Free Speech or Cheap Talk? Assessing the Application of Ethical Standards and Professionalism in Talk Radio in Kenya
Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
I
Published by:
Media Council of Kenya Britam Centre, Ground Floor Mara/Ragati Road Junction, Upper Hill P. O. Box 43132 00100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: +254 2737058/ 2716265/2716266/0727 735252 Email: info@mediacouncil.or.ke Website: www.mediacouncil.or.ke Supported by:
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? Assessing the Application of Ethical Standards and Professionalism in Talk Radio in Kenya
Media Council of Kenya
First published May 2014 ŠMedia Council of Kenya All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of research, private study, criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronically or mechanically, including photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publishers or a licence permitting restricted copying. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers. ISBN 978-9966-073-01-3
CONTENTS Acknowledgement 1 Foreword 2 Executive Summary 3 Key Findings 4 1.
Introduction 8 Objectives of this study 8 Research questions 8 Methodology 9
2.
Literature Review 14 Power of radio in impact and influence 14 Nature of radio talk shows 14 Characteristics of callers in talk radio 16 Sex talk in Radio talk shows programmes 17 Ethical perspective of radio talk shows 17
3.
Audience Perception and Opinion on Talk Shows in Kenya 25 Study statistics 25 Frequency of listenership 25 Obscenity 27 The use of ethnic and race stereotypes 27
4.
Analysis of Various Talk Shows 33 Radio Citizen 33 Classic 105 35 KBC Idhaa ya Taifa 37 Bibilia Husema 38 Ghetto Radio 39
5.
Practices, Solutions and Tips 43 The building blocks of common ground talk 45 Conclusions and Recommendations 46 References 48
Acknowledgement The Media Council of Kenya (MCK ) wishes to sincerely thank all those who participated in the publication of this report. We are particularly grateful to all those who participated in data collection, analysis, report writing, preview and editing. We are also indebted to the MCK Media Analysis team of Immaculate Mwende, Abraham Kisang, Allennita Gakii and Njeri Munyiri. Their continued support and cooperation has been invaluable. We thank the Research and Media Monitoring Officer Amos Kibet for the compilation of data and for undertaking desk and survey research for this study. We owe special thanks to the MCK Chief Executive Officer, Haron Mwangi, Programmes Manager Victor Bwire and the Council’s Communications and Information Officer Jerry Abuga for their input and support. We also recognise the assistance of IT Officer Simon Njuguna who expertly handled online questionnaires during the period of this research. We thank Kevin Mabonga for the preliminary editing of this report. Lastly, we sincerely thank the Kenya Media Programme and GIZ for their continued support, and for making it possible for this project to take off.
Foreword The Media Council of Kenya is an independent national institution established by the Media Council Act 2013 for purposes of setting of media standards and ensuring compliance with those standards as set out in Article 34(5) of the Constitution. As per the mandatory requirement by the Act, the Council monitor’s newspapers, television stations and radio stations on their adherence to the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya. The Media Council of Kenya commissioned this study following numerous complaints from stakeholders on adherence to professional ethics of radio talk shows in Kenya. Some of the complaints have bordered on the quality of moderation, caller comments, inappropriate topical discussions, sensationalised and often immoral contributions as well as the blatant disregard of the professional standards and the code of conduct. The developments in technology and subsequent regulations have influenced and changed the shape and content of talk show programmes in Kenya and around the globe. Recent technological developments, particularly mobile telephony, have contributed to and facilitated increased listenership and participation in talk shows. The call-in section of radio talk shows has created a complex aspect of managing the feedback mechanism of the audience within the ethical and professional standards. Talk shows are ideally supposed to generate public debate about various issues and enhance public participation and inclusion in content development. Such content is supposed to facilitate public discourses on public interest issues that will enhance societal solutions for development. The proliferation of radio stations in Kenya coupled with the fight for wider audience base and attendant revenue-share has promoted the growth of talk shows. This development has engendered ethical challenges, concerns and debate particularly on whether and how it can be regulated. This study has therefore identified some of the challenges that radio talk show presenters face and possible remedies. The report will be useful in guiding radio talk show hosts in paying attention to specific ethical articles in the Code of Conduct that guide explicit topical discussions in their programmes.
HARON MWANGI Chief Executive Officer & Secretary to the Council
Executive Summary The Media Council of Kenya has in the recent past received numerous complaints regarding the ethics and professionalism of radio talk shows in Kenya. Of particular concern has been the quality of moderation, caller comments, inappropriate topical discussions, sensationalized and often immoral contributions as well as the blatant disregard for the appropriate listenership brackets especially during the morning call-in programmes. The Media Council of Kenya has on several occasions intervened and issued ethical advisories based on the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism. Accordingly, this study examines various radio stations with particular focus on the ethicality and professionalism of their programmes. The study finds that some discussions especially those that can be considered obscene take place because of lack of quality control and respect for moral and cultural sensitivities. The research further shows that the programmes are loaded with race, religion, and ethnic stereotypes, and are disrespectful of sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status. Commercial radio stations tended to privilege controversial, emotive and interesting topics of discussions like relationships, lifestyles and entertainment. The research further found that some callers and participants were paid to express sensationalist sentiments about controversial issues to generate debate and interest. Nonetheless, most hosts were able to effectively control discussions through moderation of the talks. The time allocated for the talk shows was limited and allowed an average of 10 interventions during the entire shows. No hate speech was recorded during the period of monitoring.
4
Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Key Findings •
54% of the respondents indicate that the problem of obscenity in radio talk shows exists because of uncontrolled interventions from callers. Respondents indicated that the hosts were not in control of the discussions and thus let them spiral out of control.
•
56% of the respondents believe many callers use fictitious names as a veil for making invective and reckless contributions.
•
58% of those surveyed say the discussions were not constructive, developmental and serious enough to inform policy issues in the society.
•
The survey indicates that many people (55% of the respondents) felt that the talk shows were loaded with race, religion, and ethnic stereotypes, and are disrespectful of sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
•
40% of those surveyed were not aware that they could lodge complaints with the Media Council of Kenya regarding unprofessional or unethical behaviour during call-in shows.
•
Only 2% of the respondents say they had tried to lodge complaints regarding violation of acceptable ethical standards.
•
The survey indicates that up to 78% of the respondents believed that some of the callers were paid to express sensationalist sentiments to generate debate and interest.
•
Most commercial stations privileged controversial, emotive and interesting issues relating to relationships, lifestyles and entertainment.
•
The survey indicates that 62% of the respondents had heard derogatory remarks based on ethnicity, race, creed and sex during morning radio talk-shows.
•
48% of the respondents believe some comments on the talk shows were unverified and false.
•
61% of the respondents felt the discussions shape and influence listeners’ general perceptions and thinking on different aspects of life in society.
•
46% of the respondents indicate that inappropriate remarks were made on social media sites, particularly Facebook pages and Twitter handles, of the morning radio talk shows.
•
The survey shows that 32% of the respondents liked the music that was played in their favourite talk shows.
•
31% indicate that they liked the humour in the shows.
•
24% say they appreciated the discussion.
•
60% of the respondents believe the programmes promote hate speech although no evidence of hate speech was found during the duration of the research.
•
Religious stations hardly violated ethical standards.
•
The time allocated for radio talk shows was limited and on average only 10 calls were received during the programme.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 5
6 6CheapFree TalkSpeech or FreeorSpeech? Cheap Talk?
Free Cheap SpeechTalk or Cheap or FreeTalk? Speech?7 7
Chapter One Radio Talk shows are a tool with great power to influence conflict in a positive or negative manner; they have to be used with care, if they are not to exacerbate conflict. Talk shows can bring people together across dividing lines and open up debate on difficult issues – Howard and Rolt
Introduction Radio is considered powerful because of its wide reach, and because it’s relatively affordable compared to other media such as television. The growth and popularity of radio is also attributed to its interactive nature with modern technologies allowing for audience participation in various programmes. In other words, radio programmes have become more conversational, engaging and interactive. Radio stations now use Premium Rate Telephony Services (PRS) to interact with their listeners and allow participation via phone or short messages (SMS). The development of new forms of competition and premium rate phone-ins has changed the nature of the relationships with listeners. The audiences become paying customers while the station has the potential to develop a small but consistent revenue stream and increase listener loyalty. Such revolutions have introduced new challenges particularly with regards to the adherence and respect for acceptable ethical and professional standards.
8
Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Morning talk shows are some of the most popular radio programmes in Kenya according to 2013 Study from Kenya Audience Research Foundation. Some of the topics of discussions in those radio stations arouse immense interest among their audiences. However, the Media Council of Kenya has received numerous complaints with regards to some of the radio stations talk-show programmes. The Complaints Commission of the Media Council of Kenya regularly receive complaints from individuals and organizations concerned about the falling quality and ethical standards of such programming. Most complaints touch on the appropriateness of the topics of discussions, invective, unverified and reckless commentaries from callers and guests, the inability of hosts to moderate and control discussions and the violations to ethical standards as stipulated by Code of Conduct. Although some have not been formally presented, listeners sometimes complain that their calls have been limited or barred by the station, that some programme hosts are biased, insufficiently informed and/or are discourteous. Many consumers also complain that the nature of the material being broadcast, like radio stunts or shock jock programmes, is obscene, indecent, profane or offensive.
Objectives of this study 1. To identify the ethical and professional challenges radio talk shows in Kenya face with special focus on host moderation, caller comment and issues of discussion. 2. To determine the role of talk shows in promoting issues of
public interest, development and social and political engagements in Kenya. 3. To identify and examine prominent and thematic priorities offered by the radio talk shows programmes. 4. To determine whether morning talk shows promote hate speech and bigotry.
Research questions i.
Do radio talk shows adhere to acceptable ethical and professional principles?
ii.
What are the general audience perceptions of various radio talk shows with regards to issues of public interest, development and social and political engagements in Kenya?
iii.
