Media observer July 2015 issue by Media Council of Kenya

A PUBLICATION OF THE MEDIA COUNCIL OF KENYA

APRIL - JUNE 2015

Self- Censorship and Press Freedom

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 and for connected purposes.

Council’s Role, Mandate, Functions and Authority The Council draws its mandate and authority from the Media Council Act 2013. Its functions are to: • Promote and protect the freedom and independence of the media; • Prescribe standards of journalists, media practitioners and media enterprises; • Ensure the protection of the rights and privileges of journalists in the performance of their duties; • Promote and enhance ethical and professional standards amongst journalists and media enterprises; • Advise the government or the relevant regulatory authority on matters relating to professional, education and

the training of journalists and other media practitioners;

• Set standards, in consultation with the relevant training institutions, for professional education and training

of journalists;

• Develop and regulate ethical and disciplinary standards for journalists, media practitioners and media enterprises; • Accredit journalists and foreign journalists by certifying their competence, authority or credibility against

official standards based on the quality and training of journalists in Kenya including the maintaining of a register of journalists, media enterprises and such other related registers as it may deem fit and issuance of such document evidencing accreditation with the Council as the Council shall determine;

• Conduct an annual review of the performance and the general public opinion of the media, and publish the results

in at least two daily newspapers of national circulation;

• Through the Cabinet Secretary, table before Parliament reports on its functions; • Establish media standards and regulate and monitor compliance with the media standards; • Facilitate resolution of disputes between the government and the media and between the public and the

media and intra media;

• Compile and maintain a register of accredited journalists, foreign journalists, media enterprises and such

other related registers as it may consider necessary;

• Subject to any other written law, consider and approve applications for accreditation by educational

institutions that seek to offer courses in journalism; and

• Perform such other functions as may be assigned to it under any other written law.

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

CONTENTS

Sedition law: Retracing Kenya’s Dark Past

interest

Council Bets on New Curriculum to Raise Quality

Why Journalists are at Ethical Crossroads

Of Training

Could Censorship be an Excuse for Laziness?

Journalists, security agents seek to bridge

Why Censorship Pressure isn’t About to Ease

information gaps

In Defense of Political, Economic Interests

Journalists feted as Council hosts World Press

A Glimpse at Global Trends in Self-Censorship

Freedom Day

Press Freedom Intrigues and Politics of Censorship

Journalism’s Silent Killer

Cartoonists at Pains to Toe the Line

Censored for Filing a ‘Sensitive’ Story

The Training Factor and Self-Censorship

Editorial : ‘Other interests’ should never slay public

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

The Media Observer

is published quarterly by the Media Council of Kenya with assistance from Ford Foundation. The views expressed in articles published in this publication are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the Media Council of Kenya. Media Council of Kenya P.O. Box 43132 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 00100 Nairobi, Kenya Tel: (+254 20) 2737058, 2725032 Cell: +254 727 735252 Email: info@mediaCouncil.or.ke

Editorial Team

Chief Executive Officer Dr Haron Mwangi

Editorial Board

Joe Kadhi-Chairman Dr Martha Mbugguss-Vice Chairperson Prof Levi Obonyo Otsieno Namwaya Jane Godia Wangethi Mwangi

Consulting Editor Omondi Oloo

Editorial Coordinators

Victor Bwire Kevin Mabonga

Contributors

Joe Kadhi John Gachie Martha Mbugguss George Nyabuga Victor Bwire Jane Godia Henry Maina Amos Kibet Patrick Gathara Cyrus Kinyungu Kevin Mabonga William Oketch

Photo Credits

Kevin Mabonga

Design and Layout Samuel Wagura Print House

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

EDITORIAL

‘Other interests’ should never slay public interest

Globally, censorship has evolved into a bigger challenge for the media in general and journalists in particular. Censorship involves the suppression of content that is considered objectionable, harmful, politically incorrect, sensitive or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other players in the content production process. Despite freedom of information being a fundamental right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Kenya Constitution, censorship has remained a major stumbling block to credible information dissemination. It has seriously compromised the public’s ability to access critical information and a situation where public interest is no longer ‘the guardian angel’ of news should bother every one of us. And more worrying is the fact that despite legal safeguards, including the recent enactment of the new Constitution, threats of censorship still loom large in Kenya, with debate raging on whether decisions by journalists and editors can ever take place without undue internal or external influence. While it is generally agreed that editorial independence can never be absolute, it is regrettable that direct and selfcensorship which seems to be prevalent in Kenya is blocking the media from executing even the most basic of its roles in a pluralistic context.

restraint to allow journalists and editors make independent professional judgment as provided for by the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism as far as content is concerned. Public interest is supreme. It is the core reason for which media houses exist. The moment censorship is allowed to sway journalists’ eyes from the prize, the media will tumble and may never regain a foothold on why it existed from the very beginning. It is disturbing that due to censorship, the once revered investigative journalism has been curtailed and replaced by public relations gimmicks. Advertisers and media owners’ interests have taken center stage. Attacks and violence against journalists violates the Constitution which provides for the safety and security of all Kenyans. It also goes against international treaties. All media enterprises should endeavor to have the public interest at heart. We need real attitudinal change. Dr. Haron Mwangi Chief Executive Officer & Secretary to the Council

Media owners and advertisers must endeavor to exercise

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

Letters to the Editor

Observer brought out real issues keepers but they will have to conform to constitutional imperatives like ensuring in the migration debate The previous edition of the Media Observer on Digital Migration and Media Regulation was quite informative. The issue authoritatively discussed the various intrigues that informed the debate by providing new knowledge, enriching existing knowledge and shaping it from a global perspective, including from the Chinese. Certainly, the place of digital journalism is taking shape in Kenya although somehow downplayed by mainstream media. With the advent of social media, the media may not break the news. But social media, as Joe Kadhi aptly argues, with its lacking of ethical considerations, means that there is so much to be done. It is not breaking the news but providing in depth coverage of the issue that brings out new concerns and dynamics to an issue not yet known. The place of the media in this digital age is still intact. The challenges are there and will be there. This includes rich content and general access to digital news. Dr George Nyabuga argues that content is king, something that should be emphasized at all times as we celebrate digital migration. I liked the article about blogging and journalism, something I am personally involved in both. There have been discussions about whether bloggers should be regulated. Certainly, what bloggers do not have are the gatekeepers present in newsrooms who ensure news is accurate and balanced. But bloggers do not wish to be regulated because online free speech is impossible to regulate. What some bloggers try to do is to promote local informative content and provide their own opinions on issues. They will not, any time soon, have gate -

they do not promote hate speech, propaganda to war and incitement to violence. Those who have failed to do this have been guests of the state, providing a learning curve for others. What is coming out is that traditional media and online media, including blogging is increasingly being lumped together through the legal instruments. The Security Laws (Amendment) Act and the Kenya Information and Commissions Act, Section 29, affect bloggers among other regulations scattered across our legal frameworks. What is clear is that digital migration is here to stay. What remains to be seen is how Kenyans embrace it. Now that the government is centralizing its advertisement and also moving online, online media including blogging will be an interesting plateau to mine. Media has yet to decide how they will visibly enrich content and take advantage of the acres of airtime they have. That will be something to watch in the coming months. Will we be seeing media houses come up with 24 hour news channels? Time will tell. Keep doing what you do best for the betterment of the media and Kenyans as a whole. Shitemi Khamadi, Director, Wanahabari Centre

and be guided by objectivity and facts.Â The January â&#x20AC;&#x201C; March 2015 Media Observer Magazine was a good read, especially because it tried to educate and inform the country about the controversial digital migration. I welcome efforts that were made by the Council to explain this crucial shift. Keep up the good work of informing Kenyans. Regards Raymond Kimani. Media Consultant

Bold debate is the way to go I found the Januaryâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;March 2015 edition of the Observer very educative. The edition captured key issues of debate in the digital migration saga. It is only through bold discussions on some of these challenges that we can make a difference. As professionals, we must be bold enough to look at each other in the eye and amend wherever we go wrong. Media owners, journalists, editors, advertisers and even regulators must work together to confront issues that slow down the pace of growth in the media industry. I also laud efforts by the Media Council of Kenya to ensure training institutions adhere to water-tight standards. I look forward to reading the next edition of the Media Observer. Daniel Nyambuoro,

Kudos MCK for shedding light on Technical University of Mombasa digital shift I commend the Media Council of Kenya for its tireless effort to educate Kenyans on ethical journalism and migration from analogue to digital broadcasting. There is always need for journalists to abide by

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

Why Journalists are at Ethical Crossroads

The most unfortunate reality is that self-censorship leads to unprofessional mutilation of the ethical principle of accuracy and fairness, writes JOE KADHI Good journalism demands that when necessary, practitioners walk where angels fear to tread; but whenever they do so, they often step on sensitive toes of people involved in power games in areas of politics, commerce and even crime. This is the aspect of superior journalism that produces exposés as opposed to that which produces either spot news stories or general beat narratives.

writing long articles which describe in details the nature of crimes against society being committed by unnamed people in powerful positions in public offices. Reading, listening or watching such half-baked stories with missing vital ‘Ws’ can be a very frustrating experience.

Since exposés can never see the light of the day without professional courage that calls for publishing and being damned, not infrequently that courage is seriously threatened by the powers that be from either governmental, proprietorial or commercial quarters with skeletons in their cupboards. To survive, therefore, intimidated journalists end up engaging in self-censorship which, inevitably, leads to the unprofessional mutilation of the ethical principle of accuracy and fairness.

Readers, viewers and listeners feel cheated when they are told what crimes are being committed but never by whom. In very flowery language that captures their imagination they are told how these crimes are committed but, more often than not, they are not told exactly where they are committed. This is despite the fact that the ethical principle of accuracy and fairness categorically declares that the fundamental objective of a journalist is to write a fair, accurate and an unbiased story on matters of public interest. The requirement that all sides of the story should be reported, wherever possible, is often ignored because of self-censorship which means comments are never obtained from the faceless perpetrators of the crimes in the so-called exposés though the ethical principle demands whoever is mentioned in an unfavourable context should be given an opportunity to reply.

