poll raised all shades of a social and mainstream media storm, by suggesting it was time for the opposition maverick to throw in the political towel, according to the 'measured' perceptions.

It had been intimated that my previous criticism of a frequent panelist in a media review show, was an affront to hard-fought gender-based accomplishments.

I suppose the fact that I'm now celebrating the addition of a more refined intellectual input, from a 'representative' of the male order, further adds to that injury.

But really, the cold fact is that I'm basing my observations from nothing more than the articulation of issues on national TV, without a care whether the brain output is male or female.

I thoroughly enjoyed watching this particular debate, especially when such terms as 'Socratic' were being carelessly thrown around.

That is the extra dimension a scholar is supposed to provide, so that studio discussions are enriched by meaningful comparative analogies and wider contextualization of emerging scenarios, for a broader global outlook.

But unlike the postulation of the good professor, in tearing apart the now controversial opinion poll, I hope no one argues I started this post with a sinister ending in mind!

PROMINENCE, DIVISIVE POLITICS AND A DIVIDED PRESS

Divisive politics is generally frowned upon by the Kenyan media. It does,  however, appear like the press has divided political loyalty. And if one cuts through the pretentious projection of editorial neutrality, a disturbing underlying political bias is likely to be encountered. That's how angling of a story and apportioning of prominence can be so divisive.

One paper decides to scream out an admonishment by the government directed at the opposition, in the context of a 'snubbed' invitation to a national day celebration.

Granted, an invitation to the ceremony was not honoured.

And probably, some people can impute this to be disrespectful to the Head of State.

Another paper though, provides a different perspective, that prominently explains the absence of the opposition, in the national day event.

It's as if Paper 2 is deliberately trying to undo any potential political damage emanating from what Paper 1 has published.

Or Paper 1 is deliberately trying to downplay the point being amplified by Paper 2.

Yet somehow, readers are supposed to rise above divisive politics, because a divided press says so!

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.

MEDIA MENACE OF PERSONALISED PUBLIC INTERESTS

Issue-based politics. That's a favourite media catchphrase, often thrown around during election campaigns. But personalities in political circles, do drive the Kenyan media agenda, after all. That's why a serious graft allegation can be packaged as a clash between rival politicians. It's a growing media menace of personalised public interests.

Prominence, no doubt, is a strong determiner of newsworthiness. But should the personalities involved be accorded premium attention, and the weighty matters at hand pushed to the periphery?

A healthy balance would be a more sensible approach, although given a choice, I would prefer the media to consistently dwell more on issues afflicting the nation, than reducing their coverage into personality contests or political duels.

But a press that puts a premium on commercial interests would readily justify having supposedly feuding top politicians in the headlines.

So politician A dares politician B one day. Then politician B responds to the threats by politician A the following day.

And this sickening developing story continues...possibly drawing sustenance from the sustained media coverage.

Is it any wonder then that the Kenyan corruption dragon has been regularly slaying those seeking to put out the fire in its belly?

The direction the press will take has become predictable and it's no longer hard to discern if the local media is getting too involved in proxy wars, without keeping a professional distance from the players/politicians involved.

The way to public interest is far away from personalising issues!

FROM JET SETTING TO AGENDA SETTING: HOW TO NEUTER KENYAN MEDIA

Agenda setting is an often forgotten role of the media in Kenya. The bigger emphasis is mostly on entertaining news, at times cleverly disguised as being educative or informative. The watchdog role shines through once in a while, but has not been proved to be immune from external or even internal interference. Local journalist thus delight in having a news agenda pre-set for them.

This probably explains the spectacle that was witnessed, during the coverage of the return of Kenya's former Prime minister, after his sojourn in America.

The local press was awash with details of the 'highly anticipated' return, prior to and after the event.

And right on cue, what the former premier spoke about has continued to dominate the local news agenda, days later.

Is there not the slightest of chance that the local media, in it's seldomly donned agenda setting garb, could have picked up on the need for national dialogue, or must this only have originated from the political sphere?

If indeed there is need for such dialogue across the political divide, it's Kenyans who will continue to suffer from the political posturing that has since ensued, which represents another missed opportunity for the press to drive the national agenda.

But the real tragedy for local journalists, is being caught up in the whole hero-worshipping of politicians malaise.

The first paragraph in the article above states that:

"...a group of journalists also eagerly awaited Kenya's leader of official Opposition to say a few wise words."

Eagerly...Wise words! Has there been an empirical study that solidly established that this politician always speaks wise words, before a newspaper editor hazards such a 'highly educated' guess?

Wisen up scribes. Don't ascribe what's not. Just describe what is.

HIGH ROAD TO POLITICAL OBLIVION & THE POLITICS OF REINCARNATION

Is the Kenyan electoral process a winner takes all? No. There's a high premium attached to competitive politics. A strong Opposition will make the government of the elected President to be more accountable. But the country's laws could force the main election losers to take the high road to political oblivion. Cue in the politics of reincarnation.

Following their election defeat, there is genuine concern that the former Prime Minister and former Vice President could be destined for political obscurity, despite the coalition they lead, very much constituting the Official Opposition.

But is that good or bad for Kenya?

Below is a sample of the opinions going round on the social media ground.

OF PEACEFUL POLLS, ELECTORAL INJUSTICE & THE KENYAN MEDIA

In the just concluded General Election, should the Kenyan media have put more emphasis on a peaceful process or a just one? Ideally, both would have been equally desirable. But, it appears, peace got more media attention. Tough luck for those citing injustices in the electoral process.

But injustices, thankfully, can now be pursued in the corridors of justice. But as for peace, there's no telling what could happen if that is no longer obtainable. With hindsight, though, Kenyans have a pretty ugly idea of what that could entail.

