The Code is divided into two parts. The first says journalists should generally identify themselves and not obtain or seek to obtain information or pictures through misrepresentation or subterfuge. The second part of the code however, admits that subterfuge could be justified only in the public interest and only when material cannot be obtained by any other means. The public interest includes detecting or exposing crime or serious misdemeanour or anti social conduct, protecting public health or safety, preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual.
The first part of the code is obviously intended to perform double duty of protecting the privacy of all people in Kenya as well as keeping journalists away from the opprobrium attached to nosy police-like clandestine probing of people’s lives without the decency to let them know about it. Yet the second part of the code does in a nutshell admit that some exposes are impossible to see the light of the day without engaging in subterfuge.
The depth and breadth of the two suggestions by the code have been subjected to very serious debate by journalism scholars who include a veteran South Florida newspaper editor and a writer who is also the Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va, Edward Wasserman, who says the legendary reporter who goes undercover to get the story is part of the mythology of 20th century journalism. But the practice, he says, has largely gone the way of Lucky Strikes and pay telephones. What Prof. Wasserman means by that is that subterfuge is disappearing from journalistic practice the way cigarettes known as Lucky Strikes are detested by many anti-smoking Americans and the manner in which pay telephones are fast becoming obsolete in that country where almost everybody own a cellophane.
Wasserman believes the profession has turned against false pretenses. The reasons, he says, vary (because) there is unease about deception. “If your job is to tell the truth you shouldn’t be lying. That seems high minded, but it is a cheap way around deciding whether the truth you are after might justify the dissembling required to get it. There is also the feeling that the whole gambit is sensationalistic and squalid. It smacks of tabloid TV, grainy footage of low-grade frauds secretly taped in the storefront offices.” Prof. Wasserman is strongly supported by the Philadelphia Inquirer Editor, Amanda Bennet who is quoted by Editor and Publisher magazine saying: “I don’t permit deception …Undercover is a method of the past.”
Writing for a media watch website Rathergate.com media critic, Kevin Craver, says not all ethical decisions in journalism are black and white. He poses an extremely sensitive question which should tickle all Kenya journalists as he asks: “When does it become acceptable to take steps some may seem as questionable for the greater good?”
At the beginning of 2005, for example, the KTN made the City Council remove begging mothers and very young children from the streets of Nairobi after showing a moving episode of child abuse by cruel mothers who forced their children to chase rich-looking men asking for alms. The short film showed the mothers beating up their young children who failed to get any money from pedestrians. It was a masterpiece of investigative journalism which could not have been possible without subterfuge. Cameras were hidden on top of buildings under which the mothers operated near Kenyatta Avenue. Similar tactics were used by the same station in the middle of the same year to expose conmen who extracted cash from innocent wananchi by pretending to conduct a lottery which would make winners take home bicycle and mobile phones. Many people congratulated the KTN for the exposes. This is the kind of subterfuge Prof. Wasserman would consider to be judicious for it was “used to confirm a pattern of behaviour for which (the media) already had good evidence and which has a strong claim to public importance.” In this country there are many seasoned journalists, particularly in the mainstream media, who would not favour the methods used to get such stories yet it is also true that when such stories are ignored public faith in the media could seriously be shaken. If the media lose that public faith then they will stand accused of abdicating their most sacred duty of being the society’s watchdog.
When journalists are chasing what they know and believe to be a rock solid story that is hard to obtain without subterfuge then the method can be used after an intensive editorial meeting to discuss the merits and demerits of undercover chasing of the said expose. Cases should be examined on individual basis. Whenever they smell a rat, many British papers indulge in subterfuge to probe even the best source of news. One such paper is the News of the World which in April 2005 was accused by a Mr. Neil Nash, owner of liberty hotel in Lutterworth, of taking undercover photos at a members-only club of swingers called Liberation.
