THE DON'TS AND DON'TS FOR FEMALE TELEVISION PRESENTERS

The physical appearance of a news anchor or TV show presenter can make all the difference between a viewer staying on a given channel or reaching for the remote. Importantly though, the viewer should not be distracted from what is being presented. 

It's good to try and be trendy and fashion conscious, but showing too much 'unnecessary skin' on national TV is to go overboard, in my considered opinion.

Whereas there's nothing a presenter can do about biological features, save for going for cosmetic surgery, the mode of dressing is one element that can be used to either augment or diminish the visual appeal.

The killer looks might keep those with perverted inclinations, especially men, glued to the screen, but I can almost guarantee it that an overwhelming majority will not be concentrating on what the presenter is saying.

Granted, sex appeal sells. But to what extent should this be used to drive up ratings? Isn't there a safe middle-ground, where decency is not sacrificed at the alter of driving up viewership numbers?

But there is a catch. As a TV presenter or news anchor, you can hardly ever hope to please everyone. As brilliantly reflected in the online discussion wall of the BBC:

...there is no form of dress or level of personal grooming that a presenter can follow that won't meet with criticism. If they dress nicely, they get criticized, if they dress casually they get criticized. If they comb and style their hair they get criticized, if they don't they get criticized...

It nevertheless does not mean the presenters can get away with anything, especially in an African setting, where many cultures frown upon too liberal a public dressing code. Conformity or minimal deviations from existing societal standards in this case is desirable.

There are instances, where a media organization imposes restrictions on what is an acceptable dressing code. This strictness at times becomes too much a burden for the presenters to bear, like it happened with Al Jazeera, where five female presenters quit their jobs, after being pressed to tone down their mode of dressing.

The bottom line then, I think, is to avoid extremes, when it comes to dressing for television. Much as a female presenter might want to reflect the very latest trends, what needs to be covered up, should remain covered up, to avoid looking trashy.

THE CJ NOMINEE AND HIS CHERISHED STUD: PRIVATE LIFESTYLE VS PUBLIC PERCEPTION

Dr. Willy Mutunga, courtesy of Daily Nation

Once again the local media has found itself in an awkward position. A seemingly innocuous earring that adorns the left earlobe of the man nominated to be Kenya's next Chief Justice, is causing all the rage in public debate.

Ignoring this issue on the grounds that it's trivial might seem a sensible thing for the media to do. But given the public interest generated, whether misguided or inconsequential, failing to highlight the matter, it appears, would be tantamount to taking sides and failing the neutrality or objectivity test.

Below is a sample of how this debate has been shaping up.

COVERAGE OF THE BRITISH ROYAL WEDDING: COLONIALISM VS GLOBALIZATION

For how much longer will the term colonialism be thrust upon latter-day generations of Kenyans?  According to one critic, the coverage of the recent British Royal wedding by the Kenyan media, is a reflection of our continued state of colonization. Please, replace colonialism with globalization.

Britain's Prince William and Kate Duchess of Cambridge

Despite the global fascination with the nuptials, Evan Mwangi deliberately set out to paint a black and white picture, where black represents Africa and white its past colonial masters, thereby misrepresenting the colourful regal tradition of the entire ceremony.

Visuals are a key element in television broadcasting and that partly explains why the wedding was being beamed live by all the major local channels, because the images from weddings to many people, fit the description of 'eye candy.'

As captured in an article in the online version of the Christian Science Monitor,  it is a bit ironic that Kenyans would be so interested in the wedding of a major figurehead of the very people whom they fought hard to free themselves from the yolk of colonialism.

But to consciously set out to establish how many black people were captured on television screens or how many children in the choir were black, is to say the least being narrow-minded, which perhaps even betrays just how much one is suffering from colonial hang-ups.

An estimated 2 billion people watched Prince William and Catherine Middleton tie the royal knot so what difference would it have made even if the Kenyan media boycotted covering the event as a protest to colonial injustices?

If anything, as argued by Rasna Warah, it was more of about missed opportunities to weave in the Kenyan connection to the wedding, by marketing the country as a romantic tourist destination, buoyed by the fact that it provided the setting for Prince William's proposal.

And it is a tad unconvincing for somebody earning a livelihood in a 'white man's country,' to purport to lecture his fellow Kenyans at home about how much colonized they still are.

So Prof. Mwangi's argument that the local media's fascination with the British royal wedding amounts to perpetuating colonialism is to say the least plain hot air. Regardless of our history, we are now global citizens.

FROM JAMAICA WITH PROUD SHAME: DANCEHALL LESSON FOR KENYANS

I've been to the Caribbean island of Jamaica, on a news feature assignment. Take it from me. The Jamaican dancehall music scene knows no shame. That daring lack of moral principles is what perhaps defines it. So what really did Kenyans expect to see, when a couple of Jamaican dancehall artists descended on the Nairobi entertainment scene?

Despite many of them having consciously or sub-consciously uttered the word 'Bendover' few it appeared, were prepared to see the daggering motions, heavily laden with raw sexual simulations, that have earned this breed of music notoriety.

It is however a tad ironic for the local media to castigate the organizers of this concert, as if they had just stumbled upon the goings-on in the Jamaican dancehall scene. After all, journalists had initially been denied entry into the event and had allegedly been told the show needed no coverage.

It therefore sounded ridiculous, when a variety show TV presenter in one of the local channels, introduced the Swaggeriffic concert story, by saying 80% of their footage was found to be unsuitable for screening.

