19. Accountability

The ethical principle of accountability challenges journalism professionals on three levels. It challenges them on personal, institutional and societal levels. On a personal level every journalists ought to be ethically awake almost all the time. When chasing a story, when writing it and even when publishing it. At all these three stages a journalist’s uprightness on ethical matters are constantly challenged. The bigger the story the greater the challenge.

Accountability in journalism in the Kenyan context has absolutely nothing to do with what is popularly known in America as Accountability Journalism which, according to the Associated Press, is allowing reporters to tell the truth as they see it rather than by being guided by impartiality and fair play. But according to Steve Boriss, who teaches journalism at Washington University in St. Louis, accountability journalism is a sham because it allow opinion in news articles.

That aside, there has probably been no time when Kenyan journalists were more challenged ethically than when they covered the post election violence. Many journalists were carried away by the excitement of the time and gathered, wrote and published stories which today appear to have contributed, to a certain extent, to the high level of emotionalism that led the country into the shameful outbreak of tribal and violent confrontation.

Indeed both the Waki and Kriegler reports point an accusing finger to journalists and the role they played in pushing the country from the frying pan into the fire. According to the Waki Report, before, during, and after the elections, politicians, government, NGOs, members of the media itself, and parts of the public, all had views about whether and how the spread of information through the print and broadcast media had contributed to the 2007 post election violence. Waki, therefore, asked a number of individuals to testify before him concerning the role of the media in the post election violence.

The  report actually exposes that many witnesses appearing before Waki recalled with horror, fear, and disgust the negative and inflammatory role of vernacular radio stations in their testimony and statements to the Commission. In particular, they singled out KASS FM as having contributed to a climate of hate, negative ethnicity, and having incited violence in the Rift Valley.

It goes on to reveal that there were also similar complaints in other parts of the country even though they did not come directly to the attention of the Commission. These, according to the report, included the vernacular music and negative ethnicity allegedly coming from Kikuyu FM stations including Kameme, Inooro, Coro, and others in other different parts of the country.

Just before the outbreak of the clashes tempers throughout the country were high. Newspaper headlines were sensational; and the question to ask now is whether or not the inflammatory election campaign stories could have been covered differently. On December 2^nd 2007, for example , The Sunday Standard headline screamed “NO RETREAT” in capital letters, followed by a huge kicker reading “No surrender”. Another smaller kicker said “Raila and Kibaki in a rat race in Coast and Rift as top 3 go for each other’s throat.

As if that was not exciting enough the story ran: “It is December ’07 and two days into the General Election month, the competitors are in the Karate’s ‘no retreat no surrender’ mode. It is all systems go and the comfort, because of the homestretch leg, has taken a back seat. But more significantly it was the week parties strove to calm raging fires in their bellies over the sham primaries and the sour after-taste the losers were left with”.  

On December 3^rd 2007 The Standard splash headline read “Its now or never”  and the kicker said: “Race against time: It’s an all out war for votes by Kibaki and key rivals Raila and Kalonzo as ECK set to unveil the 21-day official campaign period”. The Sunday Nation of December 23^rd 2007 also screamed in a headline saying “It’s attack mode in the eleventh hour”. The kicker said: “Candidates trade last-gasp blows as end draws nearer”.

 

The Daily Nation of December 3^rd had a headline reading “Propaganda war” with a kicker saying: As the case for State House intensifies, parties have gone into overdrive to paint rivals as unsuited for leadership, and there is no sign of let-up in the poll battle”.  

With the advantage of hindsight and cooler heads journalist can look at the treatment of those stories and ask themselves whether they would have handled the explosive situation differently.

What, if any, should have been the changes to be made in the stories I have given examples of? Could those stories be watered down without changing the meaning and without disobeying yet another important ethical principle of Accuracy? To get proper professional answers to these questions the ethical principle of Accountability comes into play. It all begins with the individual journalists who handled the sensitive stories. Each one of them should personally convince themselves that they did their best and would not hesitate to repeat the same approach of handling a story in similar situation.

If the individual journalists are honest with themselves, they would probably find a professional way of telling the same story in a watered down manner without changing any facts. But the matter of accountability can be so personal that individual journalists have to do a lot of soul-searching to arrive at an honest answer.