That is how readers, viewers and listeners in Kenya end up being hoodwinked by cowardly journalists who pretend to be exposing serious crimes of bribery and corruption by

But to be fair to journalists in Kenya, it must be accepted that the business of self-censorship is widespread in many parts of the world with varying degrees of intensity depending on

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

the level of media freedom of a given country. Discussing this very serious challenge to the entire professional journalism in Volume Five, Number Three of the 2014 March issue of the International Journal of Business and Social Science Professor M Murat Yesil of Necmettin Erbakan University in Turkey says self-censoring practices may be threatening the future of journalism. In an extremely thought provoking article, the scholar suggests that this invisible threat seems to lower the credibility of journalism and journalists and likens the whole process of self-censorship to farmers who cut valuable trees which they planted with their own hands and therefore putting the future of their profession in jeopardy. According to the professor, self-censoring practices are mainly the result of the pressure that state authorities, economic and social pressure groups and illegal organisations, have imposed on media companies and journalists. He explains that these pressure groups do not leave a way out to journalists. In other words, journalists, either have to censor the information and the facts they have gathered which will harm the interests of these groups or to bear the consequences which means death or get fired. In his opinion the owners of media companies are also threatened as the journalists because their companies risk losing adverts from government or private companies which may want certain stories killed. A random look at recent Kenyan publications proves Yesil right. On June 5, 2015 The Standard, for example, had a sensational headline screaming “Man Under Siege” with the face of the Director of Public Prosecutor Keriako Tobiko occupying almost half of the front page. No serious reader would have escaped the magnetic pull from the story by Geoffrey Mosoku revealing how President Uhuru Kenyatta’s war on graft was being sabotaged by independent bodies entrusted with investigating and prosecuting powerful suspects. Mosoku’s exposé quoted the National Assembly Leader of Majority Aden Duale and the Deputy Leader of Minority

Jakayo Midiwo alleging that the ongoing probe against top officials including Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries and Governors were window dressing exercise and that investigations in the EACC and the DPP’s office were using the threat of prosecution to intimidate suspects to part with huge bribes. From the ethical point of view, the story’s accuracy and fairness was wanting because a number of vital ‘Ws’ were not answered. Who exactly was demanding bribes and from which specific individuals. When were the bribes demanded and how exactly was the method used. Where was the proof and in what form did it exist; and even more important as far as the fairness of the story is concerned, what was the reaction of the people accused by Duale and Midiwo? There can be a number of reasons for the writer to exclude these facts from his story and self-censorship, either by the writer or his editor, cannot be excluded. Efforts by writers to adhere to this vital ethical principle of accuracy and fairness while engaging in sensitive investigative journalism, are not easy to achieve yet not impossible to acquire by those whose level of professionalism are impeccably proficient. An example of this can be seen in The Star of June 8 , 2015 which splashed an exposé revealing “How DP Ruto Acquired Weston Land”. All the tough questions from the five ‘Ws’ and an ‘H’ which are vital to achieve a high level of accuracy and fairness were professionally answered by The Star reporters who did the story. When journalists and their editors refrain from engaging in self-censorship, the outcome is the exhibition of a superlative degree of comparison in journalistic excellence. The same cannot be said about The Weekly Citizen of June 8th-14th, 2015 which ostensibly was revealing the names of people who would wish DP William Ruto ended up in jail following his ICC trial. Though the paper boldly published the names together with the pictures of people on the anti-Ruto list, it also revealed that the authors of the list would remain “anonymous for now” despite the fact that those on the list, according to the paper, were top politicians. Needless to say, only self-censorship would make an editor sweep such vital information under the carpet. While engaging in self-censorship journalists are sometimes confronted with an extremely hard nut to crack like it must have happened when the Daily Nation of June 9, 2015 decided to splash an exclusive story about the confessions of an ex Al Shabaab terrorist. Titled “I was duped into joining Al-Shabaab” the story narrates how a man from Nyanza sensationally claimed that he was tricked into joining Al Shabaab five years ago by being promised a job in Qatar. Though the ex-terrorist confesses to being a murderer, the paper still protects him by camouflaging his real name and fictitiously calling him Yusuf. Is this type of self-censorship

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

professionally acceptable in journalism? Though journalists occasionally find themselves in a dilemma between the authorities that want to punish criminals and their professional obligation to expose them this case of the criminal from Nyanza was particularly challenging to the journalists. The hard question is to what extent should journalists protect criminals in the name of confidentiality? For a very long time, journalists have been bothered by that important question which, for all practical purposes, is indeed the dilemma mentioned above. The one institution of professional journalists backed by qualified lawyers who are dedicated to freedom of expression is Article XIX based in the UK but with offices in many parts of the world including Nairobi. According to the organization, a free press depends on the free flow of information from the media to the people and from the people to the media. In many instances, Article XIX explains, anonymity is the precondition upon which the information is conveyed from the source to the journalist; this, the media organisation maintains , may be motivated by fear of repercussions which might adversely affect their physical safety or job security and concludes that in the circumstances, journalists have long argued that they should be entitled to refuse to divulge both the names of their sources and the nature of the information conveyed to them in confidence.

peaceful periods. After his study, the Norwegian scholar concludes that defining self-censorship in media practice is not necessarily a straightforward issue. He suggests that it stretches from a wide understanding, seeing self-censorship as an everyday practice for any journalist anywhere in the world, caused by the inevitable selection and de-selection processes while reporting and editing; to a narrow definition, entailing only those practices which are performed for the sake of excluding information from publicity due to felt threats by public authorities. In conclusion, it is obvious that self-censorship does indeed exist in Kenyan journalism. When it is influenced by external forces such as governmental threats, proprietorial guidance or commercial arm-twisting, it does threaten the ethical principle of independence which asserts that the fundamental objective of a journalist is to write a fair, accurate and an unbiased story on matters of public interest. Joe Kadhi is a former Managing Editor of the Daily Nation and is now a Lecturer at USIU. He is also the chairman of the Editorial Board of the Media Observer. joekadhi@yahoo.com

Self-censorship among journalists is a phenomenon that is widespread in many parts of Africa and among the most respected scholars who have studied and documented it is Professor Terje S Skjerdal of the Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication, Kristiansand, Norway. In a study called Justifying Self-censorship: A Perspective from Ethiopia, the professor concludes that the phenomenon is found in both the private and state-owned media; in new and old media; during times of tension and indeed also in more

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

Sad State of Affairs as Free Speech at Risk

The media has been largely muted during elections, a clear form of collective self-censorship, ostensibly in defence of national cohesion and interests. JOHN GACHIE examines why this state of affairs afflicts the practice of journalism For journalism, the world is at the best of times a broad canvas in which we seek to sketch and paint the universe near and far in all its splendour, beauty, and including the gory, horror, and the unsavoury, as they really are. Journalism, we are drilled and told, is about capturing our universe in its rawest, primeval and factual form for us to uncover and unveil the bare truth. It is about facts, accuracy, balance, context and fairness, and finally purveyed without any restriction(s) and inhibition(s) bar; in the interest of individual reputation, public morals, public health and national security among others. Indeed, journalism as a profession and a craft or guild is about us, the people, in our simplest individual self; and the most complex collective unit â&#x20AC;&#x201C; society, either as a nation in all our diversity and intricate social systems, namely the human race. For lack of a better term, journalism is all about recording the successes and the foibles of a social entity we call the public for their own best interest(s) through the search of facts in the service of truth, however unpalatable or uncomfortable and unnerving it may be. In its purest form, journalism is therefore about plain facts in the search for truth as journalist(s) perceive and establish it through verification, facts cross-checking, and collaboration thrice over; from reliable and credible sources, and authorities who are competent.

The Media Observer

Journalism is not about truth well told as is in the realm of advertising, which engages in subtle but focused subliminal manipulation and in the search for instant gratification in consumerism. Tragically though, journalism throughout its checked existence has had to deal with one of its most devastating and inimical foe, and threat, if not its most vicious mortal enemy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; selfcensorship. It has been throughout its greatest bane, insatiable at its least destructive form and overwhelming, suffocating and ultimately diabolical, at its extreme and worst form. According to many and diverse definitions, self-censorship is the act or failure (of the journalist) to tell it (the universe) as it is, for fear of the consequences (both direct and indirect), due to many factors (internal and external) on account of real or imagined sanctions to the individual or family and or the medium collectively or both. Self-censorship by journalists (including editors and other gate-keepers) and media platforms and or outlets, could be due to commercial-cum-economic, and/or market interests and variables; including social, cultural, religious and political and financial reasons and penalties; including sanctions and or deference if not sensibilities, or preferences, without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship could be due to fear of serious direct and indirect repercussions from those adversely mentioned, covered, exposed for their acts and actions of omission or commission to the journalist(s) individually and collectively, including the media platform and outlet. It could also be fear of losing and antagonising readership, viewership and circulation including market share and advertising revenue

April - June 2015

including sponsorship. At its worst form and case is when all the individual, collective and commercial-cum-financial and product sponsorship and market share imperatives are involved or converge. Selfcensorship then acquires an all engulfing and suffocating aura to the utter and total disregard of the ethos and practice of journalism. This state of affairs is rather rare and far in between when all these variables converge, but if they do, as they rarely do; then journalism including professionalism and ethical practice is thrown out of the window as an act of industry/professional/ sector survival, in the face of an “existential threat”, though, the real reason(s) lie elsewhere. Throughout history and more specifically in the last one and half century since the advent of a commercialised media industry in Europe and North America, acts of journalist(s) and editors including media owners engaging in self-censorship under all manner of guises have been recorded. They have ranged from perceived national security threats, religious-cum-cultural and economic, and racial agenda, ideology and pure imperialistic dogmatic propaganda; and hegemony under the guise of nationalism to the utter disregard of colonised people and territories. Indeed, the history of media performance and development in the colonised and other dominated peoples of the world is a classic case of self-censorship by journalists who failed to cover, expose and highlight gross cases of human rights violations by the dominant colonising class on and against the colonised peoples, then referred to as subjects in the media platforms of the ruling colonizers. To most of these journalists and media owners then including the colonial administrations, the subject of peoples’ fate and fare at the hands of the colonial pacification wars and conquest was necessary in the grand scheme of civilisation and modernisation. The case of the British media performance, both metropolitan and in the colonies of Kenya, Palestine, Cyprus and Malaysia is well documented by a British scholar. For most journalists then, whatever befell the natives in the colonies was necessary to install law and order, and imbue them with ethos of a civilized society – in this case, the colonial master race. Many of the so-called journalists then engaged in out-right self-censorship as they saw no evil, heard no evil, nor spoke no evil; and never really recorded any evil acts of omission or commission by the colonial administration. In post-colonial Africa, many local journalists, their editors and owners found that not all in authority really valued freedom of expression and by extension, press freedom nor paid any regard to professionalism in journalism.Many a times journalists were asked and expected to pay homage and even

The Media Observer

loyalty to power and those in authority or risk their personal and collective safety, security and protection and often times with dire consequences. To stem further personal and even at times indirect sanctions against their families and media institutions including career advancement and employment, many journalists resorted to self-censorship to survive. Self-censorship, at individual and collective level, became the order of the day with varying degrees of manifestation and in the process professional growth, ethical conduct and ultimately, the very essence of journalism – search for facts to establish the truth and in the process serving, protecting and defending the public Interest was routinely compromised. This sad state of affairs continues and persists even today in various forms and degrees albeit more so, on account of commercial-cum-advertising and market share considerations at the corporate level.

“At another level, self-censorship still reigns in some form or another by individual journalists on account of fear of adverse retribution and direct personal threats on journalists by political, criminal and other extreme groups and gangs.” In many instances, this form of self-censorship has become more prevalent and more insidious than direct state level threats against offending journalists. In Kenya, at least in the more recent and immediate past, this form of self-censorship is more pronounced as journalists and editors exercise caution not to spark off undue interest from commercial and criminal gangs and groups, and most recently from politically motivated and aligned groups. This form of self-censorship has become even more pronounced and manifest at times of major politically contested periods like elections. The case of the Kenyan media performance in the 2007-2008 and 2013 periods when the majority of the media entities including individual journalists were overly careful in what was reported and covered, owing to perceived vested interests and concerns if not affiliations, and fears of rocking the national boat so to speak. In the last highly contested electoral periods, many local and foreign media analysts and scholars have decried the high level incidents of a muted media, a clear form of collective self-censorship, ostensibly in defence of national cohesion and national interests. Perhaps then the moot point is what constitutes self-censorship – is it the act or failure by journalists and media institutions to expose national ills and other forms of national failures in governance, service delivery, corruption, abuse of power and accountability by those in power in defence and protection of

April - June 2015

an otherwise contaminated universe, near and local and hence, the creation of a blurred canvass of our Universe. And should journalism, journalists and editors, and media owners engage in self-censorship? The answer is a clear and resounding no, but the reality is that it is not that clear nor apparent, feasible and practical due to many contending and competing variables, individually, collectively either immediate; external and internal.

the conduct and practice of journalism despite Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which guarantees freedom of expression from all forms of censorship regardless of frontiers including press freedom. John Gachie is a veteran journalist and the Chairman of Article 19 East Africa. gachiejohn1@gmail.com

The sad reality is that some form of self-censorship afflicts

Journalists at a past event. Journalists should always strive to write accurate and fair stories on matters of public interest.

