KENYAN ROOTS, JAMAICAN SINGER, AND A NON-EXISTENT SONG

Doing a background check before writing a news story, should be an easy task. Supporting facts can now be sourced conveniently in this digital age, where the Internet is a living and ever-growing library. That's why it's hardly believable that a Kenyan newspaper can't distinguish between a song, and a son of a famous Jamaican singer.

In the article above, the writer tries to enrich and provide a wider context in the recent visit to Jamaica by the Kenyan president.

The coverage is woven around the historical struggle for freedom from colonialism by the East African nation, and the influence of independence proponents from the Caribbean island.

And no reference to Jamaica is complete without mentioning its pulsating reggae industry, which is relevantly captured in this article, given how its global music icons have been committed to the struggle against social, economic and political injustices.

Evidently, a lot of research went into piecing together this newspaper story, so it's a bit mind-boggling why the writer and sub-editor would mess up on the details around the life and music of such a recognised music legend like Bob Marley.

I'm not entirely sure if there's a linguistic connection between the name, 'Kimani' from Central Kenya, and the 'Kymani' with Jamaican roots.

But what I know, and what the writer and editor of the article ought to be aware of, is that Ky-mani is Bob Marley's son, not one of the songs from his impressive repertoire.

Please beware, an enlightened reader is not ready to sell their intelligence for a song!

100% VALUE ADDED NEWSPAPER INACCURACY

The cost of living in Kenya, it is now widely feared, might be about to get dangerously close to being unbearable. And the local media has been firmly locked on highlighting this issue, as the country awaits a decision by the president on a critical piece of legislation. But this pressing matter it appears, is now even confounding the press. The result is 100% value added inaccuracy.

After consistently reporting on the merits and demerits of the president assenting to the Finance Bill 2018, it's a bit surprising to see an article in the mainstream media that is seemingly out of touch with the basics of this major story.

This in turn could easily leave the reader as 'confused' as the said newspaper.

To begin with, does anyone have a clue as to what exactly the 'VAT Bill' captured in the above headline is referring to?

There has been widespread coverage of the calls to shield citizens from high fuel prices, courtesy of a 16% Value Added Tax on petroleum products that came into effect at the beginning of September.

Pressure has thus been mounting on the president to assent to the Finance Bill, which has a clause suspending the implementation of the VAT on fuel.

Then suddenly, this article audaciously turns the facts around!

My head is still spinning from this spin-off.

OF EDITORIAL INPUT, ADDING SALT AND AN INSULT

Screaming headlines often do a good job of amplifying whispered points in a newspaper article. The main objective may well be to spark further debate. But at times, it appears like the editorial input extends to adding salt or an insult, to drive the point way past home.

In the headline above, what exactly is the intention? To question the abilities of the subject in question?

Or does it also want to raise the possibility of the subject having personal attributes that don't augur well with the management of a public office?

I'm not sure any of these purported observations could entirely be within the confines of fair comment.

This kind of scrutiny of a public officer could also be crossing the line that offers a private individual protection from undue ridicule and public disaffection.

You can question the performance of bestowed duties, but personalising the attack may be wandering away from serving public interest, and result in being served with a lawsuit.

An offensive sentence could yield a sentence!

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.

KENYA ELECTION: MEDIA HITS, MISHITS AND MISFITS

It's been a grueling last few days in Kenya, in yet another competitive General Election. The actual polling day was remarkably smooth, with only a few challenges. Then came the tallying of votes and all manner of electoral malpractice allegations started to be thrown around. The media had a difficult task of verifying information. But in the end, a winner was officially declared.

Covering the election as a journalist is not an easy affair. The pressure to deliver timely and factual content is almost unbearable.

Many local newsrooms were on a long-haul mode, interspersing live updates from main studios, with live links to reporters scattered across Kenya.

All manner of political analysts and pseudo-experts were also accorded acres of space and copious airtime to either showcase their grasp of issues, or 'regale' the audience with their ignorance.

And not many people were satisfied with the media coverage.

I, too, had many a cue cringe moments, especially when rookie TV reporters had their on-screen moment of fame, (or is it infamy?), or when the calibre of questions being fielded at pressers came off as a tad elementary.

In all fairness though, the media did not utterly disappoint.

There's always room for improvement, but there were positives to build on. And that's my point!

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!

