11.Covering Ethnic, Religious and Sectarian Conflict

The Code says news, views or comments relating to ethnic, religious or sectarian disputes should be published after proper verification of facts and presented with due caution and restraint in a manner which is conducive to the creation of an atmosphere congenial to the national harmony, amity and peace. It further says provocative and alarming headlines are to be avoided and suggests that news reports or commentaries should not be written in a manner likely to influence the passion, aggravate the tension or accentuate the strained relations between communities concerned. It concludes by saying that articles with potential to exacerbate communal trouble should be avoided.

A lot of suggested rules of the code are violated by journalists almost on a daily basis. Stories about conflict, whether sectarian, religious or ethnic, are of great human interest news value. Very often journalists convey the news about these conflicts in the most emotional manner. Today journalists covering conflicts are expected to understand the subject so thoroughly in order to not only inform readers, viewers and listeners what is going on , but also to come up with suggestions in an interpretative manner on how to solve the problems causing conflicts.

In Kenya conflicts are so widespread that hardly a paper comes out without a story or two based on them. Mwagiru (1998) says conflict in Kenya exists throughout the country about which we read every day. He lists land clashes in Rift Valley and Coast Provinces; the constitutional and legal conflict; the religious and political conflict and the environmental conflict. He asserts that against this large canvas of conflict, there is an intricate pattern of smaller, but no less important conflicts. These are conflicts within and between families and clans.[1]

If journalists have to play their role in conflict management their stories must reflect additional knowledge of the people involved in it. Mwagiru suggests that it has become evident that in managing conflict in Kenya, cultural dimensions and factors are an important and often central consideration. To him cultural influence are an important factor in two levels in term of how we perceive conflict and hence our relationship with it, and also in terms of suitability of conflict management methods and approaches that are adopted.[2]

Mwagiru’s ideas of conflict management are advanced further by Lederach (2003) who talks of conflict transformation. He prefers the term transformation because he believes whoever is engaged in constructive change of conflict should go beyond resolution and be more concerned with transforming the conflict situation into that of peace. Transformation, he argues, provides a clear and important vision because it brings into focus the horizon towards which (journalists and scholars) journey (in) the building of healthy relationships and communities, locally and globally.[3]

Whether journalists agree with Mwagiru or Lederach they have to accept the fact that the coverage of conflict today involves painting of a bigger picture than what they see on the battlefields .It is an undertaking that requires “deep knowledge, not only about what is happening on the surface, but what underlies the conflict.”[4] For this reason Ricchiardi (2006) is totally opposed to rushing journalists from far-flung locales to areas where conflicts are taking place. He argues hat there is no substitute for coverage by correspondents based in a region who are knowledgeable about its history and culture.[5]

Locally based journalists, he asserts, are connected and therefore will always cover conflict from well informed background. Their in-depth report would not only describe the conflict but also suggest how the conflict resolution or transformation could be achieved. Unfortunately Ricchiardi laments that knowledgeable and well connected journalists covering conflicts are a disappearing breed. Instead, many news organizations have turned into crisis-driven and episodic reporters who are always fast in and fast out, leaving little room for such important elements as context, cultural perspective or in-depth analysis.[6]

The views expressed by Ricchiardi are so relevant in the Kenyan situation whenever serious conflict takes place in places outside Nairobi. Whether it is in the Rift Valley, Mount Elgon or Kiambu area, journalists are rushed from Nairobi for a day or two and they always come back with sensational stories and pictures which narrate and show the seriousness of the conflict in an episodic manner but hardly do they ever dig deep enough to tell readers, viewers and listeners the origin of the conflict or possible ways of their resolution or transformation. For this to happen journalists covering conflict must build solid knowledge base to become intimately acquainted with the territory they cover. They have to be experienced people who can figure out the big picture.

Needless to say the worst thing that could happen in conflicts such as those involving land or elections is for journalists taking the views of one side or the other and publishing them without understanding the context. With terrorism becoming the mode and nature of conflict these days an attack could take place in any part of the world where there are no local correspondents. Whenever such an attack takes place new technology can always be used to give the readers , viewers and listeners the immediate coverage of the event , but professionalism demands that journalists should not be satisfied with such coverage , which should always be followed up with in-depth analysis to tell the story behind the story.

Covering breaking conflicts as they occur without any background information or in-depth analysis is what Ricchiardi calls “parachute journalism”, and even if it involves sectarian , religious or ethnic conflict sometimes journalists have to report what they see if it has occurred abruptly and without any expectation. It is like journalists being parachuted in the middle of the conflict and then transported back into the newsroom after a brief moment. The most difficult question for editors to answer in situations like that is whether the publication of such a half baked story is likely to exacerbate the conflict. With the current cutthroat competition between media houses it is difficult to see any Kenyan editor killing such a story for ethical reasons. In the words of Rome Hartman, the executive produce of American “CBS Evening News” in situations like that most editors “juggle stories and find the balance between breaking news and enterprise”. Most Kenyan editors probably handle conflict stories in a similar manner – sectarianism, tribalism or religiosity notwithstanding.

Journalists who have made a name in the coverage of conflict such as Amanpour have always taken time to study the background and various cultures of the areas they cover. Kenya today is a nation reverting to lawlessness with terrorist such as Mungiki and Taliban claiming shocking tolls in daily basis. The way the election campaigns are being conducted tribal feelings are fuelled to a level of xenophobia. Yet no Kenyan journalist has extensively unearthed the nature and real origin of Mungiki. No journalist in Kenya has deeply analyzed the tribal lords. Few editors have kept the tribal electioneering or the real dangers on Mungiki on their radar. All they do is engage in episodic coverage of conflict events caused by tribalism or Mungiki terrorists. What Kenyans know about these conflicts is based on reports published on ad hoc basis.