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

Could Censorship be an Excuse for Laziness?

Lazy journalists who practice arm-chair journalism by scratching the surface of assignments often use any excuse to censor themselves or pretend that somebody else was likely to censor them, writes DR MARTHA MBUGGUSS Incidents of women chopping off men’s private parts have been widely reported in the media. Comments on the issue have been awash through the media and face-to-face discussions. Two journalists discussing the issue on radio made interesting comments. One proposed that the best thing to do would be to insure the endangered organs. The other one wanted to know what the policy would be called. They ended up with a suggestion that the insurance industry could come up with a proper title. Their next proposal was to the effect that a taskforce be set up to deal with the matter. It could be named ‘’Operation Linda……..” (Operation protect…….) Again they did not propose the complete name. They left that to the government or the authority dealing with the matter. My question was, why did they not propose an action that journalists or media houses could take in connection to those sad incidents? Another radio station had invited a counsellor to help them address the matter. Her advice was summarised in three points all of which were directed to men. It was to the effect that men must sober up, men must take responsibility, men must grow up. Assuming that this is sound advice, there are still pertinent questions that have not been answered. Why are (some) men

The Media Observer

not sober? What responsibility are they being asked to take and why have they not taken it so far? If they have not grown up, what stunted their growth? Has the stunting factor been removed? Those are some of the questions that I would expect the journalists to dig for, carry out serious investigations and help society to interpret. But as it appears from the scenario above, the journalists are leaving that to other people; to the government, to taskforces, to ‘experts’. They have censored themselves out of the serious business. The word censorship is music to some people and a bitter pill to others. It is cosy to yet another lot who are quite comfortable snuggly wrapped around it. The three types can be categorised in relationship to the word ‘’censor’’ itself. The Collins Dictionary & Thesaurus defines the word censor (noun) as one authorised to examine films, books etc and suppress parts considered unacceptable. Censoring then must be music to the censors and all the beneficiaries of the material, especially when unacceptable parts are removed. Unacceptable parts could contain obscenity or material that is in bad taste. Bad taste can be gauged on the amount of irritability caused to a great number of recipients. The Collins Dictionary further explains that ‘’censor’’ the verb means to expurgate, that is remove objectionable parts from a book. Censorship is not only directed to books but to all media material. Many newspapers, radio stations, TV stations and magazine publishers around the world have been forced to censor their work from time to time by their respective governments. In such instances, the material is

April - June 2015

not necessarily objectionable but politically incorrect. It rubs the specific government the wrong way especially exposing corruption in high places. Affected media practitioners and media institutions get infuriated by such governments and simply abhor the word censorship. To them, it is a bitter pill. The main interest of this article is the third category of people – media practitioners who are in love with censorship. They censor themselves at every opportunity possible. Their work is to scratch the surface of their assignments. They comfortably practise armchair journalism, they are lazy. They are unprofessional. They use any excuse to censor themselves or pretend that somebody else was likely to censor them. Who are these practitioners? They are a new and growing breed of journalists who prefer the chitchat type of journalism. Their work is easy. Their total ‘’research’’ is a one shot visit to the social media. Their style is that of commentaries; minus any professional rules of course. They avoid heavier genres such as investigative reporting like a plague. They are truly killing the genre. For many years, investigative reporters have been among the newspapers’ or media stations’ best and highest paid staff. Investigative reporting calls for serious work devoid of ‘censorship of the truth’. According to the Missouri Group, investigative reporting starts from a tip or suspicion out of which a reporter forms a hypothesis. Like a scientist, a reporter sets out to prove or disprove the hypothesis. He or she extracts relevant information from sources, public and non-public documents including police records, court proceedings, office minutes, bank statements among others. Creative writing and presentation are essential components of investigative reporting. It calls for hard work and lots of practice. Huge dividends for investigative reporters notwithstanding, very few journalists opt for investigative journalism these days.

“Like a scientist, a reporter sets out to

prove or disprove the hypothesis. He or she extracts relevant information from sources, public and non-public documents.. “

Media organisations are partly blamed for not hiring and/or developing serious investigative journalists. Their arguments range from their profit motive whereby they do not want to spend too much money supporting investigative journalism to an assumption that audiences are more interested in entertainment – often of the trivial type. The few journalists they employ are spread thin sometimes serving various owner outlets such as newspapers, digital or hard copy, radio and TV stations. Another scapegoat or villain in the manufacturing of lazy, nonperforming or poor ‘professionals’ are training institutions. The Nairobian dated June 5-11, 2015 page 2 had hilarious way of pointing at some shortcomings in the Kenyan education. In an article headed ‘’Ten Survival tips for first timers in the city’’ the paper advices; ‘’Watch out for those colleges advertising diploma course in fountain engineering or Bachelors of Arts in Medical History!’’ Quite a funny look at fake colleges yet

The Media Observer

they have been known to exist. Some offer instant but useless certificates, diplomas and degrees. The same edition of the Nairobian carries an informative article by Dr Kamau of the University of Nairobi. He argues that there are teachers who are focused on preparing ‘’A’’ students without equipping them with critical thinking skills. As a result, the students cannot navigate their way around real issues. They cannot solve problems and they do not know how to apply the knowledge acquired. One could expand that argument further and wonder whether that is why many trainees today seem unable to navigate around producing investigative stories that can stand the test of time. Could that be the reason why there are fewer and strong interpretative articles that enlighten audiences? Could it also explain the shortage of persuasive articles that would help people choose positive lifestyles? The same questions can be raised regarding the shortage of healthy entertainment pieces as opposed to the many ‘entertainment pieces’ that are poorly disguised pornography. Blame game or not, trainees cannot escape some scrutiny in this maze. Who are they? What is their contribution? A much quoted statement goes; ‘’if you want to hide anything from an African, hide it in a book’’ While I do not fully subscribe to that school of thought, I acknowledge that the reading culture is not very impressive in schools and universities. During a motivational talk with students from diverse backgrounds, I endeavoured to encourage them to pursue further education. Their take was that too much education only leads people to obtain Permanent Head Deformity (PhD). They were not interested in following that route. Asked how the head deformity is manifested, they explained that PhD holders behave strangely, are forgetful but worst of all, they do not know how to dress nicely. They are not fashionable. Granted, physical image has been heightened above individual capacity, productivity and progressive contribution to society. Celebrity worship has been enhanced. There is apparent loss of deeper values professional and socially. In journalism, it is exhibited in the preference of censorship to hard work. This censorship is not based on genuine reasons. It is a result of laziness, lack of on the job perseverance, persistence and stamina in individual practitioners. The state of affairs calls for an urgent appraisal of journalism training, professional attitudes and expectations. Dr Martha Mbugguss is a lecturer of Mass Communication at Africa Nazarene University and a member of the Editorial Board of the Media Observer magazine. mmbugguss.mbugguss@gmail.com

April - June 2015

Why Censorship Pressure isn’t About to Ease

As GEORGE NYABUGA writes, forces from within and without media houses point to desire to control media content, particularly that which is considered not favourable to the ruling class, advertisers, media owners and their associates Edward George Bulwer-Lytton’s argument that ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ has often been used to illustrate the power of the written word. Simply put, the written word is more powerful than physical force or military power. While the power of the mass media is at once acknowledged and contested, its ability to reach millions has become a common excuse for autocratic and totalitarian regimes to control and clampdown on the media. At times of conflict, many countries (including the US and Britain) censor the media via various methodologies, including prohibition of publication of certain information (that may aid the enemy, for example) to protect state, citizens and other national interests. In fact, this was the justification offered in 1917 by former Soviet leader Vladimir Lenin who said that “… words are more dangerous than bombs and bullets” before banning all anti-Soviet newspapers and confiscating their printing presses. Such media censorship and clampdown was supposedly vital for the protection of the state and political status quo. Since then and despite the growth of democracy and press freedom around the world, ‘words’ are sometimes considered dangerous in what is increasingly becoming a risk society. Even the Constitution of Kenya, whilst protective of press freedom, explicitly bans the publication of information that may be considered propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate

The Media Observer

speech, and such other material. It does not matter that those who sometimes determine what constitutes propaganda for war, incitement to violence, or hate speech are state mandarins and moral police whose meanings and/or interpretations of those terminologies are determined by, or done to suit their political, religious and other vested interest. Nonetheless, media censorship is sometimes acceptable and few would begrudge the government or state if censorship is applied to protect its people. Such censorship was applied during the post-election violence as the government made attempts to extinguish the fires of violence and bloodshed ostensibly fuelled by media reports, and social media. Besides, the increasingly use of social and other media by destructive and terror groups such as Al Shabaab means the application of censorship may be appropriate and justified. In many emerging democracies, the application of censorship is, however, always seen as a way of controlling the media and journalism particularly when those in power feel their positions are threatened by publication of information considered perilous to the status quo. Accordingly, censorship is considered a serious threat to press freedom and democracy given the notion that the rule of law, accountability, transparency and good governance all rely on information and the means through which that can be widely shared. However, even though state media censorship is often overt (and in some instances covert), self-censorship is now one of the greatest threats to press freedom. Although there may be genuine reasons for self-censorship (for example in instances where individual journalists are threatened with violence for publishing ‘damaging’

April - June 2015

information), it is now often used by many media organisations to prevent the publication of information that may harm their financial bottom-lines. In many modern media environments, the profit motive frequently overrides public interest. Even in situations where the security of journalists is at stake, there is an overarching view that self-censorship is increasingly being applied for reasons relating to the protection of commercial, managerial and entrepreneurial interests. Accordingly, pressures from within and without media organisations point to increasing desire to control media content, particularly that which is considered not favourable to ruling class, advertisers, media owners and their associates. In effect, there is often little doubt about the amount of pressure that journalists, editors and media managers face, particularly from advertisers and the political class (including governments, and individual politicians). These pressures thus become major determinants of decisions taken by journalists, media owners, managers, executives and others. These decisions relate to how stories are framed, where and when they are published and, in fact, whether to publish them or not. Self-censorship influences the use of certain facts, pictures, sound bites; it determines whether certain information or details are left out, who is quoted or ignored. These choices thus become the bane of journalists interested in advancing public interest. Yet, while traditional media are some of the biggest victims of self-censorship, there may be attempts to foil the power of the Internet and mobile telephony and attendant social media. This is because a significant number of digital natives, migrants and ordinary people now rely on social media for their information needs. What’s more, the fact that such facilities have and are increasingly democratising information and news collection, publication and dissemination, and expanding the space available to ordinary citizens to share ideas, articulate and form public opinion is worrying enough to those interested or intent on maintaining (particularly) the political status quo. The Arab Spring (and the attendant changes engendered) was aided greatly by social media and is often used to illustrate the ‘constructive’ and ‘disruptive power of social media. Thus those in power may be genuinely worried about the power of social media. Back to the changes in the media milieu. The ebbing away of the power of traditional media is premised on the fact that people and media consumers can now engage in the business of news collection, and consumption. It is also based on ordinary people’s ability to circumvent owners, journalists, editors, and managers whose reports and publications may want to promote certain agenda. This means that selfcensorship becomes ‘obsolete’ particularly as social media are not encumbered and emasculated by the professional values, editorial and entrepreneurial interests and agenda that often

The Media Observer

impact the practice of ‘conventional’ journalism. Accordingly, many people are now celebrating the availability of social media not only as a way of countering the power of newspapers, radio and television but also because ordinary people may call the media’s bluff as providers of ‘truthful information’ and defenders of public interest. Granted, as social media become common and a great number of Kenyans appropriate them for their own use, there is need to critically examine the role and impact of technology on self-censorship. This is especially important as established and/or mainstream media become more adept at using social media as part of their everyday practices including avenues for the dissemination of their content. In fact, their social media platforms, for example, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram have become vital complementary sites as they seek to capture and retain ‘digital’ audiences. Thus, as they become part and parcel of mainstream media, issues of the application of professional and commercial values similar to those applied to traditional platforms start to emerge. Concomitantly, concerns such as censorship and self-censorship start to emerge as the use of social media becomes popular among numerous groups, including terrorist organisations like Al Shabaab.