The club had cajoled journalists to give it very positive publicity about its activities but was not amused when they took pictures of activities of the club in a clandestine manner. Nash took his complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. And what was the PCC ruling? Very positive and in favour of News of the World. PCC said: “The complainants were operating a controversial club, and had sought and obtained a large amount of publicity in order to put one positive view of it into public domain. It was not for the Commission to interfere with a newspaper’s right to test whether or not this view was accurate. To conclude otherwise would arguably be to grant organizations the right to control media coverage on their own terms.”
That was a very important ruling backing subterfuge when it is used professionally but as I pointed out earlier many cases of subterfuge inevitably violate another ethical principle of Privacy; but when some crooks break laws through their private activities then there is every justification to invade their privacy. A classic case of this took place in Britain as far back as 1885 when William Thomas Stead of Pall Mall Gazette in London exposed child prostitution through “purchasing” a thirteen year old girl. He got an excellent story for his newspaper but he also earned a jail term for himself. Legal scholars believe his story let to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 which made provision for the protection of women and girls and the suppression of brothels.
One of the most effective uses of subterfuge for the benefit of society is today being practiced by seasoned Indian journalists who have left respectable national newspapers to work for a New Delhi based online newspaper Tehelka.com . In March 2001, the paper which is rated among the most modern in the world, published exposes about bribery scandals involving the then Defence Minister , George Fernandes. Though Fernandes was an extremely popular politician among the military he had to resign at the age of 70 after first being elected an MP since 1967. His fame and power did not help him when Tehelka.com exposed him as a corrupt man through intensive investigations conducted under subterfuge.
According to the BBC Tehelka.com is a new phenomenon on Indian media scene and its editor in chief, Tarun Tejpal, “has invested heavily in hard hitting investigative reporting and has pushed the boundaries of editorial content further than most.” Quoted by the BBC Tejpal says: Our job (is) to blow the whistle on corruption in India’s defence procurement. We wanted to nail them down. The arms bribery scandal story that led to the resignation of Fernandes was followed by another expose of cricket mach fixing scandals. The investigations, the BBC says, were conducted by using clandestine material “gathered over several months using video footage of conversations players and officials had” on corruption in sports.
Following the arms deal exposure by Tehelka.com the Minister, as expected, cried foul and accused the newspaper of using unethical methods to get the story. Commenting about the matter in Vol.18 of March 31- April 13, 2001issue of one of India’s most respected magazines Frontline A.G. Noorani says: “ It is amusing to hear persons caught in the act, as it were, cry ‘ethics’ at their exposure by Thelka.com …The website has proved itself. The nation has accepted that its revelations are true and heads rolled in consequences.” The most important question to ask is whether Kenyan journalists could use subterfuge to expose corruption among its major news sources.
It appears a lot of legwork has to be done to achieve the goals accomplished by Tehalka.com . On October 9th 2005, for example, the Sunday Nation published a juicy story about bogus medical colleges that had to close down following an operation by Medical Practitioners’ Board. The back page story by Bob Odala headlined “Doctors Seized in Crackdown” said that several health workers including doctors and nurses were arrested and their institutions closed in a Medical Practitioners and Dentists’ Board operation in Western Kenya. The colleges were charging between 48,000/- and 30,000/- per Semester. What was wrong with the story? Nothing except that the journalists engaged in reportorial conveyor belt journalism that “delivers” to the readers events based on actions and spoken words by government officials, politicians or other personalities outside the journalist profession. They are not based on reports’ own investigations and interpretation of events which is a superior type of journalism known as Investigative and Interpretative journalism.
The Sunday Nation waited until action was taken by the medical practitioners’ board when they moved in to close down bogus colleges. Before that the people were exploited under the very noses of journalists without any pen touching paper. The exposé on the so-called Kakamega Medical School could best be done through subterfuge.
