Don’t mess with a good thing: Kenya’s inconsistent media

The law professor peered over his glasses and began to read. The statement in front of him described the decay of Kenya’s criminal justice system in clear and unequivocal terms that left no doubt the individuals responsible in government. In case there was, the law professor named them and clarified each official’s responsibility.

What Professor Philip Alston said that early evening in February 2009, had been said before. Usually in doses and focusing on a particular issue. The Australian law professor, little known to the Kenyan public before then, pulled together all the elements and because he was speaking as a United Nations independent rapporteur; what he said mattered. It even emboldened the crime reporters who normally write the police version of events with minimal counter-views to keep their sources happy and the exclusive information flowing. This time, though, they produced detailed stories about the police, its death squads that targeted suspected Mungiki members, or anybody they did not like.

In the following weeks the police countered. All channels aired a 30-minute documentary portraying the Mungiki as a bloodthirsty extortionist gang. But with the testimonies of families whose relatives had been killed by Mungiki and matatu drivers holding up what they called receipti za Mungiki as evidence of extortion; the documentary failed to show how the police or other arms of government had used this to put the suspects behind bars. The documentary, however, did show that when an institution comes under attack it will fight back; whether the charges against it are true or false.

That is the challenge of Kenya’s media. The facts about an injustice may be known or readily available. The people or institutions suspected to be involved in perpetrating that injustice might also be known. They are usually powerful whether at the village level or in higher office. Kenya’s media, however, easily ignores the obvious. Unless an Alston speaks up; a commission publishes a report; or a Member of Parliament challenges facts the government may present in the National Assembly; the media remains silent.

Compared to 2002, when President Daniel arap Moi completed the final year of his 24-year term in office, the media today is freer to report what it wants and has the financial muscle to back it up. But it does not use that freedom and financial independence as often as it should.

For instance, when the new constitution came into force in August last year, the first office to fall vacant was that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Good prosecutors arguing well-prepared cases can instill public confidence in the criminal justice system. The new constitution creates an independent office of prosecutions with that in mind. But soon after the constitution was promulgated Attorney General Amos Wako announced he had appointed the outgoing Director of Public Prosecutions, Tobiko Keriako, as Chief Public Prosecutor. There was little said about whether Wako’s action was constitutional or justified. Only when President Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga disagreed over the nominations to that office and those of the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and Controller of Budget; did the question come up of what was the constitutional course to be followed.

It has taken decades for Kenya to get a new constitution that meets people’s aspirations and the media has chronicled a lot of the blood, sweat and tears that has flowed. But once the document passed at the referendum it was back to business as usual. Yet the constitution has a timetable that makes it easy to monitor its implementation and measure its success or failure. It is almost as if the idea of reading and re-reading the constitution to hold the political class to account is too much of a chore. At news conferences it certainly seems that way with few journalists asking questions. Many of them do not seem to have prepared for the event, even if it fits with a reporter’s beat or specialization.

One explanation is that reporters often get assigned a news conference close to the time of the event and do not have time to prepare. Another is journalists do not care to be prepared and the newsroom environment does not nurture a culture of reading up ahead of an event. Yet another is once an individual is found to sell newspapers or provoke interest and debate among viewers or listeners, then the thinking is ‘Don’t mess with a good thing.’ So the media here, like that of many other countries, has adopted the celebrity model to boost sales, viewership or listenership without tempering that with independent scrutiny using other sources and the media’s own knowledge. The Standard has been published since 1902. Daily Nation celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. But rarely does that depth of knowledge come through in those newspapers or their related broadcast outlets.

These and many other reasons have seen the growth of alternative media, at times referred to by politicians as ‘the gutter press’. Some of the now defunct titles in this category served as propaganda sheets of particular politicians with an axe to grind, especially around election time. Those have died a natural death. Others have had more than just personal vendettas going and continue to publish and survive or also die, because of commercial or managerial reasons. And the growth of Internet use in Kenya has seen the emergence of bloggers and online publications as another alternative to the menu served up by the mainstream media.

But something that tarnishes mainstream and alternative media is corruption. There is talk of some of the editors of alternative media extorting money from politicians and other prominent personalities to kill stories; so the powerful and influential can continue to keep their good names. Some prominent journalists are known to be on the take. The lead up to elections is known as a time when reporters and editors can expect to be offered bribes, or lunch money, to give candidate X more prominence or to ignore the work of their rivals.

Not all is lost. The competition among Kenya’s newspapers, radio and television ensures that one or the other is looking for an exclusive story. And justice benefits. The new institutions and their mandates for a more just society are also pushing the media to be more bold. For example, when the National Cohesion and Integration Commission censured politicians last year for hate speech and got the Attorney General to accept to prosecute them; the media followed up with its own filtering of what politicians say and made sure no hate speech was broadcast, unless it was to illustrate the offence and censure leaders.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Tom Maliti is a Nairobi-based journalist.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.