The code says an editor who decides to open his/her columns on a controversial subject is not obliged to publish all the letters received in regard to that subject. He /she may select and publish only some of them either in their entirety or the gist thereof. However, in exercising this right, he/she should make an honest attempt to ensure that what is published is not one-sided but presents a fair balance between the pros and cons of the principal issue. The code says the editor has the discretion to decide at which point to end the debate in the event of a rejoinder upon being sent by to or more parties on a controversial subject.
In the case of the electronic media, the code suggests, a broadcasting licensee who presents a programme in which controversial issues of public importance are discussed shall make reasonable effort to fairly present significant points of view either in the same programme or in a subsequent one forming part of the same series of programmes presented within a reasonable period of time in substantially the same time slot. In addition, the code says, a person whose views have been criticized in a broadcasting programme on a controversial issue of public importance shall be given a reasonable opportunity to reply should such a person so request.
What this part of the code seeks to promote is the use of mass media as a platform for public debate on matters of national interest. The recent revelation by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, commonly known as FAIR, that Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal had accepted a deal in 2000 to tell one side of an important story in exchange for a “scoop” is a good example of how editors can be tempted to betray their readers’ trust by killing public debate on an important issue.
According to FAIR a publicist hired by United Airlines and US Airways offered the three major newspapers a deal that none of them refused. They accepted exclusive details of a five billion dollar merger and promised not to call any outsider for comment. According to FAIR all the three papers agreed to this censorious arrangement which only fell apart because the Financial Times website broke the story early negating the agreement. FAIR correctly says that it is disturbing that a newspaper would agree to report a major story by relying entirely on one party in the story for information and comment. The editors of the three important newspapers had agreed to suppress opinion from anyone of the merger issue.
The most obvious question to come out of that shocking American episode is whether Kenyan editors are equally vulnerable to temptations to suppress opinion expressed in their letters to the editor or in the programmes aired by various TV and radio stations. It goes without saying that it is not journalists’ role to suppress any opinion on any issue even if they disagree with it except when that opinion is libelous or is against the law.
It is obviously a breach of journalistic standard when editors “kill” letters expressing views they disagree with. Journalists have an obligation to promote public debate through an exchange of divergent views on political, social, cultural and economic issues which will expose both sides of as many coins as possible. By doing so they promote the democratic principle of free speech through giving the people a voice to air their views on any issue concerning the way they are governed or live.
Letters to the editor or opinions expressed by viewers or listeners of the electronic media are always a good yardstick to measure the level of free speech in any country and when they are filtered through good journalism they will always indicate democratic balance. The way letters to the editor are selected in the Kenyan print media expose the editor’s spin in promoting a political issue. When Anne O’Brien , for example, was convicted of running a multi million shilling prostitution ring in London in June this year it was amazing how one disc jockey was desperately soliciting opinionated views from his listeners whom he cajoled to condemn British justice because Anne “had not eaten anyone’s goat”. That kind of deceptive spin does not escape the attention of any keen and independent observer of journalism in Kenya.
The diversity of both subjects and people who have claimed their rightful place on Kenya’s letters to the editor pages have however created a special problem for those who select topics for letters. The responsibility of resisting the temptation to succumb to discriminatory expression based on racist or ethnic nationalism now so shamelessly widespread in our society is extremely high. Given the fact that letter writers come from urban areas where papers are mostly circulated and both radio and television are more easily accessible, it is hard to determine whether there are any small communities in remote areas who are victimized by inadvertent prejudice which make their voices about their social and political problems unheard.
Despite some form of unspoken “political-correctness” that keeps offensive language away from letters to the editor and public comments through broadcasting, occasionally one hears pretty shocking expressions made in morning broadcasts. One of these led the Minister for Water Development, Ms. Martha Karua, to seek redress from law courts. Editors’ rejection of ethnic slurs from letters to the editor, therefore, could go a long way in helping eradicate tribalism in our society.
Though issues open for public debate through the print or electronic media change all the time the rationale for conducting these debates do not change because the value for freedom of expression will always remain paramount in a democratic society. To uphold this vital value, therefore, editor will always face operation tensions. Whenever there is an important debate on a serious national issue there will always be tension between various groups and this tension is particularly conspicuous between those in power and the governed. As debates go on, those in privileged positions of authority always try to hide vital information and the wananchi will always rightfully demand the right to know.
And as the editors wave their journalistic professional batons at the national orchestra of countrywide debates they must be careful not to silence anyone or downplay any issue. This is when their professional power of balancing is put to a serious test. Since Kenyans were allowed to participate in national debate on serious issues such as constitutional reforms the value of free speech is now understood by the majority of the wananchi who put their trust in the hands of the Fourth Estate for their voice to be heard. Very often that trust can be exhibited in Letters to the Editor.