When it comes to institutional accountability the whole matter becomes a little bit more public with professional views getting expressed openly in a workshop situation. Well established institutions go as far as hiring academics to lead  discussions on ethical issues which are normally conducted on regular intervals. I first learnt about this way of sensitizing journalists on ethical principles at The St Petersburg Times in Florida where I was attached for a moth as the Managing Editor of The Daily Nation.

While there I learnt that Editors become more professional when they remove themselves from ivory towers and engage in serious professional discussions on ethical issues with almost everyone in the editorial department regardless of the positions they hold. On issues such as accountability everyone who handles any story in the newsroom should be concerned and should be invited to express his or her views openly without victimization.

If such a workshop was to be held at the Daily Nation or The Standard to examine the coverage of the 2007 elections many interesting views could have been expressed showing how tribal and political loyalties played their part in determining the manner in which various stories were treated at that time. Accountability means the power of the professional ability to reexamine oneself and determine whether or not some mistakes were made in collecting, writing and editing stories. Honest self examination always leads to correcting the future in handling sensitive stories. With regular and constant self examination any professional journalists perfects his level of accountability. An institution achieves the same goals by constantly and regularly following the same process of self examination through candid workshops and symposia.

Self examination would reveal journalism fell to the bottom low level in the coverage of the 2007 election. Similar self examination, however, would reveal very high standards of professional coverage of the just ended referendum. At that time President Mwai Kibaki challenged the media to play an objective watchdog role by naming and shaming those people who engaged in hate speech, lies and negative ethnic persuasion. It was the President’s Madaraka Day open challenge to professionalism in journalism. No sooner did the President make the challenge than the Daily Nation published a story on page five of Wednesday June 2nd’s paper headlined “Ruto: New law will legalize gay union”. 

Keen observers wanted to test the Daily Nation’s professional standards vis-à-vis the President’s challenge. Ruto’s claim was definitely a lie but it was a newsworthy lie since prominence, proximity, timeliness, human interest and even consequences were its news values. It is a story no journalist worth his salt could ignore. The best way to handle it was to engage in interpretative reporting and the Daily Nation did so in the most admirable manner.

The story started by saying the Higher Education Minister William Ruto claimed gay marriages would be legal if the Proposed Constitution was passed into law. But the paper was quick to point out to its readers that the new constitution specifically outlawed gay marriages and quoted the Proposed Constitution’s Chapter Four, Article 45 (2) which says that every adult has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. This manner of reporting which actually obeys the ethical principle of accuracy exposed Ruto as a politician whose utterances suffered from a serious deficiency of truth.

Today editors at the Daily Nation  can look back with pride and account to its readers why it had to engage in interpretative journalism. Institutional Accountability sometimes requires the existence of an ombudsman in a newspaper, radio or television station to do nothing but explain to viewers , readers and listeners why certain things are done by media houses. Whenever a paper takes a political stand, for example, the reasons for such a stand can be explained both in the editorial columns and through explanations by the ombudsman who should also be able to answer all questions asked by readers , viewers and listeners.

As far as communal accountability in journalism is concerned professionals should be in a position to account to the community every step they take that may, in one way or another, affect the community. While doing so they should know every community has its own yardsticks measuring what is right against what is wrong. In general Kenyan community abhor both thieving and thieves to such an extent that when one is caught red handed committing the crime of theft, the punishment is instant death by stoning.

It is extremely strange that a community that is so readily abrupt in  imposing  the death penalty for petty crimes such as stealing bananas or vegetables at the marketplace , is paradoxically so docile and almost absolutely hopeless while dealing with reckless matatu drivers who kill members of the same community with impunity. To be accountable to a community with such strange behaviours journalists have to be extremely daring and walk where angles fear to tread.

Condemning primitive community behaviour such as mob justice is quite acceptable to me while calling to wananchi to resist being killed like chickens on Kenyans roads is probably a professional challenge that needs to be fulfilled. While serving the community journalists should know boundaries that cannot be crossed. A detailed story explaining how female genital mutilation is inflicted, for example, would cause a public outcry. The outcry would turn into a public revolt if that story was explicitly told with photographic illustrations. Being accountable to the readers is to understand instinctively what would offend or disturb the pubic.          