“...as social media become common and a great number of Kenyans appropriate them for their own use, there is need to critically examine the role and impact of technology on self-censorship.” In effect, the application of censorship and self-censorship becomes desirable even among fervent advocates of press freedom given the threat terror groups pose to society. How then can technology be appropriately used without damaging the media’s capacity to offer meaningful information that people and society need? Even though the efficacy of the application of technology depends on modes of use rather than mere availability, there is an overarching view that some sort of control and surveillance may be necessary in situations where social media may be used for destructive purposes. This means that technology may be used to monitor and control the publication of certain information that may perilous to state and citizen interests. Such efforts may include self-censorship, and campaigns to promote constructive use of technology. However, such efforts must be done with extreme care not to damage press freedom, and the ability, role and responsibility of the media to provide information that is critical to the wellbeing of society and development and consolidation of democracy and related principles of respect of human rights, accountability and rule of law. Dr George Nyabuga is a senior lecturer at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Nairobi gnyabuga@yahoo.co.uk

April - June 2015

Journalists Decry Unprecedented Threats

While the law is clear, it’s also incumbent upon reporters to take interest in the violation of their rights and report such matters to the authorities, argues VICTOR BWIRE

“We have been working on stories focusing on insecurity in the country and the first one aired on December 19, 2014 under the banner USALAMA SHELABELA PART 1. In the story, we exposed loopholes in several shopping malls in Nairobi. We accessed a loaded ceska pistol and went through security checks in the shopping malls. But behind the scenes, many things happened in the process of looking for a firearm to do the story. In one of the instances, our source was beaten up and our money stolen. For fear of being reported, our source traced our driver’s home in Kiambu and he was beaten up by people who allegedly wanted to know my colleague Purity Mwambia’s residence. The case was reported to the police and no one has been arrested six months later. The second part of the story USALAMA SHELABELA PART 2 was supposed to go on air on April 27 but the story was dropped. We were told the story will never run. In the story, the same source had assisted us in getting explosives or bomb-making materials. With the explosives hidden in our car, we began our journey from Garissa passing more than 13 police roadblocks without being detected to Nairobi. Still with the explosives inside the car, we entered several police stations including the GSU headquarters, Flying Squad headquarters, Nairobi Area Traffic Headquarters and Kasarani Police Station and later we detonated the explosives using an old car. Purity Mwambia and Franklin Wambugu, Managing Editor Swahili services, were summoned by the anti-terror police. Since then our source traced my home to know if we are going to report him to the police. Still, we were informed that those GSU who were at the gate were interdicted. It is for these reasons that I fear

The Media Observer

for my life and that of my family,” Francis Mwangi, K24. “I covered a court case in March, 2015 whereby the state prosecutor accused a parliamentarian (sitting MP) of fraud. Soon after running the story in the newspaper, I started receiving threats from the MP’s supporters. I received threatening anonymous phone calls questioning me for covering the story and mentioning the MP. Later in the month, the MP filed a defamation suit against me and The Standard. Since then, I have been living in fear and neither me nor other journalists in town are touching the story,” Paul Gitau, Standard Group. “I had to abandon a story I was following when threats became unbearable. I was following a story on an AP officer who had been assaulted by a man after he caught him in the act with his wife. An AP friend to the suspect warned me against pursuing the story and promised to deal with me if I persisted. I didn’t take it lightly knowing how evil some of the officers are. I reported the matter at Narok Police Station where it was booked AS OB 27/13/12/14. I had to abandon the story because of fear for my life”. John Mwangi, Royal Media Services, Narok. “A reporter with The Star reported to us the frustrations he goes through when filling stories; many times he is made to abandon stories mid-way or the stories never see the light of day even when he files them. Whenever he files stories relating to corruption at the Murang’a County government offices, the story never sees the light of the day because a staffer would allegedly offer bribes to some editors. This makes him feel humiliated to an extent of saying he will now not prioritise media as a career but he will move to other businesses. Why should someone cut our hands and cut short our dreams?” Pauline, an official of the Murang’a Journalists Association.

April - June 2015

Cases of harassment and intimidation of journalists as sampled above are among the leading causes of self-censorship. In such a hostile environment, journalists are finding it almost impossible to cover some stories. Many journalists have had to abandon or shelve some stories, even where facts are obvious, because of fear of attacks or harassment. As elsewhere globally, journalists have been hindered from doing their watchdog role in Kenya because of intimidation and harassment, by both internal and external sources. Self-censorship has become widespread in Kenya because journalists fear physical reprisals for what they write, say or report. Indeed, such threats and actual physical aggression meted to journalists are real. The exposure to such hostilities have led to intense pressures. In the end, journalists abandon public interest stories for the lesser dangerous reportorial ones considered safe. A number of journalists have been forced to quit journalism or relocate to safer environments. A number are living in hiding or on the run. The attacks have been perpetrated by both state agents and private goons. Attacks and violence against journalists violates the Constitution which provides for the safety and security of all Kenyans and the protection of freedom of expression via Article 34. It is also a violation of international treaties that Kenya is party to.

UNESCO Resolution 29 adopted in 1997 dubbed “Condemnation of violence against journalists” urged the competent authorities of states to discharge their duty of preventing, investigating and punishing such crimes and remedying their consequences; and it urged member states to refine their legislation to make it possible to prosecute and sentence those who instigate the assassination of persons exercising the right to freedom of expression. UN Security Council Resolution 1738 (2006) condemns attacks against journalists in conflict situations. The African Charter on Human and People’s Rights guarantees individuals against arbitrary deprivation of the right to life (Article 4), establishes an absolute prohibition of torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment (Article 5), guarantees the right to liberty and security of the person (Article 6), and freedom of expression (Article 9). While the law is clear, it’s also incumbent upon journalists to take interest in the violation of their rights and report such matters to the authorities. Victor Bwire is the Deputy CEO & Programmes Manager at the Media Council of Kenya. victor@mediacouncil.or.ke

A journalist covering an event. Journalists face a number of safety and security challenges while on duty.

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

In Defense of Political, Economic Interests As JANE GODIA argues, self-censorship due to commercial and political interests has made the primary duty of the media, which is to generate and share information freely, not possible. Political, administrative and economic influences affect the way newsrooms operate.

commercial interests.

Although journalists, editors and media owners often provide objective source of news, they are usually accused of moulding and manipulating news to suit political and

In a country like Kenya, only one public media exists, the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation. The rest of the media, about 99 percent, are privately owned, making them individual or shareholder businesses. In many countries, Kenya not an exception, the public media operates more as state media. However, in all this, the media is concentrated in a few hands making journalists and newsroom operations susceptible to political, administrative and economic influence. For instance, the economic orientation of media owners and their relationship with other businesses is just as much a problem for newsroom independence as the concentration of media ownership in a few hands. UNESCO, a keen supporter of press freedom, describes freedom as a matter of legal and statutory environment in which media and journalism operates and which shapes public information flows. Press control, is an act that denies media freedom. Lack of press freedom can be described as press control, which comprises three types of restraint. This includes legislative restraint,

The Media Observer

direct censorship and self-censorship. When parliaments pass laws, or the Executive issues orders that border on sedition and libel, these may be used to gag the press rather than protect individuals’ rights. Lack of press freedom also includes situations where newsrooms are forced to remove certain stories before they are published or aired for political, administrative or economic reasons. When this happens, then overt censorship is being experienced. Censorship is the act of censoring and classifying one’s own work by one’s own initiative or because of influences from other sources. Self-censorship is the restraint brought about by fear of detention or bodily harm that is mainly exercised by journalists and editors. There is self-censorship when journalists restrict themselves as a pre-emptive measure, and this may be out of fear of threats and intimidation. UNESCO notes in its report—World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development — that direct and selfcensorship remain a challenge to journalists worldwide even as trends towards private sector censorship and privatisation of censorship has emerged. Self-censorship in newsrooms has greatly emerged and is noted to affect traditional form of news production where truth and boldness have remained pillars to the foundation of the practice of journalism. Self-censorship from political, administrative and economic influences are notable because revolving around everything is the safety of the journalist who when outside the newsroom fails to get protection from media houses and is basically on his or her own. Political influences have been a key driver in self-censorship because perpetrators

April - June 2015

of attacks on journalists are rarely brought to justice. Censorship, whether direct or self, denies citizens the right to information. Self-censorship, therefore, affects newsrooms’ ability to produce and share information. It’s actually a barrier to creativity, exchange of information and dialogue. Self-censorship appears to be the most common form of restraint in African newsrooms. Thunder and Silence: The Mass Media in Africa notes that in Kenya, like the rest of African countries such as South Africa, Malawi and Cote d’Ivoire among others, media is frequently being forced to exercise restraint. Maina Kiai, in Media and the Common Good: Perspectives on Media, Democracy and Responsibility, points out that self-censorship limits the vital role that the media plays in its watchdog role. When media is owned by individuals who are mainly politicians, as is the common case in Kenya, then political ambitions and leanings will affect how journalists and newsrooms in these media houses operate. Self-censorship, in this case, from political influence then remains apparent. Where politicians are the private media owners make it simple for specific newsrooms to self-censors, especially ensuring that journalists and editors cannot afford to write, publish or broadcast stories that would negatively paint the ownership and their political leanings.

In Kenya, political events in the 2007 General Election have influenced newsrooms. Jerome Lafargine in General Elections in Kenya, 2007, notes that a few months after the violent events, directors and Managing Editors of mainstream media houses had the feeling that they had failed in their duty. Although Lafargine notes that preaching is not the primary job of the journalist, it’s rather to supply information and search for the truth. Self-censorship from political influences has made the primary duty of media, which is to generate and share information freely not possible. Lafargine quotes David Makali, a media owner and leading editor saying: “There was too much self-censorship in the newsrooms.” Makali is quoted saying: “Journalists did not report the facts because they were scared the violence may have turned against them either from the government or the general population.” This self-censorship from political influences was also seen in 2013 General Election in Kenya, where as much as the media took pride in its role towards peace building, many fingers pointed at self-censorship as opposed to playing the watchdog role in being bold and truthful as well as ensuring news covered spoke to the truth rather than whipping up emotions.

Journalists cover the World Press Freedom Day 2015 Celebrations. Sometimes journalists practice self censorship to protect themselves.

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

Like the Kenyan case, the media in Rwanda was accused of playing a major role towards the genocide. Since then, the Rwandan media has been forced to examine closely not only the role of the media in the genocide but the extent to which media freedom and expression can be taken and also how to avert atrocities.

“The media is like any other business that is driven by shareholders’ interest for the pursuit of profit.” Towards a New Partnership with Africa: Challenges and Opportunities notes that towards much of its existence, the African media has been censored and self-censored, thus compromising professional standards and ethics. Political influence in Kenya has led to fingers being pointed at the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation for conducting itself more as a state broadcaster. The public broadcaster has been accused of playing to the tunes of the ruling political party.

newsrooms. Media houses have been sued and charged hefty fines, with others bordering on amounts that could almost shut them down. Administrative influences have been from within and without of newsrooms. Media owners often in most cases will determine what will be published or aired in their outlets. However, outside administrative influences, especially from the state and its agencies have a key role in self-censorship in newsrooms. Administrative influences include interference from the state where there is increasingly a dominant trend of monitoring Internet traffic, phone calls and text messages by some government and law enforcement agencies to track journalists and uncover their sources. Whether political, administrative, economic or otherwise, any negative influence on newsrooms will always have a hand on censorship, be it self or direct. Newsroom independence, therefore, will depend on freedom from political, administrative and economic influences from within and without.