What are the topical issues and thematic priorities on radio talk shows in Kenya?
iv.
Do the talk shows promote hate speech and bigotry in Kenya?
Continuous monitoring was done for two weeks and focused on morning talk shows. The monitoring was guided by a code sheet informed by the provisions of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism as stipulated in the Media Council Act 2013. An online survey questionnaire was also used in this study. Purposive sampling was used in the study with respondents being listeners who had tuned-in in the last one month. A questionnaire with four sections was used. The questionnaire was divided into: a section on the perception of respondents on the level of adherence to ethical and professionalism standards during talk shows; section on respondents’ perception of the quality of topics and host moderation skills; a section on level of awareness on retributive measures on errant media houses and the appropriate action audience can initiate; and a section on respondent ratings on various aspects related to the talk shows. Characteristics of radio talk show programmes •
Most radio talk show programmes in Kenya are broadcast live. There are hardly any pre-recorded talk show programmes.
•
Talk show programmes target audience participation. The main mode of participation is mobile telephony via voice calls and text messages.
•
The talk shows are often moderated by a media personality who guides, facilitates and stimulates the discussions.
•
Many talk shows have employed the services of a ‘clown’
Methodology This study used two methods, namely content analysis and an online survey. The research analyzed content from various radio stations that can be broadly categorised as: •
Public service radio.
•
Community radio.
•
Commercial radio (in English and Kiswahili).
•
Religious radio.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 9
character. These are mostly comedians or popular actors who spice the programmes with comic relief. •
Talk show programmes sometimes use guests knowledgeable about the topics on offer. This means the programmes sometimes involve exchanges between the audience and the guests.
•
Most programmes focus on particular topical issues of social, political or personal nature. Sometimes the programmes use interviews, narratives, debates, confessions and testimonies. Confrontational and conflicting opinions are usually guaranteed given the topics and the fact that audience participation is encouraged.
•
Normally, callers’ contributions are screened by a show’s producers in order to maximise audience interest and, in the case of commercial talk radio, attract advertisers.
•
Talk shows are organised into segments, each separated by a break to allow for advertisements. In public or noncommercial radio, music is sometimes played instead of commercials. Other breakers include money games and news.
Evolving roles of radio talk shows in Kenya Talk show programmes have come a long way in Kenya’s radio history. They are now more audience oriented, more participatory and more entertaining compared to what was on offer about
10 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
two decades ago. Our study shows that talk shows play the following roles: I.
Talk show programmes as a form of citizen journalism Citizen journalism refers to content produced by ‘ordinary people’ or listeners. The focus is on the process or activity involved rather than the form of media in which it is published or appears. Talk shows create opportunities for citizen journalism. It is however important to make the distinction between callers providing news and information and their use of the space to express their opinions about particular issues.
II.
Talk shows as avenues for social interaction Talk shows play an important role by providing the space for the expression of opinions. An important aspect for opinion sharing among the participants is the immediacy of talk shows. Some of the road shows organised by various media houses have created an avenue for the audience to meet their talk show hosts. This has served to complete the social interaction circles.
III.
Talk show programmes as avenues for agenda-setting Audience members recognise the agenda-setting role of talk shows. With a relatively high audience, radio has greater impact in terms of setting the nation’s agenda. Discussions on morning talk shows sometimes reverberate throughout
the day as some radio stations repeat bits of morning discussions throughout the day. IV.
Talk show programmes as sources of news stories Sometimes callers become key sources of information about events and happenings around the country. Some callers specifically do so with the aim of giving information on such things as accidents, disasters and even events which may interest journalists and the public.
V.
VII.
Talk show programmes as lobbying tools While talk shows may have been used as a mechanism to actively access politicians and to engage on political issues, others find it as a valuable tool for lobbying on behalf of community organisations. Through talk shows, the electorate have been mobilised to participate in political activities including voting, people have been urged to take part in humanitarian activities and even well-wishers have
Talk show programmes as problem solvers Some talk shows contribute to the resolution of everyday problems. Sometimes experts on the shows handle people’s problems. Accordingly, audiences gain from the shows, and contribute to solutions to other people’s problems.
VIII.
Talk show programmes as avenues for democratic engagement The participation of political and other actors in the shows give audience an opportunity to interact with their leaders. The audience can engage such leaders on issues that affect society. These conversations undoubtedly enhance democratic engagements. The programmes can also enhance the media’s watchdog role.
VI.
been urged to support their fellow Kenyans during disasters.
Talk show programmes as entertainment platforms Talk shows are first and foremost entertainment programmes although they can also be both informative and educative. However, in most cases the shows are often for entertainment purposes.
Common topical discussions on radio talk shows in Kenya Topical issues in talk shows are dependent on various factors. Some of these include the commercial orientation of the media house, competition from other radio stations, target audiences, the personality of programme hosts and audience demands. One way of determining the target audience of a talk show is to listen to the music they play, the kind of competitive win-shows within the programmes, the words and phrases used, the commercials broadcast, among others. Some of the issues common on talk shows include: •
Politics
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 11
•
Relationships and family issues
•
Current affairs
•
Human interest issues
•
Religious issues
•
Lifestyle and entertainment
•
Development issues like fishing and farming
•
Economic and business issues including cost of fuel
•
Sports
Radio talk shows: the legacy of postelection violence in 2007/2008 The impact and influence of radio talk shows cannot be better explained without a look at the post-election violence of 2007/2008. Media observers and monitors have singled out certain locallanguage radio stations for contributing to ethnic animosity through broadcasts that seemingly promoted hate speech. Some observers note that some locallanguage radio stations were not only partisan but also supported leading political parties, spread fear and propaganda through their programming, slandered individuals and communities and propagated ethnocentrism. The radio stations are said to have contributed to a climate of hate, and fear by
12 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
propagating negative ethnicity and violence. One of the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictees, Joshua arap Sang is accused of fanning ethnic violence through his morning talk show on Kass FM. Other local-language radio stations like Kameme, Inooro and Coro have also been accused of contributing to the post -elections violence. The allegations before the ICC demonstrate that radio may be culpable of promoting violence through hate speech and bigoted programming. The Waki and Krigler commissions may have reinforced the foregoing conclusions that vernacular radio stations served as platforms for the mobilisation and coordination of violent activities by the various ethnic groups. This may have also been because of the failure or inability of journalists and presenters and the state to control or reign in deleterious live talk shows. This is not peculiar to Kenya though as countries like Rwanda and Burundi suffered terrible consequences of hate radio. Regardless, it is important to note that radio, like other media, can be both useful and harmful depending on use. Radio can contribute to growth and development of the community and country by providing information, education and entertainment. It can also undermine social cohesion and encourage violence by propagating hate and bigotry.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 13
Chapter Two
Literature review Power of radio in impact and influence Radio is one of the most effective media of communication especially in developing countries mainly because of its wide reach, its relative affordability and because information can be broadcast quickly in many languages that the audiences can understand (Wilson III, 2004; Mwakawago, 1986). In Kenya, there are many English, Swahili and local language stations. This means that almost all Kenyans can benefit from existing stations due to the diversity of languages offered. The fact that messages can reach large audiences within a short time contributes to the development of countries given the fact that information and education that communities need is offered affordably especially in poor countries where other media are either unaffordable or unavailable (Mwakawago 1986). But it is the dual purpose of education and information that is critical to development. It is also what makes it attractive or popular in many communities. Listeners can always tune in to hear the latest music, news, weather, and traffic report. Other mass media, television, newspaper, and magazines, are not as up-to-the minute as radio. In addition, through specialised programming, radio has specific appeals to different groups of people. Radio has developed a diverse range of formats to satisfy almost every one’s preferences. With so many different radio formats, listeners have a range of menu to choose from to suit individual interests. Listeners may have similar reasons for listening to different radio formats, but demograph-
14 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
ic, social, and psychological dimensions may influence an individual’s decision to listen to a specific radio format. What’s more, radio has the ability to affect community behavior. This is especially true when talking about the political behavior. Radio has the ability to become an open mike forum where individuals within a society can express opinions, legitimize actions, and mobilize fellow listeners. Lastly, radio is a versatile medium (Crittenden, 1971). According to latest Communications Authority of Kenya, formerly the Communications Commission of Kenya, there are more than 113 licensed radio stations in Kenya. The actual number is probably much higher. Radio stations in Kenya are as diverse as the cultural heritage of its people. Radio stations operating in Kenya can be categorised into commercial, public, religious, community, and institutional stations.