Sometimes a certain degree of self censorship is called for when dealing with stories that professional journalists know are likely to cause disharmony, discontent or disgust. Today journalists may have to exercise some voluntary self censorship with the ethical principle of Accountability in mind. In not so distant a past self censorship in journalism was the order of the day in Kenya. As Dr. Bitange Ndemo, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Information and Communications testified before the Waki Commission,  the media in this country had been controlled by the state formally from the 1930s until the mid- 1990s.

According to the Waki report he explained that as KANU still was in power up to 2002, the expanding media continued to be subject to harassment, torture, imprisonment, and fines for expressing their views. Censorship and self censorship also ensued, stemming from fear of reprisals by the state. Dr. Ndemo told the Commission that various media outlets continued to voice the views of the ruling party KANU as late as the 1990s even following the 1991 repeal of section 2A of the constitution and the return to multi party democracy in Kenya.

He noted that only after the 2002 election did the Government engage in a process of liberalization. This included licensing many new stations, something he told Commission that positively affected all parts of the media. That being the case it is even more important for professional journalists to be upright in upholding ethical principles especially that of Accountability.

The Code says Journalists and all media practitioners should recognize that they are accountable for their actions to the public, the profession and themselves. So far I have endeavored to discuss personal, institutional and societal accountability. I have assumed that when one is upright with these three he or she will automatically be professionally accountable. To be professionally accountably as far as professional ethics are concerned is to adhere to every single principle without any exception.

That means gathering, writing and editing stories fairly and accurately. It also means always being professionally independent; respecting and championing the cause of freedom of expression , the media and information; always being professionally impartial; trying to be absolutely fair to everyone ; remaining relevantly decent in all the different interpretations of the word; and above all always being professionally responsible.

The Code also says professional journalists should actively encourage adherence to these standards by all journalists and media practitioners; and   respond to public concerns, investigate complaints and correct errors promptly; while recognizing that they are duty-bound to conduct themselves ethically.

18. Integrity

This is one of the most cumbersome ethical principles because it involves other ethical tenets to be found in the Code of Conduct and Practice of Journalism in Kenya. These include attribution, confidentiality, impartiality, subterfuge and paying for news and articles. May be the most challenging directive from the ethical principle of integrity is its demand that journalists should not accept gifts, favours and compensation from those who might seek to influence coverage.

Looked at critically that part of the code alone would put many a journalists in Kenya to great shame for almost all of them are  regular receivers of all sorts of gifts and favours from all sorts of news makers. These gifs range from Christmas presents to junkets which virtually take them all over the world. Recipients of the gifts and junkets vary from the most junior correspondents in the smallest villages of the country to the most respected editors in huge offices of national media institutions.

Implementing this aspect of   the Code will be as challenging as following the demands made in Chapter Six of the new Constitution which talks about leadership and integrity. The paradox for journalists will be writing exposes against national leaders who are incapable of following the demands of Chapter Six while disobeying journalistic ethical principles calling for the same observance of high standards of integrity.

The Code also says journalists should not engage in activities that may compromise their integrity or independence. Since journalistic independence has been discussed in the previous article the word in the Code to look at semantically is integrity. According to the  dictionary the word has three meanings. First it means possession of firm principles: the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards. Secondly the word means completeness: the state of being complete or undivided (formal) for example the territorial integrity of a nation. The third meaning of the word is that of wholeness: the state of being sound or undamaged (formal) for example the public confidence in the integrity of the voting process.

One meaning accepted by many scholars sums that up in fewer words that suggests the adherence to moral principles; honesty. Secondly it has the connotation of being unimpaired; soundness or even unity and wholeness.

The drafters of the Code must have been guided by the meanings mentioned above especially the word’s first meaning of possessions of firm principles and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards. The Code says journalists should present news with integrity and decency, avoiding real or perceived conflicts of interest, and respect the dignity and intelligence of the audience as well as the subjects of news.  

That suggestion takes us slightly away from the semantic argument of the word integrity; but it succeeds in provoking our minds on a number of issues of presenting news with integrity and decency. If we can forget the aspect of decency momentarily and concentrate on presentation of news with integrity then we have to ask ourselves one simple but vital question. What is presenting news with integrity?

In my opinion that is presenting news factually without fear or favour even if that means publishing and being damned. To me that means gathering information professionally by following all the accepted methods without habitually engaging in subterfuge. I say “habitually” because there are instances when subterfuge is ethically permissible and I intend to discuss that later when examining the ethical principles of attribution and confidentiality.