On October 10th 2005 The Standard published another juicy story about Anglo Leasing scandal with an attractive question-mark splash headline reading: “Have these Ministers seen Anglo Leasing Ghosts?” At first glance one would have thought the papers was engaging in a serious Investigative and Interpretative journalism but unfortunately it was just another reportorial conveyor-belt piece telling readers what Prof. Anyang’ Nyong’o, the Minister for Planning, was suspecting to be people involved in the Anglo Leasing scandal. The story by David Ohito and Joel Okwayo said: “A fresh row broke out in the cabinet yesterday when Planning Minister Anyang’ Nyong’o claimed five ministers were shielding the culprits behind the Shs. Seven billion Anglo Leasing tender scandals from being prosecuted. The paper said Nyong’o pointed accusing fingers to Finance Minister, David Mwiraria, Chris Murungaru (Transport), Kiraitu Murungi (Justice) and Amos Kimunya (Lands). Says The Standards quoting Nyong’o: I have 21 sets of questions for the liars in the banana camp. I will fire the questions one by one ahead of the referendum day.”
Referendum or no referendum journalists in Kenya knew of Anglo Leasing scandal. Whether or not Nyong’o threatened to ask his questions to expose corrupt leaders journalists should have done everything possible to get answers to well over 21 questions about the mystery of the scandal. Based on the basic good old journalistic five Ws and an H any cub reporter could ask at least ten questions based on every W and ten more questions on the H about Anglo Leasing. So before Nyongo’s started talking about his 21 questions journalists should have asked at least 60 professional questions. To get proper answers to these questions proper and may be well trained professional journalists would have to engage in serious investigative and interpretative journalism which may have to include well organized and extremely expensive Tehalka.com like subterfuge. The simple rule of engaging in such subterfuge is that journalists must always respect and never try to bend the truth.
Engaging in subterfuge puts a journalist in a position in which he or she gets involved in what may be interpreted by many as “untruthful activities”. This is when they have to operate undercover. It would be pretty risky, for example, for any journalist to come up with a forged police search warrant to turn any of the suspected people’ home upside-down in order to search for documentary evidence to connect them with the Anglo Leasing scandal. But if such a search came up with impeccable evidence that may rid the country of the disturbing grand corruption the methodology will still remain part of a serious academic, legal and journalistic debate as it is today.
The first part of the code is obviously intended to perform double duty of protecting the privacy of all people in Kenya as well as keeping journalists away from the opprobrium attached to nosy police-like clandestine probing of people’s lives without the decency to let them know about it. Yet the second part of the code does in a nutshell admit that some exposes are impossible to see the light of the day without engaging in subterfuge.
The depth and breadth of the two suggestions by the code have been subjected to very serious debate by journalism scholars who include a veteran South Florida newspaper editor and a writer who is also the Knight professor of journalism ethics at Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Va, Edward Wasserman, who says the legendary reporter who goes undercover to get the story is part of the mythology of 20th century journalism. But the practice, he says, has largely gone the way of Lucky Strikes and pay telephones. What Prof. Wasserman means by that is that subterfuge is disappearing from journalistic practice the way cigarettes known as Lucky Strikes are detested by many anti-smoking Americans and the manner in which pay telephones are fast becoming obsolete in that country where almost everybody own a cellophane.
Wasserman believes the profession has turned against false pretenses. The reasons, he says, vary (because) there is unease about deception. “If your job is to tell the truth you shouldn’t be lying. That seems high minded, but it is a cheap way around deciding whether the truth you are after might justify the dissembling required to get it. There is also the feeling that the whole gambit is sensationalistic and squalid. It smacks of tabloid TV, grainy footage of low-grade frauds secretly taped in the storefront offices.” Prof. Wasserman is strongly supported by the Philadelphia Inquirer Editor, Amanda Bennet who is quoted by Editor and Publisher magazine saying: “I don’t permit deception …Undercover is a method of the past.”
Writing for a media watch website Rathergate.com media critic, Kevin Craver, says not all ethical decisions in journalism are black and white. He poses an extremely sensitive question which should tickle all Kenya journalists as he asks: “When does it become acceptable to take steps some may seem as questionable for the greater good?”