Nature of radio talk shows
Talk shows are unique. They are different from conventional journalism that seeks and is interested in factual and balanced information. A talk show can consist of invited guests discussing particular issues or a presenter encouraging random callers to express their views through call-in sessions. Often talk shows are a mixture of both formats. Radio talk shows are mostly interested in debates using conversational methods. Radio stations often encourage their listeners to participate in discussions. Through phone-ins, debates and competitions, listeners not only engage with issues but participate in conversations with others or experts in different areas creating a sense of community. Programmes of this nature take on a “town-meeting” format where it is the
responsibility of on-air personalities to facilitate and maintain lively conversations with listeners on relevant issues of the day (Barone and Schrof, 1990; Rubin and Rubin, 1993). Listeners are encouraged by hosts to call in with opinions and questions. Often, outside guests are invited on these programmes to offer expert knowledge and ideas and enrich the exchanges. Although numerous issue-oriented programmes discuss topics ranging from community problems to issues of national concerns, many focus on current affairs. Numerous developments in technology,
and subsequent regulations, have influenced and changed the shape and content of talk show programmes. Recent technological developments, particularly mobile telephony, have contributed and facilitated increased listenership and participation in in talk shows. Further, mobile handsets with radio facilities means more people are now tuning in to such programmes. This widens listenership and has the potential to enhance participation. Email and SMS technology makes talkback available to people who would not otherwise have contributed to such programmes (Gillman, 2007)
Strengths and weakness of call-in radio talk shows Strength
Weakness
Anonymity for callers. This is especially important for vulnerable callers or whose may want to keep their identity secret for various reason
High risk of invective, slanderous, false, bigoted expressions, hate speech, misinformation
Democratises debate. Engages the general public without or with little restriction
Callers unfocussed, irrelevant, mischievous, unaccountable pronouncements
Provides a wide diversity of public views, perspectives
Callers can provoke and inflame tensions with outrageous remarks
Element of surprise, spontaneity
Risk of technical disruptions such as bad phone lines, background noise
Interactive: Callers, presenter and guests can exchange views
Difficult to manage time, control calls
Provides instant reaction, feedback
Risk of becoming ‘trial by radio’ for guests
Humanises issues. Ordinary people speak
Reduced time for in-depth exploration of issues
Gauges public opinion
Risk of unrepresentative flood of calls organised by one viewpoint, and production of unreliable opinion
Provides public access to experts, authorities, leaders
Unrepresentative of public lacking phones and airtime to make calls and participate in discussions
Allows venting or cooling of public emotion
Difficult to summarise views
Public pleas can influence antagonists’ positions
Callers take over the programme, attacking each other
Source: Howard, Ross and Rolt, Francis. 2005 Radio Talk shows for Peace building: A Guide. 2nd ed. Brussels: Search for Common Ground. p.24
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 15
Why do people listen but not contribute to radio talk shows?
The purpose of talk shows is mainly to generate public debate about various issues and enhance public participation and inclusion in content development. Although such shows are characterized by high listenership, there is often a small number of people motivated to call in and share their feelings about issues being discussed. There are suggestions that the need for communication and companionship may be a strong reason for listening to talk shows talk radio. Avery, Ellis, and Glover (1978) say that individuals see talk radio as a source of information and as a channel to express themselves. Their research found that many people considered talk shows “a window on the world”. Hosts and callers lend support to one another and listening to these programmes was an important part of an individual’s daily routine. Avery, Ellis, and Glover (1978) found that hosts satisfied an interpersonal function for listeners. The foregoing discussions are supported by Armstrong and Rubin (1989) who found that in the United States found that people listened to talk radio for various. While some wanted information, others used it to pass time and habit, for relaxation, exciting entertainment, convenience, voyeurism, companionship and escapism. Most development theorists however consider the information provision one of the most important reasons for listening to radio. Cerulo, Ruane, and Chayko (1992) argue that most radio consumers want to keep up on issues and current events and affairs. In their research, one in five respondents indicated they wanted to hear other viewpoints and said that they listened to learn how different people feel about issues of the day. Many respon-
16 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
dents reported that talk radio served as a platform for discussions of public opinion. Respondents also listened to talk radio because they believed it was entertaining. Herbst (1995) has identified four main reasons for listening to talk shows. In his study, several listeners said that they called in to transmit their own opinions and to disseminate knowledge. Other callers were motivated by the need to engage in some sort of dialogue. Some individuals called in because they sought advice, information, or clarification on some issue. A small percentage of people felt a need to “police” the public sphere and so called in to correct a bias of a host or caller and to broaden discussion topics. The Times Mirror study (1993) which has examined people’s use of political talk radio, found that audience members listened for several reasons. First, people were motivated to keep up on issues and stay current with public affairs. Second, people listened because of the entertainment value in the programmes. Lastly, individuals admired particular hosts and thus tuned in to hear what hosts say. According to Appleton (1999), the increasing popularity of talk radio has been linked to social factors such as growing numbers of unemployed and part-time and shift workers, and the ageing population, who are seen as influencing the main agendas of talk radio programmes.
Characteristics of callers in talk radio Who are the major callers to radio talk shows? What is their demographic, social, and psychological orientation? Answers to these questions would explain the link between the nature of callers and the quality of discussions and consequently the general adherence to the Code of Conduct.
Turow (1974) found that individuals who were older, less mobile, isolated and of a lower socio-economic status were more likely to phone in to talk shows. He also found that the time of day influenced those who called. He added that the continuous talk show radio format offers audience members a chance for social interaction. Armstrong and Rubin (1989) however found that radio talk shows callers did not use the medium for reasons of companionship any more than non-callers although callers were more likely to be less socially interactive and less mobile than non-callers. Their study also shows that the most significant reason that individuals give for listening to talk radio is that it serves as an “instrumental media experience, with issues, arguments, information, and humor encouraging listeners to attend and become involved”. Armstrong suggests that the people who called into talk shows were those seeking companionship and those who have the time and resource to engage in discussions that would give them certain media experiences. Those seeking ‘cheap’ popularity may also regularly participate in radio talk shows. With time they become key to the programmes. Their opinions are then regularly sought and their views often throw controversial angles into the discussions to generate debate and interest. Such callers create a perceived affiliation to the hosts and the radio stations in general.
Sex talk in Radio talk shows programmes Sex sells. The prioritisation of sex in radio talk shows clearly attest to this fact. Sex talk programmes have been known to push audience rating and participation through feedback. The anonymity
of callers encourages sex talk in programmes as it shields the true identity of contributors. In the 1970s, the United States labeled such sex-filled shows “topless” programmes. They were consequently targeted by the Federal Communication Commission for violating obscenity statutes. Since then, however, people’s views have changed. Such developments have made sex talk increasingly popular. Mendehlson (1964) states that individual radio stations serve one of four basic functions: utilitarian information and news, active mood accompaniment, release from psychological tension and pressure, and friendly companionship. Sex talk not only provides that utilitarian information satisfaction but also provides a release from psychological tension and pressure when individuals share private information with absolute anonymity. In Kenya, some of the radio talk show programmes have specific advisors christened “Dr. Love” who sometimes give opinionated and hurtful comments to individuals who call in. However, the programmes have generated debate, and raised a number of moral questions among them: Should such sexual topics be discussed during the morning hours when young listeners can tune in?
Ethical perspective of radio talk shows The proliferation of radio stations in Kenya coupled with the fight for a wider audience base and attendant revenueshare has promoted the growth of talk shows. This development has engendered ethical challenges, concerns and debate particularly on whether and how it can be regulated. An area of particu-
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 17
lar concern has been the conduct of talk show hosts given their privileged position and capacity to influence public opinion and loyalty. According to the Code of Practice and Guidelines for Commercial Radio in Australia, talk shows content must not offend generally accepted standards of decency (for example, through the use of invective language). Howard and Rolt (2005) argue that talk shows are a form of journalism and that presenters should adhere to the professional standards of accuracy and impartiality and must strive to avoid libel and slander. They argue that such radio programmes risk giving listeners empty entertainment and little informational or educational value if they do not exercise professional responsibility. The content should ideally serve and advance public interest.
The use of coded language in talk shows: the case of hate speech Most African languages are rich in proverbs, similes and metaphors. Many callers use them during talk shows. The motives for using the proverbs, similes and metaphors varies and the talk show hosts should be on the lookout particularly because some people use them as veils to engage in hate speech and bigotry. It is no secret that some people often use metaphors and proverbs to avoid directly stating what they really mean. It is not, however, lost to discerning listeners and audiences that the true meaning of such words is hate speech. They merely use such language to conceal hate speech and attempt to escape responsibility for any harm that may arise out of their pronouncements. It is no secret that the use of hate-loaded code words during conversations is
18 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
common in Africa. For example, during the post elections violence of 2007/2008 some of the communities were considered ‘magugu’ meaning weeds. Similarly, in Zimbabwe, some people speak of ‘harvesting the weeds’ meaning to root out any individuals who do not belong to the ruling party. In Rwanda, just prior to the genocide, the use of ‘kill the cockroaches’ (meaning eliminate Tutsis) was very common. Such statements are not just cultural expressions but are used as coded words to encourage violence. Howard and Rolt (2005) posit that journalist and talk show presenters should challenge the use of coded and hateful metaphors and similes in their talk shows. They should recognize hidden hate speech and should immediately ask the speakers to explain what they mean in straightforward terms. Journalist should use phrases like: ‘Tell us what you mean by that’ or ‘kindly state that in simple terms’ or ‘what are you referring to? in challenging the speakers to say they really mean. Journalist should willingly feign ignorance if and when necessary and expose any form of hate speech by demanding clarity of the contribution made by some callers. This will force speakers to bear responsibility for their statements and contributions.
Influence of talk show hosts on callers: documented evidence The influence of talk shows hosts on their audience is tremendous. According to Cordeiro (2012) radio influence on socio-political power structures and the manufacture of consent, along with other media effects in society, have led to the adoption of professional structures and strategic management. Such strategies have included the hiring of talented and celebrity individuals as radio talk show hosts. Such celebrities command the admiration and adora-
tion of their audience, a factor that comes with great amount of power and responsibility. Kendrick (2006) has examined the influence of radio hosts. She is particularly interested to see how much influence they have during violent confrontations. In his study, Kendrick (2006) sought to understand the role of popular broadcaster Alan Jones and his callers in inflaming the 2005 Cronulla, Australia, riots between young Lebanese-Muslim and Anglo-Australian men. She analyzed his and his callers’ opinions and, more broadly, talkback radio’s claim to power and authority. Kendrick argues that it was the intimate relationship between Jones and his listeners/callers
that made his programme a “pivotal player” in the unfolding of the riots. It is therefore evident that talk show hosts wield immense power which, if not channeled appropriately, may lead to violent conflicts.