Having gathered the news professionally the journalist is then obligated to write it in a no less a professional manner whose integrity can be judged by respecting the truth based on known facts and professional interpretation of those facts. The question of decency is itself controversial as its meaning varies from society to society. What is accepted as decent in one society may end up to be the most indecent thing to do in another society. Since journalists in Kenya serve a conglomeration of societies gathered together in a holistic entity called Kenyan culture then the only yardstick to be followed when presenting news decently is to think of readers, viewers and listeners collectively as Kenyans.

That may be a very easy thing to do for the national news institutions. But very soon Kenya is likely to have a multiplicity of media institutions scattered all over the country producing newspapers and news bulletins for radio and TV stations in different parts of the country. Such local news services may have to obey different rules on matters concerning decency. The rule of the thumb is never to offend our readers, viewers or listeners whether they are national or simply provincial.

On the issue of conflict of interest one can never forget how bylined articles on major events tend to slant the news in line with the ethnic background of Kenyan writers. As Kenyans we recognize our ethnic backgrounds by our names.  It is therefore extremely strange, if not altogether baffling, when writers openly take outlandish stands in defence of their own ethnic leaders while preposterously castigating leaders of rival ethnic groups, even when their reasoning is not backed with logic. The influence of ethnic background of top journalists in their editorial decision making process is more real than perceived in Kenyan situation.

The perception of viewers, readers and listeners that journalists are tribalists first and professionals second can only change if the journalists stop underestimating the intelligence of their audience. The calibre of Kenyan readers, viewers and listeners changes for the better almost every year when the people become more educated. Very much like the new voters of Kenya, media audiences are becoming very critical and intelligent consumers of news. They no longer swallow what is given to them by journalists without thoroughly chewing it. If it is not palatable enough they do not hesitate to spit it out with all the contempt it deserves.

Readers, viewers and listeners can easily detect a situation in which journalists’ professional competence is wanting. The Code’s demand that journalist should treat the subject they handle with integrity, therefore, could not be more relevant. Many are the times when we hear disc jockeys in a number of our radio stations pretending to be serious news analysts to the disgust of listeners. If there are any violators of the ethical principles of integrity in the profession, morning disc jockeys who pretend to be professional journalists top that list.

The Code also advises journalists to identify sources whenever possible. This is, for all practical purposes, attribution which I intend to deal with in greater details when discussing the ethical principle of Unnamed Sources.  The ethical principle of Integrity demands that confidential sources should be used only when it is clearly in public interest to gather or convey important information or when a person providing information might be harmed. To discuss this part of the ethical principle one has to examine another ethical principle of Confidentiality which I discussed in details in The Media Observer issue of September, 2006.

The issue of clearly labeling opinion and commentary, as suggested by ethical principle of Integrity, has bothered journalists for a very long time. As far back as 1922 the American Society of Newspaper Editors (Asne) saw the issue of separating opinion from fact essentially as that of impartiality. At that time it said sound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expression of opinion and added that news report should be free from opinion or bias of any kind.

But Asne in 1922 clearly distinguished that this rule did not apply to so-called special articles unmistakably devoted to advocacy or characterized by a signature authorizing the writer’s own conclusion and interpretation. Today Asne says that to be impartial does not require the press to be unquestioning or to refrain from editorial expression. It says sound practice, however, demands a clear distinction for the reader between news reports and opinion and adds that articles that contain opinion or personal interpretation should be clearly identified.

In Kenya the mixture of news and opinion is so common that may example could be given on daily basis concerning almost all the Kenyan media.

The Kenyan Code advises journalists to use technological tools with skill and thoughtfulness, avoiding techniques that skew facts, distort reality, or sensationalize events. There was no time when this aspect of the Code on Integrity was violated more than during the “Green” vs.  “Red”  referendum campaign. At that time Kenyans saw some fantastic television commercials for and against the Proposed Constitution. A number of them seemed to have very little regard to the Code of Conduct and Practice of journalism in Kenya.

Top on that list was an advertisement by the “NO” team showing an unborn baby in the womb with the heart still beating indicating the fetus was alive. Then the camera moves to some living children responding to a symposium interview: one says the unborn child must not be killed because it has blood; the other says it must not be killed as it was indeed a living being. Then the camera moves to a written text saying:  Protect life, vote “NO”. 