THE MEDIA, COMPREHENSION BURDEN AND EGGS ON THE MILITARY

Let's assume I don't know. And I don't try to do some research because the search for an answer may leave more questions unanswered. The media should lighten the comprehension burden, especially for the not so enlightened readers, trying to figure out the link between a presidential visit, eggs, and the military.

We get the fact that the Kenyan president visiting the country's troops on the battlefront in Somalia, is historic.

We also expect this to be a huge morale booster to the soldiers.

We wouldn't be surprised if critics conclude this was a publicity stunt.

But from a headline that states:

Uhuru in historic Somalia visit, eggs on the military

...What are the chances of the average reader understanding what the sub-editor wanted to communicate?

Some brains could be fried, (think eggs).

The message may appear scrambled, (think eggs again).

And whether boiled or poached, (sorry, eggs again please), I sincerely hope this particular media outlet does not delight in seeing members of its audience with, (one last time), egg on their face!

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!

CUE DOUBLE DOSE OF SAME INFORMATION, CUE AUDIENCE DOZE OFF

The Kenyan president makes an address to the nation, broadcast live in all major channels, during which changes in his administration are announced. The event ends less than half an hour to prime time news bulletins. Then, newscasts lead with a lengthy recap of the presidential briefing. This double dose of identical information is a cue for the audience to doze off.

Is the news significant? Oh yes, very important. Must it be re-aired in its original format and the content of the presidential address regurgitated on an ' as is where is' basis, so soon after the live broadcast?

Yes...in the land of dead journalistic analysis and media allergies to interpretative value addition on information being conveyed.

But that's not to say you lose focus on the fact that TV is a visual medium.

So having a news presenter on a prolonged solo talking spree makes it hard to distinguish between facts and personal opinion.

It is hard to imagine that within one hour, local channels weren't able to line up analysts or experts to interrogate the Cabinet reshuffle, despite big hints that major changes were in the offing.

And if all fails, even in-house 'editorial authorities' can be roped in to broaden the discussion, as opposed to the tiring studio monologues.

It's important for a news story to be taken forward. And the media can be proactive in seeking to raise and find answers to the 'so what' question.

That 'lazy' newsroom pattern of waiting for reactions a day after, ought to be discarded.

That's why it was so refreshing to see one of the channels airing a Cabinet Secretary nominee's initial thoughts, shortly afterwards.

Those visuals came from Europe...

...And you want the audience to think it's impossible to get a relevant comment from the neighbourhood?

EXIT WATCHDOG, ENTER PRESIDENCY, MEDIA AND MENTORSHIP

In Journalism, we have news sources, usually being pursued by the media, for the benefit of the public. This balance should not be needlessly upset, even if the intention is to be creative in news delivery. If a section of the local media asks the Kenyan presidency for mentorship, it raises non-public interest issues, as the watchdog role exits the stage.

Creativity in the news media is a much welcomed addition. It makes the stories memorable. It could also make the issues being addressed to stand out. But the fundamental and distinct role of the news media should not be compromised in the process.

Getting within the earshot of Kenya's president used to be such a massive achievement, and the few brave journalists, who managed to do so, most probably have framed pictures of that encounter, as a mark of their career accomplishments.

The best I could do was ask a former president a direct question, (from a safe distance at State House Nairobi), which never got answered anyway.

So I can imagine the thrill of an up close one-on-one interview with the Head of State.

But it should not escape the attention of a journalist doing a news story, that a line ought to be drawn between doing a professional job and being caught up in the moment, (perceived fame and beckoning fortune notwithstanding).

Imagine a young CNN reporter getting invited to the White House and asking President Obama to be his mentor. Or a BBC reporter asking Cameron the same, at 10 Downing Street. Just imagine a young journalist at State House in Harare, asking Mugabe....

...Okay...hey....let's not get carried away.

As the Executive exudes patronage, so does the media watchdog role begin to exit.

OF MEDIA SIDE STEPS AND STEPPING ASIDE

Names have been dropped impulsively, after Kenyan President, Uhuru Kenyatta, asked those implicated in a graft report to step aside, pending investigations. But what does stepping aside mean? Resigning, being suspended or waiting for the storm to quieten? No one seems to be sure, meaning even the media could be making side steps in their reportage.

And the local media could hardly contain the itch to share the supposed juicy details of who could be a prime suspect in the Ethics and Anti Corruption Commission report, in spite of a proper parliamentary process of disclosing such matters being in place, (delays notwithstanding).