Professional characteristics of radio talk show host A professional talk show host should ideally understand the ethical principles that guide such programmes. Some of the general professional characteristics require that a host should be able to: • Direct discussion towards issues of public interest and avoid merely
Presenters at Radio Maisha studios.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 19
sensational topical issues • Adequately research and understand topical issues of discussion • Seek clarification, re-ask essential questions • Focus a debate, highlight a central issue • Calm fierce emotions, including his/ her own, especially through humour • Recognise and emphasise facts • Be broad-minded, unbiased, and self-controlled • Identify, synthesise and articulate public opinion • Be articulate, confident, and a team player • Enliven a serious debate, always remembering: the public is listening • Find out and be aware of what ordinary people and regular listeners are talking about • Listen patiently to find key information in complicated answers and facts
“Cash for comment”: the case of manipulative swindle
The Commercial Radio Inquiry was established and undertaken by the Australian Broadcasting Authority in 1999 to investigate claims that some of the country’s most popular and highest paid talk show hosts had received payment from companies and lobby groups in return for positive comment. The positive comments were engineered through ‘cash for comments’ callers. The inquiry found out that the “cash for comments” individual were mainly allowed to make
20 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
piercing and controversial statements aimed at driving positive discussions towards some companies. Christened ‘cash for comment’ inquiry, Turner suggests that this can be seen as a consequence of the deregulation of the radio broadcasting industry formalized in Australia by the Broadcasting Services Act (1992). He pointed out that such cash for comment scandals highlight the failure of self-regulation aimed at protecting public interest (Turner, 2000). One of the outcomes of the inquiry was that licensees be required to ensure the on-air disclosure of commercial agreements between sponsors and presenters. But the Australian Broadcasting Authority was powerless to censure talkback hosts. Accordingly, those who breached the Commercial Radio Code of Practice continue to operate. Moreover, any concern that listeners had about the controversy was not reflected in ratings. In other words, listeners remained loyal to the hosts.
Moderation and censorship of talk shows
The ability to censor callers, such as the beep-a-phone 5 seconds delay, raises the issue of censorship. Although this raises concerns about censorship, talkback radio is similar to other forms of media, such as television current affairs programmes or news programmes which moderated and censored (Lucchetti, 2010). Talk show hosts encourage listeners to call and voice their opinions. A caller’s ability to phone into talk shows and voice personal opinion is dependent on what calls the station let through. They ultimately have power over which calls broadcast. Listeners may be under false impression that all callers get opportunities to air their opinions. This may
promote the illusion that radio is an equal medium. Lucchetti (2010) argues that the content and format of talk shows will always be highly influenced and dependent on the economic interests of the station. The talkback hosts are therefore also influenced by economic interests, as they are persuaded to deliberately adopt certain personas to influence and provoke callers in order to make more “entertaining radio�.
Talk shows and conflict
Talk shows are not easy to produce. They are a complex, almost frantic exercise in juggling technical challenges and intellectual issues like differing perceptions of truth, and unpredictable human emotions which motivate guests and callers. And all this complexity has to be presented to an audience in an easy-to-understood format in a short space of time.
And surrounding this whole juggling act are external factors such as the political climate which may or may not favor the radio’s effort to inform the public. In the short term, no single radio programme can resolve a war, low-level conflict or make protagonists do what they are not already half-convinced to do. But in the long term, over months and years, a good talk show can help change the atmosphere within which a conflict occurs. It can subtly alter the thinking of a large number of people so that they are less likely to support or engage in violent acts. It can make them more likely to recognize and appreciate common interests and more likely to trust each other. By enabling its audience to counter the ideas of the warmongers, a good talk show will help audiences imagine ways in which peace is possible.
Ethical and professional challenges and possible solutions
Challenge
Description
Possible solution
Censorship
The legislative enactments like the Official Secrets Act or National Emergency laws, or by illegal threat of violence, governments, military forces and powerful figures sometimes believe they have unlimited rights to control what is aired. This is censorship and can result in false information, unbalanced journalism and propaganda. Censorship destroys the credibility and faith in the media. Censorship is the enemy of a free press and is a denial of democracy.
Imposing real censorship takes time, money and personnel. Constantly test the limits of safely challenging them. Make sure that you and the other radio stations have plans for responding when a journalist or presenter is arrest-ed. Ensure support from organizations relevant organisations like the Media Council, Article 19 among others.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 21
Impunity
A culture of no accountability for foolish or illegal actions means that elected officials and bureaucrats and other primary sources may refuse to speak on air. They often think that they can stop topics being covered in talk shows by refusing to comment.
If a topic needs to be covered the media should do it, and state that invited officials refused to show up or respond. Keep a record of who was invited, and of their response, or lack of it. And keep inviting them
Corruption
A culture of buying influence may make officials demand cash for comment. Or bribes may be offered to presenters or to their bosses to ensure that only certain opinions are aired.
It’s a fundamental principle of journalism that we don’t pay for comment. If someone wants to be paid they have failed to recognise the value of having their opinions or ideas aired. Professionals do not take bribes. Journalism is not for sale.
Self-censorship
Past experiences or fear of powerful interests may force officials, sources and journalists to say less than they want. Journalists also censor themselves to avoid losing access to important figures. Self-censorship buries the other side of issues, and silences difficult questions. It can also arise because presenters don’t know how to raise subjects which caused violence in the past. Selfcensorship can start from a bad experience and become a bad habit that destroys professional journalism.
The professional journalistic obligations of accuracy, fair balance and responsibility should overcome the first instinct to hold back, to self-censor. An accurate and properly balanced story or programme is a good defence against criticism from either side.
Control
Private owners, including NGOs, International organisations and individual commercial owners, often think that because they own the radio station they can dictate the type of coverage and the content.
All radio stations broadcast on the public airwaves and therefore have a public responsibility not to abuse freedom of expression, which is a fundamental right. Fight back carefully against owners’ interference. Resisting the pressure is part of the job of a responsible presenter.
22 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Intimidation
Some owners and managers fear harassment or the disfavour of government. They discourage talk shows from presenting controversial subjects. Advertisers may also oppose any controversy in programmes on which they advertise, and threaten to withdraw advertising. And there can be intimidation by managers or co-workers who want to avoid all controversy to please special interests. They may withhold support, resources and advancement from a responsible presenter or producer.
Resisting intimidation can be achieved in small steps, by presenting difficult or controversial subjects a bit at a time, over several shows separated by days or weeks. Also, the station should seek other advertisers more in tune with the objectives of the talk show. Resist intimidation in the workplace by encouraging professional standards among colleagues and emphasising fair balance in talk show content.
Commercialism
Advertising can be a good thing but too much of it constantly interrupting a talk show dealing with serious issues can be a problem.
Popular programmes attract advertisers but the integrity and coherence of the programme deserves respect. Explain to man-agers that too many commercials can make a show unintelligible and risk sudden unpopularity which displeases advertisers. Urge managers to use fewer but higher-paying advertisers.
Taboo subjects
Some subjects such as sexual issues, women’s rights, or child labour, are not openly discussed, and in some countries even religion or ethnicity are taboo. People can be embarrassed or react angrily to discussing taboos on radio talk shows.
Be sensitive and always explain to listeners why the issue is important. Use real people’s experiences or suffering to demonstrate the human implications of taboos. Discuss how old taboos disappeared.
Trauma
Individuals or groups who have suffered from violence such as rape, assault, or attempted murder, or who have escaped genocide may be almost incapable of speaking about it coherently. They fear hostile perceptions, or being blamed as victims by presenters or callers.
Again, sensitivity is important. Meet the guests before the show to learn what they can discuss. Remember that they are victims of illegal violence, and make sure that your attitude is sympathetic. Don’t allow other guests or callers to blame them for the violence they have suffered. Allow trauma victims to be accompanied by a friend.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 23
Cultural restrictions
Traditional limitations on people’s freedom to speak openly because of their race, caste, gender, religion or other distinctions can make it difficult to discuss the conflict caused by these limitations.
Bring victims of discrimination onto the show to relate their experiences as people, not as members of any caste or group. But it is unacceptable to bring anyone onto a talk show to entertain listeners with their uneducated accent or unusual opinions. Treat everyone with the same respect. A talk show should always be a place of equal rights.
Own beliefs and values
Our personal values shaped by our family and neighbourhood role models and our life experiences, are the most powerful influences on how we first react to guests and callers. A caller or a guest may offend our values with their ideas or attitudes. Controlling our own anger can be a challenge.
Journalism training can help presenters overcome their beliefs and provide a more balanced approach. We need to recognise inevitable prejudices and preferences affecting our own choice of words, and our responses to callers and guests. We need to think before responding, and try to get at the positions and the interests of our guests and callers rather than allowing our own opinions, prejudices and ideas to dominate. An angry presenter rarely makes a useful contribution to understanding an issue.
Personal experiences
Our own experiences are significant to us, and we may want to bring them into the discussion.
Talk shows exist first to inform the audience. We select guests with something significant to con-tribute, and we urge callers to speak freely. Our role is a facilitator, guiding the information flow and ensuring free expression. We stop being a facilitator if we start relating our own experiences. And audiences may focus on our experiences and opinions instead of learning guests’ and callers’ opinions, and seeing possible common ground. A good talkshow presenter never needs to use the word ‘I’.
Source: Howard, Ross and Rolt, Francis. 2005 Radio Talk shows for Peace building: A Guide. 2nd ed. Brussels: Search for Common Ground. pp16-18.
24 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Chapter Three
Audience perception and opinion on talk shows in Kenya Study statistics Respondents:
Sampled audience who had listened to talk shows programmes in last one month
Sample Size:
139
Response Rate:
89%
Age:
15-25 (23%), 26-35 (34%), 36-45 (21%), 46> (11%), No-response (11%)
Gender:
Male 72%, female 28%
Education:
Bachelors degree 34%, masters 5 % diploma 23%, no-response 38%
Frequency of listenership Question
Response
Have you consistently listened to any of your favourite talk shows in the past one month?
Yes - 89% No - 10% No response - 1%
Have you appreciated and enjoyed listening to radio talk shows because of the set of presenters/hosts in the talk shows?
