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.