Technically that was an ingenious advertisement. It emotionally moved people and probably won the “NO” camp may votes. But ethically it was unprofessional. It gave the erroneous message that voting “YES” was supporting abortion when factually the Proposed Constitution said in Article 26 (1) every person has a right to life; and in Article 26 (2) said that the life of a person began at conception; and in Article 26 (3) it said a person would not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent authorized by the Proposed Constitution (meaning the Constitution that has new been promulgated) or other written law.

Despite all that the Proposed Constitution clearly said in Article 26 (4) abortion was not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there was need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother was in danger, or if permitted by any other written law. Publishing a horrifying picture of a fetus which ostensibly was about to be killed and then interviewing children pleading for sparing the life of the unborn child was contextually erroneous and therefore unethical. If it was unethical, it also was, needless to say, unprofessional and should not have been accepted by the media houses at whatever cost.

Probably the most controversial TV commercial about the referendum was the one showing the Minister for Higher Education, William Ruto, openly supporting the Draft Constitution. It depicted him saying it was a good document that could do a lot of good for the country. Soon after that the camera showed Ruto condemning the Proposed Constitution and then the camera moved to yet another William Ruto who was castigating hypocritical   Members of Parliament who said one thing in the National Assembly and the complete opposite when they were outside the chamber. 

From a propaganda point of view that was a fantastic commercial which made Ruto appear to be the most hypocritical leader who said one thing at one time and the complete opposite at another. Whereas both the footages of William Ruto were basically correct, they were not professionally upright as they were not contextually correct and therefore they were actually very wrong factually. The commercial did not say that the first footage showed William Ruto praising the Draft Constitution after it was thoroughly chopped and reshaped by Parliamentary Select Committee which included himself. The commercial was also professionally wrong because it failed to point out that what Ruto was praising and condemning were two different drafts of the Proposed Constitution at their two different stages of development.

The “NO” camp then correctly complained about the manipulation of films which showed William Ruto doing things out of context. What was shown to the public was neither accurate nor fair to William Ruto and it went against the very first professional ethical principle of accuracy and fairness which says that the fundamental objective of a journalist is to write a fair, accurate and an unbiased story on matters of public interest.  The principle demands all sides of the story to be reported, wherever possible.  It also says comments should be obtained from anyone who is mentioned in an unfavourable context.

The Code on Integrity reminds journalists to use surreptitious news gathering techniques including hidden cameras or microphones, only if there is no other way of obtaining stories of significant public importance, and if the technique is explained to the audience. This is known professionally as subterfuge which is discussed in greater details under the ethical principle of misrepresentation.

Paying for news sources is also a matter of concern as far as the ethical principle of integrity is concerned.  Whereas in Kenya paying for news sources is not as serious as in the Western countries where millions are spent by newspapers, radio and television stations for the sake of getting scoops, I intend to discuss it in greater details under the ethical principle Paying for News and Articles. The principle of Integrity also suggests that journalists should not   pay news sources that have vested interest in a story.

Though the Code recommends journalists in very general terms not to engage in activities that may compromise their integrity or independence, discussing such a recommendation would open up many cupboards containing a lot of rotten skeletons among some professionals. Going to any cocktail party, for example, would reveal a shameful picture of habitual gatecrashers from newsrooms who become conspicuous by the high level of their inebriation. Yet they are the most ubiquitous in almost every embassy where their editors are also present.   

17. Independence

This is the most controversial ethical principle in the journalism profession. Media proprietors in the capitalistic world do not like it. It tends to obstruct what they consider to be their right to interfere with editorial decision making process. In this country it took quite some time before it was included in the Code of Conduct and Practice of Journalism in Kenya.  When the Code was first published in Kenya in 2001, the ethical principle of Independence did not appear anywhere in the list of 23 first principles. Independence never appeared in the list in the second edition of the Code published in 2002, neither did it appear when the Code was reprinted in 2004.

Very much like the word “ethics” itself, independence has always disturbed British proprietors who seem to have quite an influence in their former British dominions, territories and colonies like Kenya. Those influenced by the British take the  meaning of the word ethics as  the philosophical study of the moral value  of human conduct and of the rules and principles that ought to govern it . Emphasizing the aspect of philosophical connotation  they become reluctant in accepting  its reference to a journalistic principle.