It will be interesting to compare the information hurriedly released, with what will actually come out through the formal or official channels.

Only then will it be possible to say whether such a reaction was fast and furious in the public interest, or swift and spurious to merely interest the public.

BANE OF A BACKWARD LOOKING KENYAN MEDIA: SEE ICC

The Kenyan Constitution is widely and readily available. Yet, despite all manner of legal experts interviewed in the local press and frequently brought into TV news studios, no journalist or media house in the country, could make a wild guess as to what Uhuru Kenyatta's final move would be, ahead of his ICC summons. That is the bane of a backward looking, clueless Kenyan media.

The press, in this part of the world, chooses to be 'shocked' alongside the consumers of the information it distributes.

The media specialization it seems, is in churning out hordes of stories and endless analysis, exploring every available new angle, but only after a story has 'broken' then literally bombarding the audience with excessive information.

It might be a long shot, but I strongly believe that a closer look at the country's Constitution, 'ably' aided by the input of legal minds and 'all-knowing' analysts, should have made one gem of a journalist out there, consider the possibility of Kenyatta invoking Article 147 of the Constitution.

Yes. Thank you for the reminder. I'm part of this massive failure.

It's no wonder that national Agenda Setting is a very minor role of the local media, which lives and thrives on purveying the interests of political or commercial forces, camouflaged as public interest.

There's simply no capacity being invested in, to strategically empower the media to be able to see what's coming, ahead of the rest of the country.

At least it should be 'comforting' to know that if calamity strikes, the local media and its audiences will all be terribly caught unprepared.

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.

WHEN STATE MEETS MEDIA: PUBLIC INTEREST OR SELF-INTEREST?

The Executive. The Media. Are they sworn enemies or just sore partners? Do they check each other's excesses? Or is their agenda set to actually check out and perhaps cheque in? A recent meeting between Kenya's president and various media editors, offered some clues.

It appears their is genuine mutual suspicion between the presidency and the press.

But, there is also a strong feeling that both the government and the media need each other.

Both are alive to the fact that they can use their respective position to either enhance and add value to their interaction, or covertly subvert each other's interests.

And, given an opportunity, journalists can momentarily deviate from the path of professionalism and pursue the route of platitudes, in the remote hope of reaping favours, good standing or simple recognition, from those in power.

The government similarly, can deliberately extend a friendly hand to the media, to indirectly influence or solicit a favourable coverage.

Caught in between this ambivalent relationship is the public, which ironically is supposed to be the main beneficiary of a vibrant media and a robust government.

How then is the Kenyan public supposed to perceive the 'historic' meeting between the country's top leadership and the media? Should it be jealous that the attention has shifted away from it, and subsequently jeopardising the public interest?

Or is this a sign of an elevated strategy to keep the priority firmly locked on due deliverables to the public, since both the state and the media are 'joining' hands?

Either way, it is my belief that the import of the meeting between the editors and the country's leaders, will be measured, not by what each side stands to directly gain, but by how much it translates into uplifting the welfare of Kenyans.

FLIGHT OF FANCY AND THE TV NEWS FALLACY

An outstanding performance caught the eye of the President of Kenya. This resulted in a massive change of fortunes for the young man, courtesy of the President's generosity. But a subsequent TV news fallacy seemed to suggest that any fine dramatist, could have similarly elicited the same response, from Uhuru Kenyatta.

The TV news item sets off by depicting how a gifted young dramatist was denied the opportunity to showcase his talent to the Head of State. In all fairness, that 'cruel' omission was irregular, given that the boy was part of a  presentation that had won big in the National Schools and Drama Festival.

This, it appears, and going by traditional practice, should have resulted in a direct ticket to perform before Kenya's President. But for some unexplained reasons, that invite didn't come from the organizers of the state function.

But the reporter weaved the story to also 'insinuate' that had the aforementioned boy been allowed to perform before the President, he could possibly have been the beneficiary of Uhuru's reward.

And this is based on the self-made assessment that the boy was a better performer, when it comes to matters of the stage, when he compares himself with the star performer, who charmed the President's heart and pockets.

If this is not a flight of fancy, then I don't know what is. But it's definitely a TV news fallacy, because there's no way to prove that the President would have been predisposed to be equally, or more impressed by any other performer, to the point of bequeathing the same financial reward.

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.

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.