Economic influence in newsrooms mainly emerge from shareholders and advertisers. Private and public media, which are looking to earn money from commercial ventures, will ensure that stories do not in any way portray corporates, and major shareholders negatively. Private media tends to make all their profit from advertisements and in the old adage cannot afford to bite the hand that feeds them.

Safety of journalists remains at the centre of self-censorship. Political, administrative and economic influences have led to attacks on journalists including, in many cases, deaths. Fear and threats of intimidation that arise from self-censorship due to political, administrative and economic influences are majorly a threat to freedom of expression and information, both of which are fundamental human rights.

Sharon Beder in Moulding and Manipulating the News, notes that the influence of corporate advertisers on media content is both indirect in that it shapes media content to attract the audience in a way that will suit its advertisers and direct in that media outlets edit material that is likely to offend advertisers.

In effect, self-censorship from political, administrative and economic influences, therefore, limits journalists’ ability to publish information, documents or pictures of sources known to them. They are forced to suppress information and important elements of information, which by virtue of their trade are important in building up a story.

There are many times that advertisers directly demand influence on news when they offer leading media houses a lot of money in exchange for favourable coverage. In Kenya, there are media houses that have been locked out of earning advertising revenue from large corporate companies simply because of one story that did not speak positively about them. This then, sees the hand of economics in self-censorship in newsrooms.

Jane Godia is a Gender and Media Expert and serves as Managing Editor at African Woman and Child Feature Service (AWCFS). She is also a member of the Editorial Board of the Media Observer magazine. jgodia@awcfs.org

The private media is like any other business that is driven by shareholders’ interest for the pursuit of profit. In this case, shareholders are then the key to economic influence in newsrooms as journalists and editors will ensure all their stories will positively speak to what the shareholders want, and in particular, no negative stories can be written or published on major shareholders. This then, also, ties the journalists’ and editors’ hands as they cannot afford to annoy or negatively expose those who have invested heavily in entities that feed them. Law suits from both economic and political interests towards media houses have played a major role in self-censorship in

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

A Glimpse at Global Trends in Self-Censorship

As HENRY MAINA found out, censorship is widespread globally despite developments towards journalism education in state-public and private-commercial media organisations Self-censorship is widespread in the news media globally but it never receives as much scrutiny, especially in Africa, as censorship initiated by authorities to remove material from public access. It is the latter that receives much response for or against. Therefore, journalism literature only highlights the issue of self-censorship in passing thus not isolating enough concrete patterns to help one conjure up what may be considered as global trends. Even where there have been studies, they tend to be country-specific or focus on a particular media organisation, thus not lending the findings to an easy generalisation. But where media contexts are similar like in most of Africa, some country-specific findings may have a comparative value. However, before isolating some trends, we must indicate that defining self-censorship in media practice is not easy. This is because any conceptualisation may take a thick or thin approach. The former stretches from a wide understanding, seeing self-censorship as an everyday practice for any journalist anywhere in the world, caused by the inevitable selection and de-selection processes while reporting and editing. The latter is a narrow definition. It entails only those practices which are performed for the sake of excluding information from publicity due to felt threats by authorities. The conceptualisation used in this article comes closer to the former than the latter. This is because I define self-

The Media Observer

censorship as withholding of journalistic material due to felt external influences. Critically, this definition involves not only restrictions caused by government interference, but also includes those provoked by others and conditions, including social, cultural expectations and internal guidelines and procedures of processing news. Self-censorship is found in both private and state-owned media, in new and old media and during times of tension and indeed also in more peaceful periods. Thus, there is broad concurrence about the scope of self-censorship and its primary causes. Mostly where self-censorship is examined, the analyses tend to focus on the political and legal conditions that cause self-censorship instead of journalistsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own experience of the practice. Journalism literature is replete with indices measuring the political and legal conditions necessary for an independent, professional and pluralistic media. Globally, one of the legal threats leading to self-censorship is the retention of criminal defamation in the statutes of many countries. In Africa, only Ghana and Lesotho have decriminalised defamation. Other legal threats are the unbridled application of sedition, publication of false news and insult laws in most countries. Similarly, the politics of fear following 9/11 has led to national security and antiterrorism legislations being implemented the world over by both established democracies and dictatorships. These laws are often than not used to censor and repress the media. Clear examples abide in Ethiopia where the anti-terrorism proclamation has been used to incarcerate many journalists.

April - June 2015

Apart from direct political interference and legal barriers forcing journalists to avoid news, there are other internal reasons. To most journalists, good stories are frequently not pursued because of commercial and competitive pressures. Further, some journalists simply indicate that lack of time denies them an opportunity to follow up on important newsworthy subjects. Self-censorship may be voluntary or involuntary. Normally, the influencers neither exert overt pressure nor directly meddle in specific news coverage but their message often gets through to the media. It may take two main formats: First, avoidance by journalists to cover certain stories, omission, dilution and distortion of certain information, even if, they may be adjudged newsworthy. Second, it may take the form of less feisty criticism of the news subject or they begin to dampen criticism and pull back and exercising self restraint. In some situations, they tend to cosy up to those in power or “displace” commentators and broadcast host known for not pulling punches. The second format tends to be experienced in nations where the media has previously made people in power squirm. Self-censorship globally is done in anticipation of currying reward and avoiding punishment from those in power and their associates.

too complex or sometimes important but dull for the average person. This is especially so when the organisational interests are focused on quick sales through sensational reporting. This is largely a trend among broadcasters. Third, journalists tend to evade stories that would hurt their relationship with the source, lower their standing among their peers, may affect career progression or spark ire from the authorities. Some journalists call this duty to the profession. But this is not just the journalist ends up being excessively professional and ethical. No. They end up doing unethical things so long us their name in the profession is not tarnished. Fourth, journalists globally tend to self-censor themselves as they feel the media has a role in nation-building. This is a normative position that supports the role of the media in nation-building and other social responsibilities. Selfcensorship is only a result of one who wishes to perform socially responsible journalism. Self-censorship persists globally despite enduring developments towards journalism education and professionalisation in state-public and private-commercial media organisations. It endures because of the entrenched discourses of fear among journalists and the feeling of uncertainty.

“Self-censorship is found in both private and state-owned media, in new and old media and during times of tension and indeed also in more peaceful periods.”

Uncertainty is a lush ground for self-censorship and may in some countries like Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, South Africa be more significant than media laws when it comes to imposing restrictions on journalists.

Self-censorship is more pronounced globally where journalists work in their community and are known to most of their sources, readers and subjects of their news coverage. The reasons for self-censorship can be many and varied. But a few reasons stick out globally. First, journalists and media houses may avoid stories that could damage the news organisation, advertisers, media owners and senior editors. It is a growing trend that big media houses will not report news that would hurt their financial interests or adversely affect advertisers.

Having isolated the above, I must conclude by indicating that self-censorship remains a difficult concept or phenomena to measure and may largely be a key characteristic of oppressive media environments which can both be found in established democracies just like in dictatorships. It is, therefore, challenging to make it comparable between countries and media groups. However, it remains widespread in most countries in Africa especially within state media and private media owned or affiliated to the ruling and business elites in any country.

Trends in this area indicate that journalists operating in an increasingly competitive media environment tend to soften the tone of a news story to safeguard the interests of their news organisations. Increasingly, according to Pew Research Center, most investigative reporters and editors globally cite the impact of business pressures on editorial decisions. They indicate that newsworthy stories are often or sometimes ignored because they conflict with a news organisation’s economic interests. However, it is the pressure from corporate owners that seems to have the greatest effect on decisions about which stories are covered Some professionals prefer not to call such censorship. They call it a duty to organisation.

Henry Maina is the Director,Article 19 Eastern Africa henry@article19.org

Second, journalists may avoid stories that audiences might find

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

Press Freedom Intrigues and Politics of Censorship

It has become evident that the state is not the only menace threatening the uninhibited flow of information. And as WILLIAM OKETCH writes, media owners have increasingly become the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;enemy withinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The Kenyan press is one of the most vigorous, complex and diverse in the world. Among its distinction is an almost genetic urge to get at the truth, a democratic setting that is unique in an authoritarian neighborhood and plain old stubbornness and disregard for authority. However, the threat of censorship still looms large, even after 2010 when the country adopted a new Constitution. Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication or publications that are considered objectionable, harmful, politically incorrect, sensitive or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or a controlling body. Contemporary censorship covers vetting of books, periodicals, plays, films, television or radio shows, news reports and other communication media as to alter or suppress parts considered objectionable on grounds of immorality, obscenity, heresy, blasphemy, sedition, treason and public morality.

The Media Observer

Historically, the nexus between censorship and politics in Kenya has been tumultuous, starting with the colonial regime which restricted an emergent African media for fear that a free and thriving nationalist press would act as a mouthpiece for African political independence. The Jomo Kenyatta regime which took power upon independence also controlled the media as a tool of advancing its interests and vanquishing political opponents. Media freedoms were further curtailed by the succeeding regime of President Daniel Moi, which used legal and extrajudicial means to restrict and limit political freedoms and to silence anti-establishment views even to the extent of banning foreign media outlets. The adoption of multi-party democracy in 1991 was a trigger for a decade-long Second Liberation struggle for greater political and individual freedoms which culminated in the coming to power of President Mwai Kibaki in 2002 under the reformist NARC, mostly made of erstwhile pro-democracy proponents. It was hoped that this regime would usher in progressive policies that expand the democratic space in Kenya. However, commercialisation of the media intensified during this period as corporate commercial interests with links to powerful politicians acquired controlling stakes in media outlets. Gradually, the popularity of NARC plummeted due to its failure

April - June 2015

to enact a new constitution and emerging corruption scandals like the Anglo-Leasing saga which were prominently publicised by the media culminating in the infamous raid on the Standard Group headquarters by government armed security agents who assaulted journalists and destroyed property making it the darkest moment of media repression in Kenyan history. Jubilee of President Uhuru Kenyatta has had an estranged relationship with the media having been accused of curtailing media freedoms due to its perceived agenda of government censorship and sponsorship of legislation that subjugates the media.