Prior to the Easter show, the media should probably have tried to highlight the fact that some of these Jamaican music/dancing exports had been banned in a number of countries, including Jamaica.

And hopefully, a number of concerned organizations would have tried to petition the authorities to intervene to force the organizers to in turn compel the artists to tone down on their stage antics. 

But a number of media outlets instead, actually promoted the concert. It is only afterwards, that the same media started crying foul over 'Bent Over Morals.'

Below is a sample of the outrage generated in the social media networks, in the wake of the Swaggeriffic concert.

STORIES ABOUT PRISONERS ON TV: SO WHAT AND FOR WHAT?

Criminals behind bars. Convicted and serving jail terms, some still professing their innocence, while others showing remorse for their heinous crimes. Such stories about prisoners are now being showcased in local TV channels. For what and so what?

KTN's Case File is an outstanding attempt at demystifying Kenya's penal system and what drives human beings to fall foul of the laws of the land.

It refreshingly seeks to reconstruct past crimes, carefully piecing together details prior to, during and after the crime is committed. The other amazing thing consequently is that a substantial part of every Case File is shot on location, outside the prison walls.

But one failing in my opinion stands tall. And it has to do with the fact that the traditional 5Ws and an H are no longer the holy grail of journalism, in the absence of another increasingly important question that needs to always be answered: SO WHAT?

Why dedicate so much resources in highlighting the not so rosy past of men or women behind bars? And even where the audience get to empathize with cases where there could have been a miscarriage of justice, one still is often left asking: SO WHAT?

Moreover, you hardly get to hear the take of an expert like a social psychologist well versed in aspects of criminality, being incorporated into the segment, and clearly, the reporter cannot be taken to be a credible authority on the matters being dealt with.

Lock Down: Women Behind Bars

Citizen TV's Lock Down series suffers from the same shortcomings. The lingering question almost always remains: SO WHAT?

Other than brilliantly capturing those turning points that made women and men take the law into their own hands resulting into their incarceration, and laying bare their emotional turmoil, mental and possibly physical distress, what is the one goal the producer hopes to achieve?

Are the various cases being subjected to a retrial in the court of public opinion or is getting inside the heavily fortified correctional facilities a means to no certain end?

There is a slight chance that crime could even end up being glamourized to the point of inspiring, especially those with an impressionable mind or devilish intentions or lose integrity, into deciding on a career move centered on criminality.

And it has not been lost to many people that Case File and Lock Down bear a striking resemblance that has set off debates as to who was copying who, between KTN and Citizen. But on this one, I fully concur with Robert Niles, when he states:

"No one outside of the field of journalism cares if you consider your reporting more original or more worthy than others' collection of information. They only care if your reporting delivers them more value than what those others offer. And the readers will make that decision for themselves, thank you very much."     

More value to the audience, for me, translates to answering the magical query: SO WHAT?

WHY THE MEDIA NEEDS TO DO MORE IN HIGHLIGHTING THE HIGH COST OF LIVING

Different circumstances same need

Great anger is gradually building up in Kenya, over the escalating cost of living. Whereas both traditional and social media have given this issue ample coverage, such is the nature of distress spreading in the country that the media needs to do more than just highlighting the problem.

Already, streets protests, like what is happening in Uganda, are being contemplated, at the very least, to try and elicit some useful or far reaching response from the Kenyan government.

It is an outright violation of the rights of the citizens the state is bound to protect, if the usual taxation levels apply on essential commodities and yet the government has the capacity to cushion its people through subsidizing basic necessities, by forgoing or reducing their due taxes.

And the local media too, in my opinion, needs to go beyond just reporting how the public is suffering. The hardships aside, this is one of those rare moments, when the press can unite and jointly campaign for the reversal of the dire situation.

If it was possible for the media outlets to carry the banner headline, 'Save our Beloved Country,' at the height of the 2007/8 post election crisis in Kenya, then I don't see why the same energy cannot be dedicated to pressing the government to take urgent remedial measures.

As depicted below, using Storify, the writing is on the mind of many Kenyans.

FREEING THE MEDIA OF POLITICIANS AND THEIR BAG OF POLY-TRICKS

The mass media is a very powerful tool. Leave it in the wrong hands or fill it with parochial content, and all manner of trouble will most likely be let loose. That's why every credible media outlet needs to be wary of publicity-seeking politicians. There's always almost an embedded self-interest they wish to propagate, whenever they make public pronouncements.

Six 'prominent' Kenyans honoured summonses to appear before the International Criminal Court, in the Hague, Netherlands. So whichever way you choose to look at them, they remain suspected masterminds of the2007/2008  post-election violence.

Yet, sections of the local media seem to backbench this fact and unwittingly fail to realize that  according the suspects the sort of hyped coverage they have provided, in a way helps to negate the gravity and severity of the alleged crimes the Ocampo Six are being accused of committing.

So while thousands of Internally Displaced Persons continue to languish in squalid living conditions in tented camps, the public is inundated with live TV coverage of the arrival of two of the Ocampo Six habouring presidential ambitions.

And too add injury to insults, the local media then put their resources at the disposal and pleasure of the Suspects, in their so-called prayer rally, welcoming, homecoming or whatever misleading title the organizers had come up with.

Tellingly, as it has repeatedly been pointed out, it is a wonder that on a normal working day, thousands of people could still find time to be part of the purported  'show of might' by the Suspects. Think of the wasted man-hours, even if they fall on the idle side of the occupation scale.

But the tragedy is made complete by a neutered local media, which seems to have abandoned its allegiance to the public, in favour of politicians and their bag of poly-tricks.