There is little wonder, therefore, that in Kenya we officially, very much like the British, refer to the journalistic ethics as the Code of Conduct and Practice of Journalism. Yet in every institution of higher learning where scholars study journalism, journalistic ethics are recognized as much as other ethics in professions like medicine and law. If medical ethics exist in the profession of medicine and legal ethics exist in the profession of law, there is no reason why journalistic ethics should not exist in the profession of journalism.

After all thousands of books have been written on the subject of journalistic ethics and there are countless scholars in many parts of the world studying the subject. Bearing that in mind I discuss Independence as a journalistic ethical principle, semantic arguments about the word ethics notwithstanding. Until today the British Code of Practice for journalist does not contain the ethical principle of Independence. In Kenya it was not until when the ethical principles were revised, just before the Media Council become statutory that Independence officially became part of the ethical principles.

The Kenyan Code says journalists should defend the independence of all journalists from those seeking influence or control over news content. It says journalists should gather and report news without fear or favour, and vigorously resist undue influence from any outside forces, including advertisers, sources, story subjects, powerful individuals and special interest groups. The issue of gathering news professionally is extremely sensitive to Kenyan journalists. Many are times when news editors send reporters and photographers to cover stories with very little news values simply because the source of the news concerned is invariably a powerful individual.

It is not beyond imagination that unprincipled news editors can be, and very often probably are, influenced by some powerful   outside sources. Powerful individuals in Kenya are so used to publicity that it has now become debatable whether there can be any news in Kenya without them. Prominence as a news value may be professionally very important, but it is still arguable whether prominence alone should dominate every front page day in and day out without considering mixing it with other news values such as timeliness, proximity, consequences or impact and human interest.

When prominent people dominate the news through the professional choice of editors there is absolutely nothing wrong; but when they become the centre of publicity in whatever they do because they control the editors’ ability to choose what is news, something is drastically wrong with not only the profession of journalism itself but some fundamental human right issues. Professionally it is the qualified journalists who should determine what is news and not the news makers no matter how important they are.

The first generation human rights demand that everyone should enjoy freedom of expression; but that freedom, it is constantly becoming clearer everyday, depends entirely on freedom of information, if it is to be meaningful at all. Yet the right of the people to know becomes seriously curtailed when the news makers determine what is and what is not news. Whenever that happens powerful news makers will always make sure that all the news that is not favourable to them does not see the light of the day.  

Given the fact that advertisers in Kenya are the buttered side of the journalistic bread, their power to determine what is news cannot be underestimated. For that reason the big advertisers in Kenya can never be subjected to the rigorous scrutiny that an ordinary individual has to go through. The big advertisers’ skeletons, if they are there at all, are so properly covered and kept away from the inquisitive eye of the investigative journalists because the advertisers have an indirect way of determining what is news – the threat to withdraw that ad.

In Kenya, news sources always try to influence journalists and particularly editors. Today negative stories about how journalists are bribed in order to cover stories are everywhere in every major industry which are said to give their public relation officers special funds to bribe journalists officially. Big industries in Kenya have special budgets for that and editors cannot pretend not to know this shameful fact. Until the matter is corrected journalism in Kenya will always have a problem with the journalistic ethic of independence. 

Kenyan journalists, like their professional cousins all other the world, are controlled by their sixth senses to scoop one another. But when one scoop is exposed, all the predators jump on it and the subject dominates all the front pages and all the news bulletins. One such story was the recent sale of human genitals stolen from dead bodies in mortuaries. In a situation like that journalists in Kenya compete to get all sorts of angles of the story and before the subject is exhausted it controls the journalists rather than journalists controlling it.  That is what he Code means when it says that journalists should not let the news subject have undue influence on the professionals.

Given the Darwinian nature of the profession it becomes very difficult to determine when a subject has been exhausted. Sometimes the best ways of determining that is to look at the letters to the editor. When letters of complaint begin to flow in, then it is time to change the subject.