“In Kenya, the enactment of a new Constitution in 2010 gave the media a new lease of life by entrenching both right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media in Articles 33 and 34.” Censorship is broadly clustered as either formal or informal. Government censorship falls in the formal category and is characterised by controlling of speech, information, and images for public viewing on the pretext of enforcing public security of the citizens. Institutional censorship is another formal censorship pegged on an institutional and/or industry based codes of conduct which prohibit certain behaviors or certain engagements. If you take the example of Kenyan journalists, they are governed by the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism 2013. Informal censorship also includes social censorship where the government advocates for a larger role in the economy through regulatory controls and implementing a comprehensive social welfare system. The other is self-censorship where personally held attitudes are suppressed with the requirement to adhere to certain standards derived from a set of norms, moral considerations or decency. There is no consensus on the rationale behind censorship due to the complexity of societal dynamics. Every state has attempted to control or influence activities of the press within its jurisdiction by enactment of media laws which are necessary to assist the press perform its crucial role as a watchdog of government within a regulatory framework that ensures discipline in the industry. Governments have regulated the media because of the public’s real need for standards in journalism and to enhance ethics while upholding important values, like state security, social peace, and individual rights. The rationale has been that the media has on several occasions exceeded its mandate necessitating regulation. Critics of censorship, however, contend that everyone has a right to information and the media plays an important role in disseminating public information. Democratic societies should uphold the principle of freedom of speech whereby people are free to say and write what they wish. A free media is thus critical to the ability of the people to exercise their fundamental human rights and to be fully informed

The Media Observer

about developments in their society be they political, social, economic or environmental that have a direct bearing on their lives. While freedoms to express views and opinions can be curtailed, it should only occur when absolutely necessary since the state cannot be trusted to exercise restrain at all times in the performance of its functions. Censorship can be abused by the government to interfere with the media and the free flow of information. In Kenya, the enactment of a new Constitution in 2010 gave the media a new lease of life by entrenching both right to freedom of expression and freedom of the media in Articles 33 and 34. The only limitations to freedom of expression where government can use censorship are outlined in Article 33(2) of the Constitution and these include propaganda for war, incitement to violence, hate speech or advocacy of hatred constituting vilification and discrimination on any grounds. Article 33(3) also introduces the doctrine of a balance of convenience where every person is required to respect the rights and reputation of others in the exercise of their own right to freedom of expression. Article 2(5) (6) makes the general rules of international law as well as treaties or conventions ratified by Kenya applicable. These include fundamental civil and political rights enshrined in article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and it provides that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; which right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Similarly, the right to freedom of expression is guaranteed in the same terms by article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In Kenya, traditionally the struggle for press freedom has been waged against the state. Publishers, editors, and journalists alike have fought to prevent, modify or abolish legislation which gave the government power to censor publications. However in light of recent developments, it has become evident that the state is not the only menace threatening the uninhibited flow of information and ideas to the public. It seems that the all-powerful censors in Kenya are no longer politicians or government officials but rather the “enemies within”— the people who own the media and consequently enjoy tremendous power to control its editorial contents and the access to it. These people may use their power to censor both information and opinion. The potentially chilling, sometimes freezing effect of this process of commercialization of the Kenyan media on its editorial content seems self-evident: when the primary motivation for publishing or broadcasting is not to enrich public knowledge and debate, but rather to enrich the publisher or broadcaster, it is quite unlikely that he would allow (into his communication outlet) news stories or views which would diminish his profits. A typical manifestation of this censorship

April - June 2015

The Information Secretary at the Ministry of ICT Ezekiel Mutua signs the safety and protection protocol for journalists. The protocol was launched by the MCK and media stakeholders on Monday, 18 August 2014 in Nairobi.

is to avoid stories which might annoy or alienate advertisers. The Kenyan courts also have an essential and momentous role to play in establishing (almost “inventing”) freedom of the press as a fundamental constitutional right. The High Court of Kenya recently issued rendered a decision which declared eight sections of the Security Laws (Amendment) Act 2014 unconstitutional in particular those which unduly restricted freedom of expression. Parliament has had a terribly poor record of protecting freedom of the media and combating all kinds of censorship. Other than enacting the contentious Media Council Act 2013 and the Kenya Information and Communications [Amendment] Act 2013 which stakeholders deemed oppressive and are subject of an on-going court case, Parliament also attempted to enact a controversial Parliamentary Powers and Privileges Bill 2014 which sought to enhance the powers of the National Assembly, giving it wide latitude to muzzle the media and cushion lawmakers from scrutiny. That controversial Bill proposed to impose a Sh500,000 fine and jail term on journalists who published reports which in the lawmakers’ judgment defamed Parliament. The Executive wing of government has also not faired any better by its handling of the digital migration process. Local investors in the media sector have been aggrieved by the government’s action of giving a Chinese firm the only BSD license to distribute digital broadcasting signal. At the level of regulatory supervision the Media Council of Kenya through its Complaints Commission has made great strides towards enforcing the industry backed ethical code for journalists in Kenya. The Media Councils defined goals are “to guard freedom of the press and the people’s right to know, to

The Media Observer

struggle against attempts to restrict the flow of information and access to sources, and to raise the professional standards of the media.” Kenya can and must prevent the gradual demise of the noncommercial public media that still survive and especially public broadcasting. This is important because the country cannot maintain an open and free marketplace of ideas if all main gates to that market are kept by commercially-oriented guards. Finally, the media must confront a ghost in town - perceptional censorship. This where individuals who are in position of power or authority ridicule the media for playing its watchdog role. Recently President Uhuru Kenyatta rubbished the print media in Kenya for the second, saying newspapers are only good enough for wrapping meat in butcheries. “I no longer read newspapers. I use it for “meat wrapping”, quipped the President. Hon. (Mr.) William Oketch is a Commissioner of the Complaints Commission, Media Council of Kenya and a serving Magistrate/Deputy Registrar in the Judiciary woketis@gmail.com

April - June 2015

COMPLAINTS COMMISSION OF THE MEDIA COUNCIL OF KENYA Section 27 of the Media Council Act 2013 establishes a seven (7) member Complaints Commission independent from the Council to enforce media standards set the by the Council.

Functions a. b. c.

Mediate or adjudicate in disputes between the government and the media and between the public and the media and intra media on ethical issues; Ensure the adherence to high standards of journalism as provided for in the code of conduct for the practice of journalism in Kenya; and Achieve impartial, speedy and cost effective settlement of complaints against journalists and media enterprises, without fear or favour.

The media arbitration service is provided FREE OF CHARGE and is independent of the Media and Government.

What Constitutes a Complaint? *

Breach of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism set out in the Act for example for example fairness and accuracy, taste and tone in the publication or non- publication of a news-item or statements

* Freedom of the press being threatened or encroached upon through denial of facilities that helps in collection or dissemination of news or through threats, harassment or assault.

Further information on the procedure for lodging a complaint can be obtained from our website www.mediaCouncil.or.ke.

Journalismâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Silent Killer

Self-censorship denies citizens their right to be informed, it denies journalists their absolute right to press freedom. AMOS KIBET examines why Self- censorship is a conspicuous stumbling block to professional practice.

One Finnish author said that practicing self-censorship can be compared to castrating an ox; once it is done, the ox looks like an ox, feels like an ox, may even occasionally have fun with the cows, but is totally incapable to produce descendants. Cowardice, political correctness, or social constraints? What lays behind the phenomena of self-censorship in the media these days? Where does ordinary editorial decision-making end and self-censorship begin? How does self-regulation smother the practice of ethical and professional journalism? How does the political and cultural inherency of our society dictate how journalists view ethics and professionalism in the light of self-censorship? These are the real questions.

of two evils especially considering the situation of unstable societies like Somalia where censorship has made it possible to resume journalistic practices and has perpetuated its vital and continued survival. While self-censorship may directly or indirectly affect the practice of ethical journalism, it should be noted that censorship practices do not always indicate lack of professionalism. The presence of self-censorship doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t necessarily mean absence of critical journalism either. While the practice robs journalists of critical thinking, it limits the extent of their coverage and violates some basic tenets of ethical journalism, a lot has been achieved in Kenya despite the constraining effects of self-censorship.

The role of journalists working across all media platforms requires that they make dozens of ethical and professional decisions. Newsroom productions requires journalists to make choices about news content, nature of headlines, words, pictures, video and audio clips. These decisions are not acts of self-censorship. They are necessary components of gatekeeping process in journalism. When they are freely made by well-trained, free-thinking professionals they are the bedrock of journalism at its best.

The history of self-censorship in the African media is negative in itself because it is inextricably inter-connected with the continentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s overall political history. After independence, the newborn governments used the media to promote national cohesion and economic growth. This inevitably resulted in state-run media outlets which had clearly politically motivated editorial policies. It is, however, clear that self-censorship has not only been associated with the state media but also with private media which put constraints on themselves for fear of legal or political reactions as well. The fear of criminal charges is, therefore, a major impediment to journalistic activity in heavily media-regulated societies, and cultivates self-censorship. Beyond issues where political interests are directly involved, self-censorship is also induced by commercial pressure and cultural expectations.

Self-censorship is the bane of ethical and professional journalism globally. Why is this so? Self-censorship denies citizens their right to be informed; self-censorship denies journalists their absolute right to press freedom. Although the practice has often been ethically defended as the lesser

Commercial pressure and cultural expectations, gender, racial and religious issues as well as political reasons are all important factors which cause self-censorship to flourish as a regulation model. Self-censorship appears, when journalists limit or ignore aspects of a story because they fear repercussions from

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

those with vested interests who are cited in their report. In authoritarian regimes and semi-democratic countries such as North Korea, Ethiopia and Yemen, journalists tend to selfcensor to avoid punishment. From time to time, even in democratic countries, as in the US example, some government practices cause journalists to engage in self-censorship. An ethical examination indicates that such pressures cause journalists to undertake fear driven strategic edits on news items and articles that in effect create lapses in accuracy, fairness and objectivity in their reporting. It is journalists’ duty to report the truth to people. Yet some journalists, even those working for media that claim to uphold press freedom, selfcensor what they write and report. It is also important to understand that journalists in many parts of the globe have exercised self-censorship because as a defensive mechanism. The mainstream media in Mexico have avoided covering organized crime and violence because of fears over the security of their reporters. Mexico is a case where journalists have been killed and mutilated because they publish stories on the drug mafia and organized crime. When they do so, they do it at their own and families’ peril. As a result, few local media cover such stories and those that do practice self-censorship not willingly but grudgingly and in fear of their lives.

“Self-censorship is therefore a threat to either individual autonomy or the truth; it is a danger to the qualities of news that are highly treasured.” In China, freedom of speech and press is guaranteed by the State Constitution (Article 35). The Central Propaganda Department gives media outlets directives restricting coverage of politically sensitive topics, such as protests in Tibet and Taiwan. Nonetheless, a culture of self-censorship has proven more effective than direct orders from the authorities in China. The thin line between permitted news and taboo information is unclear and constantly shifting, forcing journalists to practice self-censorship to avoid crossing the line and attracting unwanted attention. In many corners of the world including Iran and North Korea, journalists routinely censor themselves to avoid jail and persecution. In other countries such as Mexico, Pakistan and the Philippines, they do so to avoid assassination or physical violence.

Robert Sedler argues that self-censorship consists of two facets in what he terms as “bad” self-censorship and “good” self-censorship. He cites good self-censorship by the media to include decisions to withhold the name of rape victims or information that might harm national security interests. The deadly attack by alleged Islamic extremists on Charlie Hebdo, the Paris-based satirical magazine has raised concerns that self-censorship will now be on the rise. Lee Cheng, a long time practicing journalist and author in Hong Kong argues that self-censorship is a set of editorial actions ranging from omission, dilution, distortion and change of emphasis to choice of rhetorical devices by journalists, their organizations and even the entire media community, in anticipation of currying reward and avoiding punishment from the power structure. He considers power structure to be the power holders in society, including the government, major advertisers, and those who own news organizations. Self-censorship is, therefore, a threat to either individual autonomy or the truth; it is a danger to the qualities of news that are highly treasured. In essence therefore, selfcensoring practices are mainly the result of the pressure that state authorities, economic and social pressure groups and illegal organisations, have imposed on media companies and journalists. Such pressure disregards ethical and professionals principles which govern journalists and this is the greatest danger. Consequently, journalists, who are supposed to inform public about the events happening around and make investigations on problematic issues and write news stories for their readers in detail, become well-behaved kids to follow the orders of pressure groups and censor whatever information they are directed to cut out and don’t want to research on any sensitive issue which they cannot write the truths about. Self-censorship may be said to lead to a significant loss of credibility not only for the media companies but the journalists as well and worst of it the future of journalism is being jeopardized. No need to tell it, the biggest loser of this game becomes the societies which are deprived from the right to get information about the events happening around. Amos Kibet is the Research & Media Monitoring Officer at the Media Council of Kenya. Kibet.amos@mediaCouncil.or.ke

Self-censorship issues in Uganda, Kenya and many other African countries have recently been enhanced following the introduction of an Anti-Terrorism Act which makes it a capital offence to pass on information that can aid terrorist actions. The act seriously increases self-censorship among journalists covering the terrorism and other conflict-ridden areas. However, the Act also raises questions on freedom and independence of the media and the role of state in strangulation of media through stringent legal policies.