So, should the local press be demonised for putting a higher premium on peace campaigns and deliberately shielding their audience from potentially destabilising statements from politicians?

Isn't it so much better that even after the announcement of the election results, those aggrieved have an opportunity to seek credible legal redress, as opposed to their supporters pouring out in the streets and causing mayhem?

It is easy, especially for those, who never experienced first-hand, the effects of the flawed 2007 presidential election in Kenya, to castigate the local media's collective decision to trod on the safe path of 'patriotic journalism.'

Granted, it might be true, as argued by Michela Wrong that:

The Kenyan media's self-restraint reveals a society terrified by its own capacity of violence

But I applaud this decision because even in the face of disagreements about the poll results, the country is holding together. Kenyans are taking this electoral dispute in their stride, the polarising public discourse notwithstanding.

Moreover, it's hard to believe that Wrong missed the irony of the CORD team claiming it was being denied media coverage. She laments that:

Television broadcasts of Odinga's announcement that he would challenge the outcome of the election before the Supreme Court switched to Uhuru's acceptance speech before the Q. and A. with Odinga had even begun.

But none other than the owner of Kenya's most popular media outlet, sits in the coalition's top political organ and was present at this very same media briefing.

Is the so defined preoccupation with peace an illusion? Nicholas Benequista postulates that:

Kenyan media cannot forever remain a polite space where differences are swept under the rug to be replaced by a consensually agreed (rather than imposed) agenda of nationalistic propaganda.

This, in my opinion, is debatable. I would rather the media elects to have divisive or inciting elements kept away from public domain, than e.g., 'irresponsibly' broadcast people being attacked after being pulled out of a public transport vehicle, like it happened during the 2007/2008 post election violence.

The Kenyan media should not be unduly faulted for proactively seeking to foster peace, because being reactionary and desperately calling for peace, when the country is already burning, is no longer tenable.

On this account, the local media's self-censorship, can be directly linked to the country's self-preservation.

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!!!

CAN KARUA OVERCOME THE MEDIA BIAS?

What will it take for Martha Karua's presidential campaign to be accorded favourable media coverage? Is she not worthy of a slice of the prominence the press dishes out, disguised as objective coverage? And is it a coincidence that the leading politicians in the seemingly predictable opinion polls, also regularly get copious media attention?

On 30th September 2012, for example, majority of the politicians were captured in the media, selling their political agenda, which translates to 95% pure rhetoric, inundated with promises to do this or the other, if the electorate votes for them.

But Karua, the Narc Kenya presidential, was visiting the Pumwani Maternity Hospital. She not only gave a statement on the on-going strike by doctors, but also cleared the fees for some mothers.

Definitely, it can be argued that this was a calculated public relations stunt and the Kenyan media houses did not fall for that trap. But nevertheless, how can this noble act be relegated to a mere by-the way-mention, ensconced in a round-up of other 'weightier' political stories of the day?

I am not trying to agitate for fair coverage on behalf of the Karua campaign team. I am just pointing out my misgivings about how the local media is inadvertently propping up certain politicians, at the expense of others, on a not so objective platform.

It would be a different matter if, say a media house is to declare their support or endorsement of a particular presidential aspirant, and then proceed to give him or her coverage ad nauseam.

But it is foolhardy to do the same, while pretending to be non-affiliated to any political party, and still expect Kenyans not to see through the media charade.

MIGUNA SQUARED: THE BOON, THE BANE & THE BANAL

A book released recently is causing a storm in Kenya. The author makes some very unflattering 'revelations' about the Kenyan Prime minister, which are energetically being 'rebutted.' But it no longer is about the author and the senior politician, or his handlers. The whole nation seems to have been caught up in the ensuing cyclic brouhaha.

Mainstream and social media, blogs and other online platforms, are inundated with various shades of reactions. Check this out:

RELIGION: THE NEXT FRONTIER OF TRIBALISM

A sacking in the Kenyan Cabinet has precipitated a fallout that has sucked in religion into the already dirty field that is politics. The trend has for a long time been to link top political appointments to ethnic or tribal extractions of the beneficiaries. So is religion the next frontier of tribalism?

My belief is that if one deliberately sets out to pin-point instances of tribalism, one is going to encounter so many cases of the same. Why? If you are looking at the world with tribal lenses, all you will see is tribalism everywhere.

And therein lies the danger of dragging religion into this dangerous way of playing politics. Beware. Be warned.

CRITICISING THE CRITIC AND THE BEAUTY OF BALANCE

If you remember the lion story, (or the song about it), there's my side, your side and then the truth. Interrogating this truth is a key function of the media. And that is why a balance of opposing views is such a major pillar of journalism. So is Jeff Koinange on a political mission?

Well, according to seasoned journalist Sarah Elderkin, the host of K24's Capital Talk appears particularly 'hell-bent' on creating the impression that Prime Minster Raila Odinga had a hand in the International Criminal Court cases against Kenyans.

In a newspaper article, she asserts that Jeff is using his TV show to deliberately paint Raila in negative light, and even suggests the host could be manipulating his guests, in order to achieve his 'sinister objectives.'

Irrespective of who between Sarah and Jeff is on the wrong side of the truth or fairness, this in my opinion, is a very welcome discussion and quite refreshing.

I would love to see more critical analysis of TV programmes or even news bulletins in national newspapers, and similarly, incisive review of newspaper stories in the electronic media.

The way Sarah delves into the very details of Jeff's interview with Miguna Miguna for example, is outstandingly beautiful, whether she could be out to defend Raila's honour notwithstanding.

Narrowing down the focus to individual questions and their responses brings out possible undertones that probably were not so apparent, when viewing that particular episode on TV.

I would love to see Jeff Koinange inviting Sarah Elderkin on the bench, for a verbal sparring session, informed by whether or not Capital Talk has a hidden political agenda.