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.