Yes - 90% No - 7% No response - 3%
The survey shows that 89% of the respondents had consistently listened to their favorite shows in the past one month. 90% of the respondents also indicated that they listened to their favorite show because of the set of presenters/hosts. This shows that while there might be a wide range of reasons why listeners listen to a particular show, the
presenters/hosts in the show played a very important role as well.
Audience loyalty As the chart above shows, 44% of those surveyed regularly listened to talk shows while a similar percentage indicated that they sometimes tuned in.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 25
Audience perception of a host’s competence
59% of the respondents believe that the hosts on talk radio are competent. These respondents say the hosts are adept at presentation, analyzing issues and controlling discussion. This compares to only 6% who think the hosts are incompetent. This suggests that audience’s ratings are informed by a host’s ability to create promote entertainment and escapism rather than their ability to understand and respect the professional and ethical guidelines.
Favorite component of the talk shows
The survey shows that music (at 32%) was the most popular thing on talk radio. This is closely followed by the humorous presenters at 31%. Only about a quarter of those surveyed, or 24%, said they tuned in due to the issue being discussed. This indicates that majority of listeners and contributors of the talk shows programmes do so for entertainment than for information and education. This is informed by the fact that more than 60% of the respondents indicated that they listen to music and tuned in due listen to humorous and comical presenters.
Gender consideration Question Is there gender balance when giving opportunity to comment during radio talk shows?
Response Yes - 46% No - 48% No response - 6%
Have you ever felt uncomfortable listening to radio a talk show due to the topic or comments?
Yes - 59% No - 39% No response - 2%
The survey shows that more than half (59%) of those surveyed have at some point felt uncomfortable due to the discussions on air. 48% of the respondents indicated that there was no gender balance on radio call-ins. This indicates
26 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
that the hosts should find ways of encouraging women to participate in the programmes. The hosts should further consider ways of sanitizing discussions to help maintain interest from disparate groups keen on such programmes.
Obscenity Question Is obscenity on talk shows a turn-off?
Response Yes - 54% No - 43 % No response - 3%
Do you believe the hosts are in control of the Yes - 37% discussions? No - 54% No response - 9%
Many of those surveyed (54%) believe obscenity on talk shows was a turn-off. A similar number say obscenity on radio persist largely because the hosts are not in complete charge of the shows. In other words, audiences believe that hosts have the capacity to ensure discussions are appropriate and non–offensive. Regardless, respondents believe the hosts do not exercise their moderation power effectively and often let discussions spiral out of control. Rating of talk shows as platforms for discussion of development issues As the chart above shows, only about a third of those surveyed, or 31%, believe the programmes offer just about
enough space for discussing development issues. Only about a quarter or 24% of the respondents rated the programmes as very good and four percent as excellent. This is indicative of the fact that few Kenyans see the programs as platforms for the discussion of development issues. Most see them as part of the growing entertainment culture. It also shows the extent to which programmes in Kenya are tailor made for different audiences. A content analysis, however, noted that some of the morning talk shows discussed serious current affairs and socio-political issues. The comments aired were however not reflective of the seriousness of the discussions on development.
The use of ethnic and race stereotypes Question Have you heard derogatory remarks based on ethnicity, race, creed and sex during morning talk shows?
Response Yes - 62% No - 36% No response - 2%
Are some comments on some talk shows unverified and false?
Yes - 49% No - 48 % No response - 3%
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 27
The survey indicates that 62% of those surveyed have heard derogatory remarks based on ethnicity, race, creed and sex on morning talk shows. This may also be supported by findings above indicating that many respondents found the shows uncomfortable to listen to. Almost half or 48% of the respondents thought some of the comments on talk shows were unverified and false. Accordingly, there is clearly some link between unverified and false information, the use of derogatory language and the level of discomfort experienced by the listeners.
Rating of talk shows with regards to discussion of public interest issues Although the meaning of public interest may have varied based on the listeners understanding and experience, 40% of the respondents rated the level of public interest in radio talk shows as average. 20% indicated it as good while 1% felt that it was very poor. This results shows that talk shows may not have discussed issues related to current affairs, socio-political development and policy issues.
Effects of the use of fictitious names Question
Response
Does the use of fictitious names affect the quality of contributions and promote unaccountable and reckless pronouncements?
Yes - 56% No - 42% No response - 2%
Are the discussions constructive, developmental and serious enough to inform policy issues in the society?
Yes - 39% No - 58% No response - 3%
The survey shows that the use of fictitious names had serious impact on the quality of discussions. More than half of those survey or 56% said the use of fictitious names gave callers the courage to engage in invective and reckless banter. 58% of those surveyed indicated that the discussions were not constructive, developmental and serious enough to inform policy issues. These findings support the notion that oftentimes the discussions are trivial and not serious enough to inform any constructive, developmental and policy issues.
28 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Audience rating on the quality and calibre of guests invited to talk shows The quality and caliber of guests invited to the talk shows was based on their ability to give professional, well informed perspectives that are free from personal biases. Nonetheless, only a third or 34% of those surveyed ranked the guests as being of high quality while 39% and 4% thought they were either of moderate or very low quality respectively. The quality of guests in talk shows may affect the quality of discussions. Undoubtedly, knowledgeable guests enrich discussions and help resolve or respond to serious comments and questions from listeners.
Presence of stereotypes in talk shows Question
Response
Are morning talk shows loaded with stereotypes of race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status?
Yes - 55% No - 42% No response - 3%
Are you aware that the Media Council of Kenya handles complaints related unethical behaviour by talk show hosts and the media house concerned?
The survey indicates that 55% of the respondents felt that the talk shows were loaded with racial, religious, ethnic, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status stereotypes. 40% also indicated that they were not aware that they could lodge complaints with the Media Council of Kenya based on unprofessional or unethical conduct. This means that unverified or false information expressed on such shows may not be corrected, or that unethical and unprofessional behavior may not be punished. Some of the general stereotypical expressions may have served to lower the quality of discussions on the shows.
Yes - 50% No - 40% No response - 10%
Rating on host response to issues and questions from audience As the chart shows, 51% of those surveyed rated the ability of the hosts to handle issues and questions from the listeners professionally as average. 25% felt they were competent enough. This shows that more than 70% of the respondents generally rated their hosts favorably which might have been informed by the likability of the hosts. Only a small minority or 3% of the respondents rated their hosts as poor.
Presence of ‘cash for comments’ callers Question Do you think morning talk shows shape and influence the listeners’ general perception and thinking on issues in society?
Response Yes - 34% No - 61% No response - 5%
Do you think some callers are paid to be sensational to generate debate and interest?
Yes - 78% No - 20% No response - 2%
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 29
As the table shows, many of those surveyed (78%) believe some callers are paid for their sensational or emotional views as part of generating debate and interest in the programmes. And more than half of those surveyed, or 61% of the respondents, felt the discussions shape and influence general public perception and thinking on issues affecting society. This shows that the “cash-forcomment� phenomenon is common in Kenya’s talk radio. This also shows that whilst some of the views expressed during the shows may interest listeners, they do not influence general public
perceptions and thinking on issues affecting society.
Preferred topical issues of discussions
The survey shows that a quarter of those surveyed, or 25% of the respondents, preferred the discussion of social issues like crime, terrorism and insecurity. 22% liked development issues like agricultural and business while 13% wanted relationship and family discussions. Others issues that listeners wanted to hear education, environment and religion discussed.
Adverse comments on social media A social media enthusiast catching up with updates on her facebook account.
30 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Question
Response
Have your ever lodged a complaint with the Media Council of Kenya on the violation of acceptable ethical standards on any morning show??
Yes - 2% No - 80% No response - 18%
Do callers make inappropriate remarks on social media (Facebook pages and Twitter handles) of the morning radio talk shows programmes which they fear making on live discussions?
Almost half of those surveyed (46%) agreed that some listeners made inappropriate remarks on the social media (Facebook pages and Twitter handles) pages of the talk shows. This is particularly worrisome because they could not express the same on live discussions. A tiny minority of respondents (2%) indicated they had tried to complain to the Media Council of Kenya about the violation of acceptable ethical standards on the shows. This may demonstrate either lack of awareness of the complaints facility at the Media Council. It may also demonstrate that people are apathetic about the respect for ethical and professional standards on radio talk shows.
Yes - 46% No - 20% No response - 34%
Comments on individual feelings and experiences 63% of those surveyed agreed (34%) or strongly agreed (29%) that comments by some callers on individual feelings and experiences were demeaning, offensive, and insensitive or inconsiderate. This shows that some people may have been turned off by comments aired on talk shows despite having genuine problems and issues that needed help and support from others. This may in effect aggravate the problems further and alienate some members of society.
Propagation of hate speech on talk shows Question Have you heard the propagation of hate speech on morning radio talk shows at any one in the past one year?
Response Yes - 60% No - 38%% No response - 2%
Do untrained radio talk shows hosts and cohosts contribute to the level of unethical discussions during the programmes?
Yes - 51% No - 46% No response - 3%
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 31
Despite the different definitions of what constitutes hate speech, 60% of those surveyed believed that they had heard hate speech on morning shows in the past one year. 51% of the respondents also indicated that the untrained radio talk show hosts and co-hosts were guilty of condoning unethical discussions in their talk shows.
Do talk shows enhance the watchdog role of the media? Based on their various understanding of the term ‘media watchdog’, the survey indicates that 38% of the respondents rated the performance of talk shows as watchdogs as average. A fifth of 22% of the respondents rated them as good and 14% as very good. However, it is unclear whether the respondents understood the meaning of ‘watchdog’ as only 57% of those sampled responded to the question.
Are topical discussions of radio talk shows audience-driven? Questions
Response Statistics
Do you think that the audience contributes to determining the topic of discussion?
Yes - 24% No - 74 % No response - 2%
Do you think the time allocated to callers is adequate for meaningful and constructive discussions?