At the beginning of 2005, for example, the KTN made the City Council remove begging mothers and very young children from the streets of Nairobi after showing a moving episode of child abuse by cruel mothers who forced their children to chase rich-looking men asking for alms. The short film showed the mothers beating up their young children who failed to get any money from pedestrians. It was a masterpiece of investigative journalism which could not have been possible without subterfuge. Cameras were hidden on top of buildings under which the mothers operated near Kenyatta Avenue. Similar tactics were used by the same station in the middle of the same year to expose conmen who extracted cash from innocent wananchi by pretending to conduct a lottery which would make winners take home bicycle and mobile phones. Many people congratulated the KTN for the exposes. This is the kind of subterfuge Prof. Wasserman would consider to be judicious for it was “used to confirm a pattern of behaviour for which (the media) already had good evidence and which has a strong claim to public importance.” In this country there are many seasoned journalists, particularly in the mainstream media, who would not favour the methods used to get such stories yet it is also true that when such stories are ignored public faith in the media could seriously be shaken. If the media lose that public faith then they will stand accused of abdicating their most sacred duty of being the society’s watchdog.
When journalists are chasing what they know and believe to be a rock solid story that is hard to obtain without subterfuge then the method can be used after an intensive editorial meeting to discuss the merits and demerits of undercover chasing of the said expose. Cases should be examined on individual basis. Whenever they smell a rat, many British papers indulge in subterfuge to probe even the best source of news. One such paper is the News of the World which in April 2005 was accused by a Mr. Neil Nash, owner of liberty hotel in Lutterworth, of taking undercover photos at a members-only club of swingers called Liberation.
The club had cajoled journalists to give it very positive publicity about its activities but was not amused when they took pictures of activities of the club in a clandestine manner. Nash took his complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. And what was the PCC ruling? Very positive and in favour of News of the World. PCC said: “The complainants were operating a controversial club, and had sought and obtained a large amount of publicity in order to put one positive view of it into public domain. It was not for the Commission to interfere with a newspaper’s right to test whether or not this view was accurate. To conclude otherwise would arguably be to grant organizations the right to control media coverage on their own terms.”
That was a very important ruling backing subterfuge when it is used professionally but as I pointed out earlier many cases of subterfuge inevitably violate another ethical principle of Privacy; but when some crooks break laws through their private activities then there is every justification to invade their privacy. A classic case of this took place in Britain as far back as 1885 when William Thomas Stead of Pall Mall Gazette in London exposed child prostitution through “purchasing” a thirteen year old girl. He got an excellent story for his newspaper but he also earned a jail term for himself. Legal scholars believe his story let to the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 which made provision for the protection of women and girls and the suppression of brothels.
One of the most effective uses of subterfuge for the benefit of society is today being practiced by seasoned Indian journalists who have left respectable national newspapers to work for a New Delhi based online newspaper Tehelka.com . In March 2001, the paper which is rated among the most modern in the world, published exposes about bribery scandals involving the then Defence Minister , George Fernandes. Though Fernandes was an extremely popular politician among the military he had to resign at the age of 70 after first being elected an MP since 1967. His fame and power did not help him when Tehelka.com exposed him as a corrupt man through intensive investigations conducted under subterfuge.
According to the BBC Tehelka.com is a new phenomenon on Indian media scene and its editor in chief, Tarun Tejpal, “has invested heavily in hard hitting investigative reporting and has pushed the boundaries of editorial content further than most.” Quoted by the BBC Tejpal says: Our job (is) to blow the whistle on corruption in India’s defence procurement. We wanted to nail them down. The arms bribery scandal story that led to the resignation of Fernandes was followed by another expose of cricket mach fixing scandals. The investigations, the BBC says, were conducted by using clandestine material “gathered over several months using video footage of conversations players and officials had” on corruption in sports.