Ricchiardi (2006) believes it is the duty of the media to fuel national discussion by addressing questions such as what is being done in the right way and what is being done in the wrong way to end conflict.[7] If the depth and quality of reporting conflict is wanting then it only contributes to making it hard for leaders to solve the problem that cause it. The coverage of conflict involving ethnicity in Kenya worsens bad situation by dwelling too much on the views expressed by political leaders with an axe to grind. Getting too caught up with what the political leaders say about conflict, and accepting it uncritically could be what Rieder (2007) describes as recipe for disaster.[8] He gives the example of President Bush and his lieutenants (who) were making their case for the war in Iraq with nightmare scenarios of weapons of mass destruction and mushroom clouds.

The Bush example has been repeated many times in Kenyan ethnic based conflicts with journalists dutifully passing the poison to the people. Rieder observes that too often the instinct is to print one side’s allegations and the other side’s reaction, and call it a day. The fear seems to be that going deeper checking out the facts behind the posturing and trying to sort out who is right and who is wrong is sometime not “objective” and not “straight down the middle”. But that is precisely the job of journalism, he argues and contends that to give equal weight to the charge and counter charge, regardless of how bogus one of them might be, is totally deceptive.

When it becomes necessary to publish the truth about conflict journalists must always be weary of powerful politicians who would like to influence their editorial decision. The American journalists, for example, made a terrible blunder when they allowed President Bush to influence the way they covered the war in Iraq.[9] Rieder (2006) backs this view and argues that after 9/11 the Bush administration did a superb job of quelling dissent. It vigorously enforced the notion that questioning anti-terrorism policies was simply unpatriotic behavior.[10] The US new media retreated from their skeptical, not to say confrontational, approach to federal government. And the result was not pretty. According to Roberts (2006/7) one byproduct was “credulous” coverage of the administration’s case for going to war in Iraq.

If the coverage of conflict appears to require special skills and knowledge, that of ethnic conflict is even more cumbersome. In Kenya there is always latent rivalry and suspicion between some ethnic groups. This tension becomes more conspicuous during election time. Yet when reporters cover ethnic conflict in Kenya they become mindless, robotic followers of the “cult of objectivity” at the expense of truth. Reporter, as Roberts says certainly have to try and be fair but they do not have to insist on purely objective news presentation if that meant the truth got lost in the process.

Quoting Ralph McGill of the Atlantic Constitution, Roberts says objectivity is an anachronistic antidote which had emerged in earlier days when publishers were wild and reckless in pushing their bias into newspapers. It had evolved into a formula of printing all sides of the story – sometimes in the same number of words and leaving readers to make their own choices. Thus in Kenya tribal leaders fan fires of ethnic animosity through dangerous debates and all that journalists do is print their views in a ping-pong manner without pointing out the falsity of the entire debate. When engaging in political argument based on ethnic rivalry almost all Kenyan leaders have been known to mischaracterize the situation. Yet most reporters do not pin point the falsities unless they get someone else to point it out. And if that someone else stretches the truth journalists devoted to blind objectivity find themselves publishing two falsities.

If Opposition leaders said, for example, they were not opposed to Kibaki’s government because he happens to be Kikuyu and journalists had incontrovertible proof that they were, why don’t they expose the facts? Why do they have to wait until they find someone who is willing to say it on record? Roberts (2006) believes that the reporters have an obligation to engage in interpretative journalism and expose falsities by leaders engaged in conflicts especially the conflict based on race.[11]

Probably the one religious conflict that has attracted global media attention is that between Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides have targeted civilians and hundreds of lives have been lost. According to Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, which normally is simply called FAIR, Israel has tried to exclude the press from the entire area in Gaza where there has been “flagrant human right abuses” including looting, mass detention, targeting medical personnel and possible extrajudicial executions” with all the injustices done against innocent human being. How have the journalists covered that religious conflict?
What FAIR was most concerned about in the coverage of Israeli attacks against the Palestinians is the usage of the word “retaliation” by American journalists. FAIR reports: “The network news shows have characterized Israeli violence as “retaliations” (which) lays responsibility for cycle of violence at the doorsteps of the party being “retaliated” against. The American journalists never use the word “retaliation” when Arabs attack Israel meaning they are the aggressors.”[12] This is the kind of reporting that the Code calls Kenya journalists to be careful about.



[1] Mwagiru, Makumi. Understanding Conflict and Its Management. The Centre for Conflict Research. 1998. Nairobi.
[2] Ibid
[3] Lederach, John Paul. Conflict Transformation. Good Books. Intercourse. 2003.
[4] Ibid
[5] Ricchiardi, Sherry. Limits of the Parachute. American Journalism Review. October/November issue of 2006.
[6] Ibid
[7] Ricchiardi, Sherry. The Forgotten War. In the American Journalism Review, August/September 2006 issue.
[8] Rieder, Rem. Counting the Spoons in the American Journalism Review of February/ March 2007 issue.
[9] Boehlert, Eric. Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over For Bush. Free Press.2006.
[10] Roberts, Gene. On the Race Beat in American Journalism Review of December 2006/ 2007 issue.
[11] Ibid
[12] FAIR in “Us Media, Palestinian attack, Israel Retaliate.” Fair website visited 2007.