Yes - 16% No - 67% No response - 13%
A large majority of those surveyed (74%) indicated that audiences did not have a say in the selection of topics for discussion. 67% indicated that the radio stations did not allocate enough time for the discussion of issues. This, they felt, was inadequate for meaningful and constructive engagement with the issues. Accordingly, the shows do not offer opportunities for serious discussion and engagement with important issues.
32 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Rating of talk shows in terms of providing platforms for freedom of speech and interaction as demanded by the Constitution Slightly more than half of those surveyed, or 53% of the respondents, believe the talk shows provide avenues for serious development and sustenance of freedom of speech as per the requirements of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
Chapter Four
Analysis of various talk shows Radio Citizen Topical issues of discussion during the talk shows • Constitutional implementation. The warrant of arrest issued by the by the High Court against the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government Mutea Iringo was a matter of great media interest. The Inspector General of Police David Kimaiyo was being challenged to execute the arrest warrant. Police reforms are still on-going and the constitutional powers granted to Inspector General allows him to exercise his mandate without fear or favour. • Politics. The National Assembly and the Senate stand on the conduct of governors. Constituency Development Fund’s utilisation and Orange Democratic Movement party elections were issues of media interest. The Senators and the Members of Parliament’s stand on the judicial verdict regarding the impeachment of Embu County Governor Martin Wambora, where both houses claimed to be in control of governors, as they feel they are superior to the Judiciary. There was a strong feeling that the two houses need to understand and support devolution. The Orange Democratic Movement’s (ODM) National Delegates Conference (NDC) was a hot topic of discussion following the violence
experienced at the meeting. The chaotic ODM NDC was given a lot of air time particularly on Waweru Mburu’s Yaliyotendeka programme. After a year of Jubilee Government, the presenter highlighted various government failures. National cohesion was considered a key failure as the country was seriously divided. Corruption is also still a serious challenge. Food security has not been realised as people in places like Turkana continue to experience serious famine. • Homosexuality. Following Ugandan President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni’s signing of the anti-gay bill, the matter raised a lot of interest and debate in Kenya. Presenters asked the audience in the talk shows to register their views regarding the issue. The question was whether they would support a similar legislation in Kenya or not. A majority of the callers were men (7). Only one woman called in and they all supported the idea and expressed support for the Ugandan President for enacting the law. • Education. The Constituency Development Fund (CDF) contributes to the education of poor children and thus was the subject of media interest and debate. The much-anticipated release of the 2013 Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education results and became the subject of intense debate and discussion.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 33
Nature of programme and topics of discussion Jambo Kenya show runs from six in the morning. It contains religious content (worship), weather, traffic updates, newspaper reviews and profiling of public figures. Afterwards Waweru Mburu presents his Yaliyotendeka programme. The call-in show starts immediately after the seven o’clock news updates, and is majorly informed by current affairs. The audience is asked to call, text, or post their thoughts regarding the topic of the day on their social media pages (Jambo Kenya-Citizen Radio) and via their Twitter handle #JamboKenya.
Professionalism of host in moderation of discussions The presenter Lincoln Njogu and Francis Luchivya have very good moderation skills. One example is noted especially in the county focus segment where they invite legislators to give progress reports on current affairs and projects running within their counties. On 25 February 2014, Manson Nyamweya (MP, South Mugirango) was invited to shed light on various issues among them:
34 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
• The role of the National Assembly and Senate in regards to the governor’s performance, county budget allocations and audit. • The role of MPs in poverty eradication. • Utilisation of Constituency Development Fund. Difficult questions were asked. For example the presenter asked: Who holds MPs accountable with regards to CDF Utilisation? Nyamweya response was that the National Assembly Committee on CDF is mandated by the Constituency Development Act 2013 (part 4) to oversees the utilisation of CDF money. He further noted that Auditor General audits the CDF. Utilisation of bursaries for poor children in his constituency was addressed. He highlighted some of the activities he is undertaking with the CDF and mentioned the construction of Kisii University as a project partly funded by the CDF.
Discussions on social media The station has social media platforms on Facebook and Twitter.
Other trends/remarks • Profiling of the late known businessman-cum-politician Njega Karume, whose property was the subject of public interest. • Waweru Mburu’s Yaliyotendeka programme focused on the dangers of capitalism, and challenged the government and politicians to be inclusive in wealth distribution. He strongly castigated politicians who he called selfish for their exploitation of public resources and obsession with wealth acquisition at the expense of the ordinary populace. • The match between Gor Mahia and Esperance was given some coverage too. • Sports news was allocated some good air time. • A majority of callers were male. • A lot of ads run through the show especially at the last segment of the show. • Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni, move to sign the anti-gay legislation was discussed and both ‘clowns’ (Mwala and Wilbroda) said Kenya should follow suit. • Waweru Mburu’s Yaliyotendeka programme highlighted issues of exploitation, and specifically mentioned clergy robbing innocent citizens of their money. • Their social media pages both on Facebook (Jambo Kenya-Citizen Radio) and Twitter handles #JamboKenya are not actively used during discussions.
• Citizen bulletins are comprehensive. • Fans request via Twitter the songs they want played. • The show is educative.
Classic 105 FM Topical issues of discussion on Classic 105 FM Classic 105 FM mainly covered entertainment, relationship and lifestyle issues. The discussion topics were mainly drawn from newspapers or trending issues on social media. Some topics were based on the presenter’s personal experiences.
For the two weeks monitored the topics discussed included: The first week’s discussions focused mainly on parenting and how churches handle teenage issues (the discussions on 24 and 26 February, 2014 focused on the controversial Mavuno Church poster featuring canoodling teenagers), troublesome teenagers and how to handle them. The latter issues were featured on 25 and 27 February 2014. 24 February 2014: The Mavuno Church poster had gone viral online. The main issue revolved around church being “coolified” and the debate revolved around whether the church should resort to such tactics to attract the youth? 25 February 2014: Based on discussions of the previous day, the discussion revolved around the youth and especially the difficulty of raising teenage children. The discussion referred back to the poster. The discussions continued for the third day on 26 February 2014. On the last day, a pastor and a member of
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 35
the church were invited to participate in the discussions. A number of related issues were discussed as people called in. On 27 February 2014 the discussion was based on a previous day caller’s claim that her 16 year old child had run away from home and was living with or married to a ‘boda boda’ operator. On the 28 February the discussion was about love triangles. The genesis of the discussion was an article in The Star. The second week’s discussions looked at different issues. The week’s discussions started with Lupita Nyong’o’s Oscar win and the reactions on social media. The host, Maina Kageni, noted that most women were jealous of the win. His question: Why do women hate each other? On the fourth day he wanted to find out what the audience did when they didn’t perform well in major exams? This was based on the KCSE results that had just been released. The fifth day’s discussions centered on marriage and relationships. This discussion was followed by debates on ethnicity and how that impacted the choice of spouses.
Were there any special features or thematic priorities?
Relationships, lifestyle and entertainment seem to be the most interesting topics/themes for Classic 105 FM. Most of the shows are call-ins although they had invited guests in on 26 February 2014.
Date, nature and gender of callers 24.02.2014: Nine callers, eight male and one female. Topic: Mavuno church poster. 25.02.2014: Seven callers, three male and four female. Topic: Raising teens.
36 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
26.02.2014: Six callers, five male and one female. Topic: Mavuno church poster. 27.02.2014: Five callers, three male and two female. Topic: Unruly teenagers. 28.02.2014: Six callers, four male and two female. Topic: Love triangles. 03.03.2014: Seven callers, two male and five female. Topic: Women hatred for other women. 04.03.2014: Six callers, two male and four female. Topic: KCSE results. 05.03.2014: Eight callers, six male and two female. Topic: Dating/marrying daddy’s girls. 06.03.2014: Nine callers, six male and three female. Topic: Ethnicity and relationships. 07.03.2014: Six callers, three male and three female. Topic: Tribalism. As the breakdown above shows, the most number of callers in any given show was nine callers and the least six. Most of the callers were men. However, there are a few instances where the majority of the callers were female. This seems to be based on the topic of discussion. As the above statistics show, family matters, for example, raising teenagers and women’s relationships with other women attract mostly female callers as seen from the 25th and on the 3rd data.
Gender representation during the shows The analysis of gender representation in most talk shows is based on two aspects: the topic itself and participation in the discussions. Most discussions tended to be on women and more specifically the negative portrayal of women. For exam-
ple, on 3 February, the discussed focused on the hatred women apparently have for each other. The topic was not neutral and seemed to portray women as petty and capricious. Similarly, on 5 February, the discussion focused on relationships with ‘daddy’s girls’. Likewise, the discussions were biased against women. While the discussions focused on female issues, most of the contributions were from men except a few occasions when women outnumbered men. It is not readily clear why this happens although suggestions have it that men possess the monetary resources to do so and that they are more willing to participate in such discussions.
Professionalism competency of host In most cases, it was apparent that the hosts were incapable of professionally handling the talks. They were unable to either stop or challenge abusive callers or those using invective to put their points across. The host was also incapable of challenging the views expressed and seemed to do so after the caller had hang up. And only in very few shows did he give his own views. Granted, he always detailed the issue, giving the background and always replayed the views that had informed the topic and discussions.
Discussions on social media The show does not have an online presence. However the host, Maina Kageni, had a Facebook and Twitter account that he used to communicate with online contributors. Few listeners made their views on his Facebook page public although he always admitted people messaged him privately. The Twitter handle was not active either.
Breach of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism No direct breaches were recorded. However, it is worth noting that on 6 February the discussions were on dating and ethnicity and how that affects spouse choice. An avid caller known as Wakanai made brazen and derogatory remarks regarding inter-ethnic marriage. To him, such marriages are forbidden even in the Old Testament and people should “stick to their people”. The discussion was slightly stereotypical as well.
KBC Idhaa ya Taifa Topical issues of discussion During the period under review, issues/ topics included family/relationship, judiciary, education as well as economy. On 25 February 2014, the presenter asked the question: Mtu anawesa kupona baada ya mpensi kuenda nje? (Can someone heal after their spouse cheats on them?). On 28 February 2014 the discussion focused on broken relationships and the impact on that has on partners.