In the case of the electronic media, the code suggests, a broadcasting licensee who presents a programme in which controversial issues of public importance are discussed shall make reasonable effort to fairly present significant points of view either in the same programme or in a subsequent one forming part of the same series of programmes presented within a reasonable period of time in substantially the same time slot. In addition, the code says, a person whose views have been criticized in a broadcasting programme on a controversial issue of public importance shall be given a reasonable opportunity to reply should such a person so request.
What this part of the code seeks to promote is the use of mass media as a platform for public debate on matters of national interest. The recent revelation by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, commonly known as FAIR, that Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal had accepted a deal in 2000 to tell one side of an important story in exchange for a “scoop” is a good example of how editors can be tempted to betray their readers’ trust by killing public debate on an important issue.
According to FAIR a publicist hired by United Airlines and US Airways offered the three major newspapers a deal that none of them refused. They accepted exclusive details of a five billion dollar merger and promised not to call any outsider for comment. According to FAIR all the three papers agreed to this censorious arrangement which only fell apart because the Financial Times website broke the story early negating the agreement. FAIR correctly says that it is disturbing that a newspaper would agree to report a major story by relying entirely on one party in the story for information and comment. The editors of the three important newspapers had agreed to suppress opinion from anyone of the merger issue.
The most obvious question to come out of that shocking American episode is whether Kenyan editors are equally vulnerable to temptations to suppress opinion expressed in their letters to the editor or in the programmes aired by various TV and radio stations. It goes without saying that it is not journalists’ role to suppress any opinion on any issue even if they disagree with it except when that opinion is libelous or is against the law.
It is obviously a breach of journalistic standard when editors “kill” letters expressing views they disagree with. Journalists have an obligation to promote public debate through an exchange of divergent views on political, social, cultural and economic issues which will expose both sides of as many coins as possible. By doing so they promote the democratic principle of free speech through giving the people a voice to air their views on any issue concerning the way they are governed or live.
Letters to the editor or opinions expressed by viewers or listeners of the electronic media are always a good yardstick to measure the level of free speech in any country and when they are filtered through good journalism they will always indicate democratic balance. The way letters to the editor are selected in the Kenyan print media expose the editor’s spin in promoting a political issue. When Anne O’Brien , for example, was convicted of running a multi million shilling prostitution ring in London in June this year it was amazing how one disc jockey was desperately soliciting opinionated views from his listeners whom he cajoled to condemn British justice because Anne “had not eaten anyone’s goat”. That kind of deceptive spin does not escape the attention of any keen and independent observer of journalism in Kenya.
The diversity of both subjects and people who have claimed their rightful place on Kenya’s letters to the editor pages have however created a special problem for those who select topics for letters. The responsibility of resisting the temptation to succumb to discriminatory expression based on racist or ethnic nationalism now so shamelessly widespread in our society is extremely high. Given the fact that letter writers come from urban areas where papers are mostly circulated and both radio and television are more easily accessible, it is hard to determine whether there are any small communities in remote areas who are victimized by inadvertent prejudice which make their voices about their social and political problems unheard.
Despite some form of unspoken “political-correctness” that keeps offensive language away from letters to the editor and public comments through broadcasting, occasionally one hears pretty shocking expressions made in morning broadcasts. One of these led the Minister for Water Development, Ms. Martha Karua, to seek redress from law courts. Editors’ rejection of ethnic slurs from letters to the editor, therefore, could go a long way in helping eradicate tribalism in our society.
Though issues open for public debate through the print or electronic media change all the time the rationale for conducting these debates do not change because the value for freedom of expression will always remain paramount in a democratic society. To uphold this vital value, therefore, editor will always face operation tensions. Whenever there is an important debate on a serious national issue there will always be tension between various groups and this tension is particularly conspicuous between those in power and the governed. As debates go on, those in privileged positions of authority always try to hide vital information and the wananchi will always rightfully demand the right to know.
And as the editors wave their journalistic professional batons at the national orchestra of countrywide debates they must be careful not to silence anyone or downplay any issue. This is when their professional power of balancing is put to a serious test. Since Kenyans were allowed to participate in national debate on serious issues such as constitutional reforms the value of free speech is now understood by the majority of the wananchi who put their trust in the hands of the Fourth Estate for their voice to be heard. Very often that trust can be exhibited in Letters to the Editor.
No comments:
Post a Comment