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

Cartoonists at Pains to Toe the Line

PATRICK GATHARA explores how they have historically fallen out of favour, especially given the limited understanding of the protections offered under the Constitution as well as what the legal and ethical red lines are.

The recent death of pioneer cartoonist Terry Hirst has brought to the fore the role and impact that editorial cartoonists have had on the social and political development of Kenya. Since he launched his Friday Feature in the Daily Nation at the close of the 1970s, the political cartooning genre has grown by leaps and bounds, with many cartoonists becoming household names. Their impact on the country was noted in a study carried out by the Association of East African Cartoonists in 2004 which found out that though it is difficult to establish a link between Kenyan cartoonists’ work and a particular political event, it is clear they have greatly influenced public attitudes towards political leaders. This being the case, it is important to consider the constraints under which cartoonists work and any censorship they may have endured. Given that Kenyan cartoonists see the focus of their art as regulating the behaviour of political leaders and that they have largely succeeded in their goal of bringing them down to a level where they can be viewed as normal human beings who make mistakes, it is not surprising that political leaders have responded to this. It is instrumental to note that though no cartoonist to date has been jailed or been successfully sued in court for his work, this does not mean that their work is free from restraint. The KATUNI study found that many top cartoonists had received threatening phone calls and messages from politicians and their lackeys. However, the greatest impediment was editorial self-censorship by the newspapers and media in general. It is at the level of editors that much of the pressure from political, religious and business circles is brought to bear.

The Media Observer

While there is little fear nowadays of government shutting down publications or raiding media print shops as was the norm during the Daniel Moi and Jomo Kenyatta eras (and to a very limited extent during Mwai Kibaki’s presidency), the government can still bring the media to heel through regulation and by threatening to withdraw advertising, the lifeline of most media enterprises. According to some estimates, advertising accounts for up to three-quarters of revenue for most major TV and newspaper companies and up to 60 per cent of this comes from governments and government-owned enterprises. In a 2013 article, Tom Rhodes of the Committee to Protect Journalists noted that “advertisers… wield huge influence, which often allows them to quietly control what is published and what is not”. This pressure on editors to keep advertisers, including but not limited to the government, happy is a filter through which cartoonists images must pass before they are published. Another way in which cartoonists experience censorship is through the threat of litigation. Again these threats are primarily directed at the media enterprises rather than the cartoonists themselves. Many a time, editors will be called upon to decide whether a particular cartoon has strayed beyond the bounds of legitimate commentary and may put the publication at risk of litigation. Though such suits are relatively rare, the possibility of them and the potential for huge awards (former minister Nicholas Biwott was once awarded Sh60 million) has led to editors preferring to err on the side of caution and a climate where few are willing to push the limits. A cartoon I drew on the retirement of Gen Julius Karangi as Chief of the Kenya Defence Forces, which featured him carrying a Nakumatt plastic bag was rejected because it was said to carry a risk of litigation.

April - June 2015

Regulation and government decrees also affect cartoonists’ work. In January, The East African, a regional newspaper printed in Nairobi, was banned in Tanzania after 20 years of operation. The official explanation given by the government was that the paper was in violation of the country’s newspaper registration laws, but the more likely reason for the shutdown was its perceived criticism of President Jakaya Kikwete and especially a cartoon by Godfrey “GADO“ Mwampembwa which a government spokesperson said demonstrated bad taste and disrespect to the person and office of the President. In Kenya, regulations defining who a journalist is, the retention of oppressive criminal libel in the statute books as well as the Code of Conduct enforced by the Media Council of Kenya(MCK), which is a state body, also affect cartoonists’ ability to work and the sorts of topics they are allowed to address. The Star newspaper, for example, was forced to apologise after it reprinted the cover of the French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo, which had a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad, prompting complaints by Muslim readers. While not specifically mentioning the cartoon, a letter from the MCK threatening to de-register the paper and withdraw accreditation for its journalists for “persistent publishing of offensive stories and pictures” may have prompted the apology. As a matter of fact, issues touching on religion have been conspicuously absent from most editorial cartoons. The ongoing struggle against terrorists, many of whom claim religious motivations, has also created an environment where cartoonists face public scorn. A cartoon by this writer which featured the Opposition leader as a suicide bomber shouting “Uhuru Akbar” was widely condemned for being “anti-Muslim” and the newspaper has since refused to publish any further cartoons featuring any imagery that might be construed to be “Islamic”.

the newspaper’s editorial policy. To a large extent, editors are left to make their own judgements as to what is acceptable. As a result, different editors make different assessments creating some confusion as to what is and is not allowable for the publication. There is therefore need to train up, not just cartoonists, but their editors as well in the protections offered under the Constitution as well as what the legal and ethical red lines are.

“ A cartoon I drew on the retirement of Gen Julius Karangi as Chief of the Kenya Defence Forces, which featured him carrying a Nakumatt plastic bag was rejected because it was said to carry a risk of litigation.” The censorship of cartoons must also be seen in the wider context of state and self-censorship of the media in general. In May, Victor Bwire, the Deputy Chief Executive Officer and Programmes Manager at the MCK, opined that “the media is being turned from a watchdog to a lapdog and by extension a guard dog by making the work of journalists illegal or impossible.” He warned against “editors and the media owners worrying too much about their balance sheets” and said the laws regulating the practice of journalism, including the MCK Act, required urgent review to bring them in line with the guarantees promised by the constitution. Patrick Gathara is a cartoonist patrick.gathara@gmail.com

It has to be mentioned that there is a lack of uniformity among newspaper editors in interpreting either the law on libel or

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

Censored for Filing a ‘Sensitive’ Story

CYRUS KINYUNGU, a journalist, recounts dark day at the hands of editors, who demanded answers as to why he had broken a story that had put the company on the brink of losing adverts from a state agency.

As a reporter, my news editor assigned me to represent the company at an editors’ breakfast meeting organised by a government agency at a Nairobi hotel.

smile on his face, and asked “did he just say that?” Excited that he had landed an unexpected good story, he picked the day’s docket and confidently walked to the 10am meeting. “That my story for today,” he declared meaning it was to be the next day’s splash. And as promised, the story was the splash the next day.

The meeting was well attended by journalists from across all the media houses. As we enjoyed breakfast amid informal interactions, the organisation’s boss stepped onto the dais to address the gathering. He made it clear that there was nothing to write about as it was not a news event. He, however, did not expressly bar anyone from reporting the event. Indeed, it is the journalist’s work to determine whether there is a story or not at any event.

When I arrived in the newsroom the next day, everyone seemed to be looking for me. I had stepped on a sore toe. Some senior editors wanted to know where I got the story from. The CEO had just called the newsroom asking about the story that was in the headline. Apparently, the story had been discussed in a meeting by the company’s senior managers after the anti graft agency called to complain that we had exposed them. Other media houses carried different stories from the event but none talked about the issue.

But when the organisation’s CEO stood to speak, he made a statement that aroused my journalistic instinct. Luckily, my tape recorder was on and captured everything.

“Anyone who has a problem with that story should ask me. Nobody should ask Kinyungu about the story,” I heard the news editor tell somebody on the other end of the phone. As he placed down the receiver, he repeated the same statement to me. “Refer anyone who has a problem with that story to me,” he told me.

My first instinct was to respect the wish by the officials not to publish the story. However, my journalistic instincts dictated otherwise. When I briefed the news editor, he rose, a broad

The Media Observer

But before I could settle on my desk, a senior editor walked

April - June 2015

me to his office holding my hand and asked where I got the story from. He wondered why no other news outlet published the story despite the organisations being represented in the breakfast meeting. “Is anyone saying what we published is untrue? If so let them know I have a recording of it,” I told the editor and referred him to the news editor. “No,” he explained, embarrassed that he appeared to support the idea that we shouldn’t have published the story. “They are threatening to deny us adverts.” What he was unable to articulate is that he felt we should have censored the story for the sake of adverts. The other surprising thing was that for the price of breakfast at a five star hotel, many journalists decided to censor this story. In the end, the agency decided to punish us by denying us adverts for a period. It joined the list of companies that have a lot of influence on what is published about them. Their influence on the editorial content in the newsrooms has become legendary due to the millions of shillings they spend every month in advertisements. It is common knowledge to any journalist in the newsrooms that negative stories touching on some companies cannot be carried whatever the case. In fact, no journalist or editor dares touch negative stories about these companies.

“Thus to avoid disappointments, journalists have opted to turn a blind eye on otherwise great stories exposing the rot in the society propagated by these companies.” Many more have been forced to soften their stories so that they are published. Even when these companies give substandard services to their clients, there is no one to speak out. But the journalists and editors will rarely publicly admit that they are self censoring themselves. The argument among media managers is that the media houses are business entities meant to make profits. And when this comes from mangers who are not in editorial, only few bold editors dare to go against these directives. Dr M. Murat Yesil, an Assistant Professor at Necmettin Erbakan University, Turkey, observes that self-censoring practices are a serious threat for the future of journalism. In a paper published by the International Journal of Business and Social Science titled ‘The Invisible Threat for the Future of Journalism: Self-Censorship and Conflicting Interests in an Increasingly Competitive Media Environment’ Yesil notes that power players led by the government influence journalists to censor their news stories. “Using advertising as a weapon privately owned companies also put pressure on journalists. Publishers who need advertisement revenues for surviving have to accept whatever politicians and business owners told them to do. So publishers force the journalists working for them to follow the rules,” he says.

The Media Observer

Yesil notes that in censorship, boundaries are drawn about what to write or not by the outside powers, such as governments and companies, so journalists or publishers have no choice but to write or publish as they are directed. On the contrary, Dr Yesil says, in self-censorship, journalists are not told to do things openly but they censor themselves, hide some facts that they think would be dangerous to write. Dr Yesil observes that the most important reasons why journalists censor themselves are political and economic pressure and life threats. Indeed my experience in the newsroom confirms Dr Yesil’s observations. While working as an investigative journalist, someone interested me with a story on the suffering by workers in flower farms. I decided to consult some senior writers as I started looking for sources in the industry. It was when I was about to approach editors seeking for finances to go to Naivasha to investigate the story that a piece of information that changed the course of my investigation was passed to me. A colleague casually let me know that the story would never see the light of day. He told me that a senior manager in the company had an interest in the flower industry and, therefore, no negative story on the industry would ever be published as long as he worked for the company. I asked around and apparently it was an open secret. I had to drop the idea. And true to my informer’s word, no negative story on the industry ever ran on the media house’s platforms while that manager was there yet other media houses would carry these stories. But journalists have devised creative ways to overcome some instances of self-censorship. I remember once a journalist from a rival media came across a very sensitive investigative story which he felt if done by him or anyone from his media house, his life would be threatened. So convinced was he that the evil should be exposed that he approached us with the story idea though we were competitors. The story involved a senior police officer who was working to protect a wanted criminal. The journalist gave us the necessary leads to investigate the story. So helpful was he with the investigation that he did not mind that he would not get anything in return. When the story was published, he was as proud as the writer of the story. The social media has also come in handy in exposing issues that are censored in the mainstream media houses. Some journalists are opting to vent out in the social media instead of censoring themselves if they feel their stories won’t be published by the media houses they work for. Such is the ingenuity of some journalists to overcome the challenge of self-censorship that is very common in the media houses. Cyrus Kinyungu is a practicing journalist ckinyungu@gmail.com

April - June 2015

Joe Kadhi takes journalists through the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism. Training is an important aspect in Journalism.