Nature of callers and topics of discussion Most of the callers were men with highest number recorded being 10 callers per show. Only 2 women called in. Some shows did record female participants. Most of the appealing topics touched on relationship and family issues.
Professionalism competency of host During the show, the presenters provide adequate information on the issues to be discussed. They also regularly repeat it during the show. The presenter first asks, for instance, a question and then follows up with further information deemed important for the discussion. Callers did not make stereotypical or insensitive remarks or comments.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 37
Bibilia Husema
The morality of Christians suing each other
The following were some of the issues discussed during the research period.
The discussion centered on the administration of justice and whether Christians should use the courts to resolve their legal problems.
Donkey meat consumption The consumption of donkey meat has been contentious in Kenya. Claims that the consumption of donkey meat was commonplace generated a lot of interest and debate. These were based on the acceptability of such consumption and whether Christian teachings condoned it. Most contributions were based on biblical teachings.
Corruption index and corruption in the police The discussions encouraged the audience to describe how police officers receive bribes, and how corruption in the police service should and can be tackled.
Gender and employment in Kenya The discussion was based on a World Bank report indicating that most employers still preferred men to women. The debates also focused on how gender parity can be achieved in Kenya.
The signing of the anti-gay bill in Uganda The discussion invited callers to give their views on the anti-gay legislation in Uganda and whether law alone can reduce or tackle homosexuality.
Whether ‘boda bodas’ should be banned as a means of transport The show dwelt with the issue of ‘boda bodas’ and whether they should be banned following the publication of a report that partly blamed them for the rising number of accidents.
The doctrine of separation of powers The discussion dwelt on the separation of powers and whether it can work in Kenya. A constitutional expert was brought in to offer expert advice on the doctrine and its application in Kenya.
Were there any special features or thematic priorities? Discussions on Bibilia Husema radio did not have any preferred themes. The topics were largely drawn from the current affairs and human interest issues that the hosts felt were interesting to their listeners.
Gender representation in the Show Gender participation during call-in sessions was fairly balanced. On average the men to women call-in ratio was 3:2. It was evident at some point that the hosts gave priority to women callers.
Professionalism competency of host The presenter moderated the talk show professionally. The host allowed the callers to express their views and gave them ample time to say what they wanted to. The callers were disciplined, polite and respective to each other. There were few if any derogatory or insensitive views. This allowed the hosts to easily manage the discussion. The topics were not controversial. The show was quite long and this allowed for comprehensive discussion of the issues.
Discussions on social media There were no discussions on social media.
38 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Ghetto Radio Topical discussions in talk show programmes The transport crisis occasioned by the matatu strike was the main topic in the last week of the monitoring period. The new anti-gay legislation in Uganda was also a big topic in the monitoring period. The station’s call in shows are usually non-issue based. They often pick any issue for debate. Some of these may actually be called too vulgar to be broadcast in the morning. Most talk shows are call-in programmes although they occasionally invite guests to speak about particular issues. For instance, on 6 March 2014, Daniel Wechesa, a business expert from the Kenya Business Training School, was in the studio discussing business planning especially among the youth. Similarly, on 27 February 2014, Weru Mwangi, a financial advisor was invited to talk about financial planning among the youth.
The call-in shows There were call-ins at the beginning of the monitoring although these dwindled towards the end of the study. The highest number of callers was seven. This was recorded on 25 February 2014 during which the issue involving ‘a man and a woman getting stuck while making love in Nairobi’s Kikuyu area’ was discussed.
Gender representation during the shows All callers recorded were men.
Professionalism competencies of hosts and moderators The moderators were largely unprofessional and incapable of handling the shows. In most cases, presenters urged listeners to make vulgar statements. Presenters could in fact be called ‘cheerleaders’’ who egged callers on to
make obscene and unpalatable statements. The presenters were also incapable of offering professional direction and could not be considered to have been in charge. While discussing the issue of ‘the man and woman stuck together while having sex in Kikuyu’, the hosts kept urging callers to say what they thought about the incident even when they had called to report about traffic. The presenter also insistently asked callers to say ‘how much they would charge if they caught a man with their wives in such a situation’.
Ethnic profiling On the same day a male, caller while contributing to the Kikuyu incident, said ‘I called my friend who lives in Kikuyu to inquire about the incident, nikamuuliza huyu mtu ni kabila gani akasema ni mluhya … ametoa ujinga western akaleta Kikuyu’’ Translation: I called my friend who lives in Kikuyu to inquire about the incident and what tribe the man involved is. He told me that the man is a Luhya who has come all the way from Western Province to do ‘silly’ things in Kikuyu. It is evident that Article 25 of the Code of Conduct (on hate speech) was violated by allowing such commentary. The article states that quoting persons making derogatory remarks based on ethnicity, race, creed, colour and sex shall be avoided.
Negative stereotypes On 3 March 2014, the discussion centered on a Nyeri man who had refused his daughter to marry a divorced pastor. One of the presenters quipped: ‘Madame wa Nyeri ni second hand’’ (Nyeri women are Second hand … used … Useless). Article 25 of the Code of Conduct outlaws quoting persons making derogatory remarks based on
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 39
ethnicity, race, creed, colour or sex. It further states that racist or negative ethnic terms shall be avoided.
Nature of discussions on social media The station has a Twitter handle and a Facebook page although no discussions or posting were put on the sites during the period under review. The radio station instead used the platforms as sites for publishing human-interest stories.
Obscenity, taste and tone in reporting Article 9 of the Code of Conduct asks journalists to avoid publishing obscene, vulgar or offensive material unless such material contains a news value of public interest. Regardless, there is often a lot of obscene words on air such as ‘’ikuss’’ which refers to a woman’s private parts.
40 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
On 5 March 2014, for example, a presenter responded to his colleague’s greeting thus: “usiku ilikua poa lakini ikuss nilingojea sana (The night was ok but I didn’t get my conjugal rights)’’.
General observations during the monitoring period During the period under review, it was noted that some presenters use vulgar and obscene language on live broadcasts. Almost all call-in shows during the period surveyed discussed issues that could hardly be considered of public interest. Instead the stations concentrated on what their audiences were interested in instead of issues of wider public interest. This shows that despite the fact that radio plays an important role of education, information and entertainment, the quality of talk radio content is wanting and that many discussions are not constructive.
The Nation Centre in Nairobi which houses the Nation Media Group’s radio station, Nation FM.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 41
The Standard Group premises in Nairobi which houses the Group’s radio station, Radio Maisha.
42 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Practices, solutions and tips Guidelines for participation in talk shows Responsible and ethical discussions are critical to the growth of radio as an important medium in society. Individual listeners can steer discussions and make critical contributions to issues of public importance. But such individuals and their contributions must be informed by truth and accurate information. It is therefore paramount that participants understand the implications of their comments not only to other listeners but to the society at large. Participants must understand the following to make their contributions meaningful and/or helpful. • What are the possible implications of my comments to other listeners and society at large? • Would I appreciate listening to the same comments I want to make if I am an ordinary listener? • Are my comments adhering to society’s generally acceptable stan dards of behaviour, norms and conduct? • Can my comments potentially cause hatred, division and intolerance based on religious, racial, ethnic and cultural sensitivities? • Are my comments factual, verified and contextual to the discussions or are they merely sensational? The questions above should be able to prepare them to participate effectively in radio talk shows. The advice below should also help potentiate their contributions.
Prepare your comments. Write down two or three quick talking points you can refer to during the call. Speak naturally and don’t read your talking points verbatim. Call early. Popular shows have more callers than they can handle. If you don’t get in early, you probably won’t get in at all. If you get a busy signal, call again. Try calling during a commercial break and be prepared to wait up to 30 minutes on the most popular shows. Be a resource for the host. One way to get on the air more quickly is to volunteer an answer to a question asked by a previous caller or offer to explain a topic raised by another caller. Make your point quickly and briefly. If you’re lucky enough to get on the air, don’t waste time fawning over the host or telling a long story. Say what you have to say clearly and directly. Make your point, hit it hard, say what you want to say, and stop. Let the host pick it up from there. Hold your ground. If the host interrupts, firmly and politely say, “May I please finish my point?” If the host tries to take you off-point, becomes aggressive, or insults you, stay calm and restate your point. Rude behavior by the host means you’ve hit a nerve. Be calm and polite. You won’t impress anyone by attacking the host. Don’t try to “win” an argument. Your goal is to air your opinion for listeners or ask a provocative question. Sound upbeat and excited to be on the programme, and be yourself! Turn off your radio. Turn the sound off on your radio when it is your turn to talk (or as soon as you get in the question cue). Leaving your radio on will cause
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 43
interference with the broadcast and the audience won’t be able to hear you. Don’t use a speakerphone. Speakerphones do not provide producers with broadcast quality sound and should be avoided at all costs. If you sound weak and distant, you stand the chance of losing the interest of your audience and upsetting the host. Your best bet is to use a “hands-free” telephone headset.
Guidelines for talk show hosts and technical tips for utmost professionalism Ethical consideration
Make sure that you understand the ethical guidelines to be adhered to that are specific to the programme and to the topic of discussion. For example, when discussing issues that will involve discussion of ethnicity, ensure that you are familiar with the requirements of Article 12 of the Code of Conduct.
Plan and research your programme Presenters need to be well-informed about what the guests have previously said. Analyse the issue for discussion before the programme to identify structural and cultural issues and to prepare questions about facts and positions and values and interests.
Ensure you are specific and narrow your topic Have a specific focus before you begin the programme because you cannot talk about everything. For example, ‘human rights and the election’ is too big a topic for a talk show. Make the topic more precise: ‘What is the most neglected human rights issue in this election?’ for example.