Special interest groups in Kenya also interfere with the delicate job of editorial decision making process. When the country was deeply engaged in the “YES” and “NO” debate during the referendum, one of the most influential special interest groups was the Church. Evangelical churches had bought airtime in influential TV stations to present their biased views disguised as current affairs programmes. Televangelists used their airtime bought as commercials to pretend to analyse and interpret the then proposed Constitution.   Other professional bodies such as the LSK and FIDA are powerful opinion makers which must not be allowed to determine what news is.

The Code also advises journalists to resist those who would buy or politically influence news content or who would seek to intimidate those who gather and disseminate news. This type of influence became clear during the referendum for the new Constitution. Among the most vulnerable people to be bought by politicians are journalists. The trouble is that whenever a politician pays a journalist for a favour, that news spreads like fire in a very dry forest. When a journalist is known to the politicians to be on the take, he or she totally loses professional respect in all political circles. This is a subject that needs to be looked at by all MISC members through the Media Council to come up with a joint solution.

Professional journalists are also advised by the Code to   determine news content solely through editorial judgement and not the result of outside influence. When I joined the profession more than half a century ago the sole determinant of the news content was the editor who, for all practical purposes, was the demigod of the newsroom. With the professionalization of journalism in Kenya, that has now become the responsibility of very well trained professionals who hold special meetings well before deadlines to determine the placement of every news item in any newspaper, magazine, TV or radio station.

Journalists are also advised by the Code to resist any self-interest or peer pressure that might erode journalistic duty and service to the public. Self-interest is a human characteristic every dedicated professional learns to control. In journalism the temptation of blowing one’s own trumpet by giving oneself huge picture bylines must be systematically resisted because when it is not it becomes as conspicuous as a sore thumb. Like all newsrooms in every part of the world, those in Kenya are subjected to peer pressure which can only be fought by an open professional debate on any issue during all important professional meetings to determine what news is.    

According to the Code journalists must recognize that sponsorship of the news should not be used in any way to determine, restrict or manipulate content. A lot of new in Kenya is sponsored. In fact all news bulletins on television are sponsored; but as far as the tube is concerned there is no interference from the advertisers in determining what news is. However there has never been an occasion when the sponsors have been involved in news negatively. Whenever that happens then the sponsorship of TV news would be subjected to very tight scrutiny by professional peers.  

Last, but not least the Code urges journalists to   refuse to allow the interests of ownership or management to influence news judgement and content inappropriately. This is probably the most difficult part of the Code. Is there proprietorial interference in editorial decision making process? That is a very difficult question to answer and those who have the answer, meaning the editors, will always be very reluctant to tell the truth.

Some of the proprietors in Kenya are themselves news makers. One of them is none other than the former President Daniel Toroitich arap Moi. In September last year he made news when he defended his political stand against the new Constitution. Speaking at Kilgoris where he was one of the people who congratulated David Rudisha, who had broken the 800 meters record twice in less than a week, the retired President said "I want it known that I never opposed this new law just to get cheap publicity but I had reasons for my action."

According to his own newspaper The Standard of September 9 Moi said: "This new law has a lot of shortcomings which are not favourable to the ordinary citizens and leaders should not sit back and watch things done the wrong way."  Whereas the former President is entitled to his opinion it is strange that his paper The Standard of Sunday of September 19 had an exclusive story on the front page titled “Fresh War Erupts Over Control Of Counties”.

The story below that headline which was highly tendentious if not fictitious said: “As the country grapples with the thorny issue of implementation of the new Constitution, leaders in counties are embroiled in bitter squabbles that could derail the process. Indeed counties – a creature of the new law— are staring at a nightmare barely a month after the new Constitution was promulgated”.

It so happens that the whole country believes the counties in Kenya are the best thing to have happened in the political development and enhancement of democracy in the country. The only ones who hold the contrary opinion and think of counties as “thorny” issue are The Standard and one of its most powerful owners, Daniel Moi.  Everyone in the country believes that the declaration by various leaders to take over the governorship of the new counties is a democratic right of every Kenyans based on healthy acceptance of the new structure of governance. But The Standard calls the political interest of Kenyan leaders “bitter squabbles”

For some very strange reasons The Standard belief that the counties “are staring at a nightmare” seem to totally agree with the views of Daniel Toroitich arap Moi, the powerful owner of the paper. Is this a coincidence or proprietorial interference in editorial decision making process? If it is the later then it goes against the Kenyan ethical principle of Independence.