Following the arms deal exposure by Tehelka.com the Minister, as expected, cried foul and accused the newspaper of using unethical methods to get the story. Commenting about the matter in Vol.18 of March 31- April 13, 2001issue of one of India’s most respected magazines Frontline A.G. Noorani says: “ It is amusing to hear persons caught in the act, as it were, cry ‘ethics’ at their exposure by Thelka.com …The website has proved itself. The nation has accepted that its revelations are true and heads rolled in consequences.” The most important question to ask is whether Kenyan journalists could use subterfuge to expose corruption among its major news sources.
It appears a lot of legwork has to be done to achieve the goals accomplished by Tehalka.com . On October 9th 2005, for example, the Sunday Nation published a juicy story about bogus medical colleges that had to close down following an operation by Medical Practitioners’ Board. The back page story by Bob Odala headlined “Doctors Seized in Crackdown” said that several health workers including doctors and nurses were arrested and their institutions closed in a Medical Practitioners and Dentists’ Board operation in Western Kenya. The colleges were charging between 48,000/- and 30,000/- per Semester. What was wrong with the story? Nothing except that the journalists engaged in reportorial conveyor belt journalism that “delivers” to the readers events based on actions and spoken words by government officials, politicians or other personalities outside the journalist profession. They are not based on reports’ own investigations and interpretation of events which is a superior type of journalism known as Investigative and Interpretative journalism.
The Sunday Nation waited until action was taken by the medical practitioners’ board when they moved in to close down bogus colleges. Before that the people were exploited under the very noses of journalists without any pen touching paper. The exposé on the so-called Kakamega Medical School could best be done through subterfuge.
On October 10th 2005 The Standard published another juicy story about Anglo Leasing scandal with an attractive question-mark splash headline reading: “Have these Ministers seen Anglo Leasing Ghosts?” At first glance one would have thought the papers was engaging in a serious Investigative and Interpretative journalism but unfortunately it was just another reportorial conveyor-belt piece telling readers what Prof. Anyang’ Nyong’o, the Minister for Planning, was suspecting to be people involved in the Anglo Leasing scandal. The story by David Ohito and Joel Okwayo said: “A fresh row broke out in the cabinet yesterday when Planning Minister Anyang’ Nyong’o claimed five ministers were shielding the culprits behind the Shs. Seven billion Anglo Leasing tender scandals from being prosecuted. The paper said Nyong’o pointed accusing fingers to Finance Minister, David Mwiraria, Chris Murungaru (Transport), Kiraitu Murungi (Justice) and Amos Kimunya (Lands). Says The Standards quoting Nyong’o: I have 21 sets of questions for the liars in the banana camp. I will fire the questions one by one ahead of the referendum day.”
Referendum or no referendum journalists in Kenya knew of Anglo Leasing scandal. Whether or not Nyong’o threatened to ask his questions to expose corrupt leaders journalists should have done everything possible to get answers to well over 21 questions about the mystery of the scandal. Based on the basic good old journalistic five Ws and an H any cub reporter could ask at least ten questions based on every W and ten more questions on the H about Anglo Leasing. So before Nyongo’s started talking about his 21 questions journalists should have asked at least 60 professional questions. To get proper answers to these questions proper and may be well trained professional journalists would have to engage in serious investigative and interpretative journalism which may have to include well organized and extremely expensive Tehalka.com like subterfuge. The simple rule of engaging in such subterfuge is that journalists must always respect and never try to bend the truth.
Engaging in subterfuge puts a journalist in a position in which he or she gets involved in what may be interpreted by many as “untruthful activities”. This is when they have to operate undercover. It would be pretty risky, for example, for any journalist to come up with a forged police search warrant to turn any of the suspected people’ home upside-down in order to search for documentary evidence to connect them with the Anglo Leasing scandal. But if such a search came up with impeccable evidence that may rid the country of the disturbing grand corruption the methodology will still remain part of a serious academic, legal and journalistic debate as it is today.
No comments:
Post a Comment