44 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Listening skills
For professional talk show, presenters should adhere to four important practices: listen, clarify, synthesise and reframe. • For a talk show presenter the ability to listen well is as important as the ability to talk. Listening well is how we learn to ask questions which produce revealing answers. Listening well will help you separate facts from values, and will indicate when to direct the conversation towards common interests. • Skilled presenters also listen carefully to the words of guests and callers to make sure the meanings are clear. Presenters should constantly seek clarification. Mixed messages, incoherent statements and incomplete thoughts should not pass unchallenged. • The test of clarity is the presenter’s ability to summarise briefly the key points which guests or callers have made. If we cannot understand it well enough to synthesise it, then our listeners will not understand it either. • Once synthesised, information can be reframed, or discussed from other angles, which may reveal something new such as facts which can be agreed upon, or the route to discovering some common ground.
Questioning skills Effective questions which help professionally manage discussions will depend upon good techniques and content. Many of the techniques are basic to journalism. Do not ask two questions at once, and always use questions beginning with the words why, what and how because they require full an-
swers. And every experienced presenter should know how to get expanded answers by using phrases such as: ‘that is interesting; tell me more’ or ‘what was going through your mind when this happened?’
Using language carefully As presenters, the precise words we use determine whether our questions help build understanding or reinforce myths and fears.
Managing angry unpleasant exchange during talk shows Howard and Rolt (2005) developed some simple guidelines that might help talk show hosts manage their callers and guests more effectively and reduce damage or harm. Presenters have experienced guests who use angry, threatening language, or callers who use the radio as a personal megaphone for their opinions. There are also guests and callers who argue and interrupt conversations. The following are some of the steps a talk show host can take to mitigate the situation: • Remind guests who talk simultaneously that nobody can understand what they’re saying. • Have commercials, pre-recorded service messages or theme music ready to play as interludes while the hot emotions cool down. • Have letters and emails ready to read as a diversion from hot talk, or as a way of introducing new angles to discussions. • Have pre-recorded messages ready to play which remind listeners and guests of the topic and the rules for discussion on the programme.
• Screen the callers. A producer or other staff should first receive the phone call, briefly screen or ask callers what their question or statement is, and excludes malicious or incoherent callers. You can invite journalism students or others to be screeners. And you can always cut off an abusive caller. • Do not take negative calls personally. Be interested in why they are upset, without encouraging their anger. • Be ready to interrupt and remind guests or callers when they become disrespectful or stray off the topic. • Presenters must distance the station from any threats that guests or callers make on air.
The building blocks of common ground talk Listen well Be alert to the unexpected. Listen for areas of agreement. Be proactive Suggest areas of common ground. Invite guests to do the same. Question assumptions What are your guests’ basic assumptions about the views of the ‘other side’? Allow other side to respond. Humanize/build trust Get to know the people behind the opinions. What in your guests’ lives made
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 45
them feel so strongly about this issue? Counter stereotypes How have your guests personally experienced being stereotyped, misunderstood by the other side in this conflict? Promote dignity Reframe issues in respectful, non-judgmental language. Encourage flexibility Identify potential gray areas and explore them with guests. Invite guests to examine pockets of uncertainty. Encourage vision Invite guests to express hopes and dreams. What in your guests’ view is the best that could come out of finding common ground? Source: Howard, Ross and Rolt, Francis. 2005 Radio Talk shows for Peace building: A Guide. 2nd ed. Brussels: Search for Common Ground.
Conclusions and Recommendations The value and influence of talk shows can neither be undervalued, gainsaid nor can the impact be underestimated. Talk shows create a sense of community for audiences and opportunities for social networking. They provide company for people who may otherwise feel isolated or marginalised. They provide a form of therapy for some audience members by providing information and advice about issues, as well as the voices and experiences of others. In addition, talk shows provide a point of access to the public sphere for audiences and opportunities to engage in democratic exchanges. The nature of talk shows creates an opportunity for ordinary people to pass on news and
46 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
information, to correct public records and to contribute to the news agenda of the day. Talk shows also give space to people to ventilate and in the process contribute to solutions. Besides, they are avenues and platforms for engaging different actors. Granted, radio talk shows are complex. The interaction between callers, hosts and invited guests coupled with the topics of discussion driven by diverse interests, sentiments and comments makes such shows difficult to manage or control. The hosts end up juggling technical and intellectual challenges given the differing perceptions of truth, and unpredictable human emotions that may motivate guests and callers. Despite the challenges and complexities, such programmes must be presented to disparate audiences in an easy-to-understand language and way and within a short space of time. On top of these challenges exist external factors such as the political climates which may or may not favor such talk shows. What’s more, existing and emerging technological developments as well as economic and political issues such as legislations and regulations have influenced and changed the shape and content of talk shows. For example, mobile telephony and facilities available thereon have enhanced radio listening experiences. People are able to listen to radio on the move. They can contribute to debates irrespective of their physical location. They can interact with producers, guests and other listeners in real time. Radio consumption experiences have thus been significantly enriched. However, the above-mentioned experiences come with various challenges. People sometimes do not temper their contributions with reason and respect.
Some are invective, obscene and insensitive to others’ feelings and experiences. Freedom of expression comes with responsibilities and people should understand that.
Recommendations The following are some of the recommendations based on the findings: 1. Radio talk show hosts should exercise professional control and direct discussions and observe the freedom of expression as guaranteed in the Constitution. 2. Radio talk show hosts should pay attention to specific ethical articles in the Code of Conduct that guide specific topical discussions in their programmes. For example, when discussions revolve around ethnicity and religion, they should ensure that Article 12 of the Code of Conduct is strictly observed. 3. Radio talk show hosts in collaboration with programmes producers should apply high levels of moderation and professionalism in their shows. They should first receive phone calls, briefly screen or ask callers what their question or statement is, and excludes malicious or incoherent callers. 4. Careful screening of callers and good moderation skills will avoid the callers from making bigoted and derogatory remarks based on
ethnicity, race, creed and sex. 5. Screening of callers should happen at all times regardless of the discussions. This will ensure the control of some unruly callers whose aim may not to contribute constructively to discussions and debates. 6. Talk show hosts should encourage their callers to use their real names rather than fictitious names which give them courage to make inappropriate or reckless remarks. 7. Talk show host should discourage the use of coded language in whatever form by encouraging their callers to make use of plain language. Coded language may be used to spread hate speech and bigotry. The talk show hosts caution their audience against the use of such coded language. 8. Callers should be discouraged from using vulgar language that may create ethnic profiling and negative stereotyping. They should avoid false or unverified information. 9. Media houses should undertake proper training of talented and celebrity co-hosts who do not have journalistic training and who may not understand and apply the Code of Conduct. This will ensure that they use appropriate language, and that they remain ethical and professional during such shows.
Free Speech or Cheap Talk? 47
References Appleton, G. 1999. ‘The Lure of Laws: an analysis of the audience appeal of the John Laws programme’. Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, 91: 83-95.
shows-for-peacebuilding-english.pdf>. [Accessed 30 January 2014]. Herbst, S. 1995. ‘On electronic public space: Talk shows in theoretical perspective’. Political Communication, l2: 263274.
Armstrong, C. B. and Rubin, A. M. 1989. ‘Talk radio as interpersonal communication’. Journal of Communication, 39(2): 84-94.
Lewis, G. 1997. ‘The Media and Pauline Hanson: Cheap Talk or Free Speech?’ Australian Journal of Communication 24 (1): 9-22.
Avery, R. K., Ellis, D. G. and Glover, T. W. 1978. ‘Patterns of communication on talk radio’. Journal of Broadcasting, 22,518.
Mendelsohn, H. 1964. ‘Listening to Radio’. In L. A. Dexter & D. M. White (eds.) People, Society, and Mass Communication. New York: Free Press: 239-249.
Barone, M. and Schrof, J. M. 1990. ‘The changing voice of talk radio’. U. S. News & World Report, January 15: 51-53. Cerulo, K. A., Ruane, J. M. and Chayko, M. 1992. ‘Technological Ties that Bind: Media-Generated Primary Groups’. Communication Research, 19: 109-129. Cordeiro, Paula. 2011. ‘Hello Facebookers! Radio in social networks: how do radio stations, radios hosts and listeners engage through Facebook?’ Available at <http:// netfm.wordpress.com/2011/04/09/hello-facebookers> [Accessed 30 January 2014]. Crittenden, J. 1971. ‘Democratic functions of the open-mike radio forum’. Public Opinion Ouarterly, 35: 200-210. Fineman, H. 1993. ‘The power of talk’. Newsweek, 8 February: 22-28. Gillman, S. 2007. ‘Stay on line… : An analysis to callers to talkback radio in Australia’. Media International Australia Incorporating Culture and Policy, 122: 186-196. Howard. R. and Rolt, F. 2005. ‘Radio talk shows for peace building. A guide’. Available at <https://www.sfcg.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/02/radio-talk-
48 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?
Mwakawago, D. 1986. ‘Radio as a tool for Development’ in Wedell, Eberhard George (ed.) Making Broadcasting Useful: The African Experience: the Development of Radio and Television in Africa in the 1980s. pp81-90. Radio resource Guide for callers’ ethical perspective for the audience. Available at <http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/CallTalk-Radio& http://www.rightwingnews. com/john-hawkins/ten-tips-for-how-totalk-on-the-radio/> [Accessed 30 January 2014]. Times-Mirror Center for the People and the Press. 1993. The Vocal Minoritv in American Politics. Washington: TimesMirror Center for the People and the Press. Turner, G. 2000. ‘Talkback, advertising and journalism: A cautionary tale of self-regulated commercial radio’. International Journal of cultural studies. Turow, J. 1974. ‘Talk show radio as interpersonal communication’. Journal of Broadcasting, l8: 171-179.Wilson III, Ernest. 2004. The Information Revolution and Developing Countries. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
50 Free Speech or Cheap Talk?