The media shutdown has
elicited passionate debates on the state of media freedom in Kenya. True to
form, comments on social media reveal deep rooted political and ethnic mis-informed
perspectives on the matter. Pro-government commentators support the shut-down
citing the shortcomings of the press as justification and they are overly
critical of NTV, KTN and Citizen TV, accusing them of anti-government bias and allegedly
working with the opposition to undermine the government and the ruling party. Anti-government
and pro-opposition commentators cite the government’s impunity and see a
political hand in the matter, dismissing all kinds of accusations against the
media. And there are those feigning indifference and swaying between support
and condemnation. The most eminent comment being; “They fed the ogre, now the
ogre is devouring them”.
The problem with this
debate is that majority miss the point which is “press freedom”. Freedom of the
press denotes an atmosphere where media professionals can publish facts without
any fear or any threat. For this group of people, there is a set of
professional journalistic codes and ethics to adhere to but the fundamental
question is often whether the publication is factual. Professional training and
established codes outside the confines of any group of interest, private or
national, instinctively provide answers to challenging environments not limited
by space and time. In the face of intimidation, undue influence and sabotage, my
media law and ethics professor, Joe Kadhi, a media guru who has tutored and
inspired many in the field often said “Publish and be damned”. This is the code
that we live by.
However, this does not
mean that press freedom is absolute. The Media has a responsibility to inform,
educate and entertain in a constructive and unbiased manner in the public
interest. The press has to know its responsibilities. It should conform to
national values, national objectives as expressed by the people and not just
the government, political class, businesses or any other power groups. The
reality is that our press is majorly private owned
and profit driven and this sometimes comes in the way of public interest especially
when economic interests are at stake. Citizens should demand accountability
from the press, just as they do from the government. Press freedom has
sometimes been abused through distortion of facts, blackmail, character
assassination and cheap sensationalism.
There is no doubt that
the press has the power to help or harm. The demerits of a free press far
outweigh the merits of a gagged press. Jawaharlal Nehru, nationalist and the
first prime minister of India stated that “I would rather have a free press,
with all the dangers that may result from a wrong use of that freedom, than a
strangulated press”. Governments and politicians across the entire globe, in
both democracies and autocracies have been at loggerheads with the press.
State power and
individual wealth breeds impunity in unequal societies and it is the
responsibility of the media to act fearlessly and be the pillar of strength for
the poor and weak in society. Gagging the press is usually associated with
declining democratic freedoms and often accompanied by injustices. It is
impossible to fight corruption, impunity, injustices and even poverty without
the free flow of information.
Most states would like
to control and manipulate the press in favour of incumbent governments.
Government controlled media are often manipulative and less responsive to
citizen needs and hence the low credibility in state owned media globally. It
is therefore important for citizens to understand that it is in their own interest
to stand by the press, despite their shortcomings and demand accountability and
responsibility, rather than have a press that plays to the tune of politicians
in and out of government.
Shutting down media
stations without due process is neither in the public interest nor in the
government’s interest. Self-restraint and respect for the constitution is
necessary to facilitate the growth of a responsible press and a more democratic
society. Condemnation and support based on political, ethnic and ideological
perspectives doesn’t help either. Media survival depends on the state that
governs and regulates them, the firms that advertise through them and the
audiences they serve. Their ultimate task is to balance these different interests
upon which their survival depends. It is never an easy task and therefore the
press often relies on accepted principles, values and legal provisions to guide
their work. Their performance should therefore be judged on these provisions.
The freedom of the
press should not be solely guaranteed by provisions of the law, but together
with the culture of accepted norms of society in an objective manner.
Objectivity is based on the interests of all the parties involved and is guided
by fundamental principles in the profession. Edward Herman defined
“Objectivity” as presenting both sides of the story, digging out facts without
political or ideological constraints and presenting those fairly and
impartially. Newsworthiness must be on the basis of consistently applied news
values, unaffected by a political agenda, ideological leaning and profitability
considerations.
There are several ways
to media accountability that function effectively and should be enhanced and
facilitated. The media should re look its self-regulatory mechanisms to ensure
that it is effective and responsive to the concerns of its stakeholders through
agreed on ethical codes, the media council, and letters to the editor columns
among others. Where there are competing ideas and ideologies and elusive facts,
the marketplace of ideas should be the guiding principle. The principle holds
that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in a free and
transparent public discourse where facts are separated from fiction based on
the merits and demerits, superiority and inferiority as well as acceptance
among the population. And just as free markets operate, the market place of
ideas is governed by laws against defamation, libel and slander and litigation
is a more democratic way to address media concerns.