The Training Factor and Self-Censorship

A trained journalist will always do everything possible to be within the required ethical parameters but this may involve a considerable degree of self-censorship, writes JOE KADHI No institution of higher learning which trains journalists has a specific unit in its curriculum to teach techniques of selfcensorship. On the contrary, all respected schools of journalism endeavour to produce courageous journalists who would specialise in investigative journalism aimed at unearthing all evils in society as members of a well-functioning and respected Fourth Estate. To prepare journalists from embryonic to professional stages, academics have to impart students with not only reporting and writing skills, but also with ethical and legal knowledge intended to shape their attitude towards the various societies they write for and about. Despite these aims and aspirations of many schools of journalism, a thorough examination of how media law and ethics are taught would reveal areas which demand qualified practitioners handle certain news items with high degree of caution which could, when all is said and done, be interpreted

The Media Observer

as a form of self-censorship. While investigative journalism, for example, demands that professionals dig deep to unearth the unpalatable truth, it at the same time requires that truth to be presented to the public without exposing anyone to hatred, ridicule and contempt. Doing so recklessly would amount to defamation which has landed many professionals, including myself when I was managing editor of The Daily Nation, into legal hot soup, despite the fact that justification is a good defense for such suits. To avoid the dreaded letters from lawyers of aggrieved newsmakers, many journalists, guided by their editors, engage in self-censorship to be on the safe side, often at the risk of giving their viewers, readers and listeners half-baked stories. While being instructed to get all their stories right, for example, student journalists are also taught how to be cautious by making sure that they do not publish any stories that are believed to be short on accuracy and fairness. Right from the classroom as undergraduates, they are instructed to accept the fact that while they are free to be partisan, they should clearly distinguish between comment, conjecture and fact. Arguably, that is done through a certain level of self-censorship while handling breaking news that appears to be suspicious.

April - June 2015

Discussing this kind of situation, Aidan White , the General Secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, recalls an incident in Belgium when the French-language public broadcaster interrupted programming in 2006 and switched to a news flash which announced that a coup d’état had taken place. According to the bulleting, the king was leaving the country and the nation’s Flemish majority had declared independence. Obeying the news value of timeliness, the announcement was made by a well-known and respected journalist who obviously did not want to be scooped by anyone and was therefore eager to be the first with the news. Unfortunately his announcement was a result of a hoax which could have been avoided if he exercised some form of selfcensorship and removed the item from the bulletin while checking facts. The subject of censorship, self or imposed, is obviously taught in universities in relation to freedom of expression beginning with the Universal Declaration of Human Right’s Article 19 which simply states that everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; which includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. The manner in which this noble human right value underwent a metamorphosis and gave birth to Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right (ICCPR) is also taught to undergraduates. Many course outlines of media law and ethics describe how the ICCPR is taught by comparing it with Section 79 of the old Constitution which restricted freedom of expression in more or less identical language. These comparisons always make

students appreciate the level of freedom the country has achieved through the new Constitution’s Articles 33, 34 and 35. To appreciate the various types of censorship, students are often introduced to the work of Philip Cook of Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester, and Conrad Heilmann of Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientiﬁc Method at the London School of Economics. In a working paper published in Political Studies in 2012, the two scholars propose and defend a distinction between two types of self-censorship: public and private. They suggest that in public self-censorship, individuals restrain their expressive attitudes in response to public censors while in private self-censorship, individuals do so in the absence of public censorship and argue for this distinction by introducing a general model which allows them to identify, describe, and compare a wide range of censorship regimes. Close to self-censorship is the other vital subject that affects professional journalism today namely self-regulation. Among the world institutions trying to promote self-regulation in journalism is UNESCO whose Assistant Director-General for Communication and Information Jānis Kārkliņš says the establishment and effective functioning of independent systems of media self-regulation lie at the heart of UNESCO’s ongoing promotion of journalistic professional and ethical standards. While supporting self-relegation of the media, Kārkliņš argues that it is often stressed that media are crucial vehicles for

Broadcaster Jeff Koinange (left) and businessman Tony Gachoka in a Nairobi court on June 5, 2015 where they were handed fines of Sh2 million each for contempt of court. PHOTO | ANTHONY OMUYA |

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

citizens’ demand for accountability from public and private actors. However, he suggest that the media must be held accountable if they are to play their role as a watchdog of authorities and other powerful stakeholders, and selfregulation is a function that lies at the very centre of this, fostering the media’s responsibility towards the public and enhancing the quality of the media through voluntary mechanisms that media professionals (journalists, editors and publishers) follow.

Another scholar Yavuz Baydar who is a Turkish journalist, blogger and co-founder of P24, the Platform for Independent Media, thinks the question of self-censorship and selfregulation can all be solved through adherence to ethical principles. He says in democracies, journalists enjoy protected rights and privileges that ensure the freedom to establish diverse media outlets, to move in public to collect facts and views, to disseminate news, and to demand accountability. In turn, he argues, journalists must be responsible.

Very often self-regulation involves the establishment of professional tribunals that can summon journalists and reprimand them for not adhering to a code of ethics. In Kenya that function is done by the Media Council of Kenya’s Complaints Commission. An upright professional journalists would do everything possible to always be within the required ethical parameters to avoid being summoned and reprimanded by the complaints commission. Doing so successfully may sometimes involve a considerable amount of self-censorship.

Contextualizing Haraszti and Baydar’s views inevitably makes one examine the Media Act of 2007, which made deliberate efforts to promote self-regulation in Kenya and The Media Council Act of 2013, which, in my opinion, trivialises the whole purpose of making professional journalists in this country independently run the entire Fourth Estate.

To obey the ethical principle of the use of pictures and names, for instance, journalists are expected to apply caution in the use of photographs and those seen in them. This ethical principle was recklessly ignored after the Westgate attack and the level of journalistic professionalism in the country sunk to its most pathetic bottom. That is when Kenyans were shown pictures of a dying woman on the front page of Sunday Nation. It is also when The People published a picture of a woman oozing blood from her private parts as two sympathetic men were carrying her with her legs pulled apart. With a bit of self-censorship, the thoughtlessness of publishing those pictures could easily be avoided. Mercifully the lesson was by and large learnt by the mainstream professionals when terrorists made the next attack at Mpeketoni and in Garissa. This improvement in uplifting ethical standards could only be achieved due to a degree of self-censorship. The idea of self-regulation by professional journalists has been a subject of rigorous discussions among professionals especially in European countries. As long ago as in 2008, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe came up by a little booklet titled Media Self-Regulation Guidebook by a number of Journalism scholars trying to answer vital professional questions on aspects of self-censorship. In an effort to discuss the merits of media self-regulation which is expected to balance rights and responsibilities, Miklós Haraszti, who is an Adjunct Professor at the School of International and Public Affairs of Columbia Law School, New York, says self-regulation is a joint endeavor by media professionals to set up voluntary editorial guidelines and abide by them in a learning process open to the public.

The Media Observer

In the case of the former, the law describes itself as an Act of Parliament to provide for the establishment of the Media Council of Kenya; for the conduct and discipline of journalists and the media; for the self-regulation of the media and for connected purposes. It unambiguously lists the functions of the Council as, among other things, to promote high professional standards amongst journalists; enhance professional collaboration among media practitioners; and promote ethical standards among journalists and in the media. The most pertinent part of that law gives the responsibility to uphold and maintain the ethics and discipline of journalists as set out by the same law to journalists themselves who constituted the membership of the Council. The authors of the code the law talks about are journalists themselves. All these legal proposals change drastically when the Media Council Act of 2013 come in the picture. The aspect of self-regulation is deliberately swept under the carpet and the authorship of the code is taken over by the government by introducing phrases which makes it ridiculously draconian. No wonder the media fraternity has gone to court to challenge the new law. Meanwhile, the best way to keep off any legal problem is by exercising some form of self-censorship. When one slips a bit and forgets the dangerous changes that are taking place in the media landscape in the country one finds himself in extremely uncomfortable situation. A good example of that is Jeff Koinange and Tonny Gachoka now going through a test case that should interest everyone in the Fourth Estate. These are lessons that cannot be avoided in any dynamic journalism school.

Joe Kadhi is a former Managing Editor of the Daily Nation and is now a lecturer at USIU. He is also the chairman of the Editorial Board of the Media Observer. joekadhi@yahoo.com

April - June 2015

A journalist receives medical attention after being injured.

Sedition law: Retracing Kenya’s Dark Past

Situation was bad until the repeal of Sections 55, 56, 57 and 58 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 63 in the 90’s in the wake of agitation for multi-party offered some reprieve, writes VICTOR BWIRE While the Constitution of Kenya, through Articles 33, 34 and 35, largely provide for freedom of expression and access to information, the country still retains in its statues books many laws that, in one respect or another, restrict or threaten freedom of expression.

the judgment in the Kinyatti v Republic case that some clarity about the scope of sedition took shape. The appellant was arrested, charged and convicted for being in possession of a seditious document contrary to section 57(2) of the Penal Code Act, Cap 63 of the Laws of Kenya. He appealed on grounds that the High Court had erred in admitting hearsay evidence and in finding that he was in possession of a seditious publication in the absence of evidence proving that he had knowledge of its existence.

Indeed any discussion on self-censorship today would be incomplete without tracing the introduction of the now outlawed sedition law, its ruthless application to media during the Moi era and; after many souls were tortured and stories killed.

In its earliest existence, the sedition law was rigidly enforced by English courts without exception. However, with time the autocratic system began to bow down to changes that would limit its absolute powers and ensure participation and criticism of the government by the citizenry. It was inevitable that the corresponding changes in the law of sedition be recognised. Exceptions hitherto unknown were accepted and the courts themselves started departing from the strict interpretation and application of the sedition law.

Sedition was an offence under the old constitution, with chilling effects on press freedom in Kenya: this obviously had the effect of creating fear within the media and led to serious self-censorship. The most relevant parts to the media in the then Sedition Act included: Uttered any words with a seditious intention; or printed, published, sold, offered for sale, distributed or reproduced any seditious publication. The Act provided that any person who had a seditious publication in his/her possession was guilty of an offence and in addition to imprisonment for a seditious offence, a number of other measures could be taken against the guilty party, including forfeiture of printing machines and the prohibition of any further publication of a newspaper. The repeal of Sections 55, 56, 57 and 58 of the Penal Code Act, Cap 63 vide the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 1997 through the IPPG agreement in the wake of agitations for multi-party politics gave some reprieve in tandem with the recognition of freedom of expression, especially after international pressure following the arrest and detention of Mr Gitobu Imanyara, then the publisher Nairobi Law Monthly. The felony of sedition was then very ambiguous, such that it became very easy for the government to use it against its political opponents without restrictions. It wasn’t until after

The Media Observer

Politically, the colonial order was dedicated to denial of freedom of expression to natives in order to perpetuate itself. The law of sedition was the principal instrument in achieving that objective. It was applied without the traditional safeguards and defenses then available in England. One of the important safeguards was trial by jury. In colonial Kenya, white people were entitled to trial in courts manned by professional judges. Trial by jury was not available to other races. The application of the law of sedition in the colonial era was applied in the strictest sense and it excluded the defenses of justification, fair comment or qualified privilege and genuine criticism of governmental activities. Proof of sedition lay in the fact that the government found a publication offensive or exciting. Moreover, the standard of incitement and offence was subjective in the extreme. Henry Muoria in his book “The Gikuyu and the white fury” narrates his interesting brush with the law of sedition. In 1947, Muoria’s weekly publication, Mumenyereri, was very popular among the Gikuyu. Muoria received some news from two

April - June 2015

eyewitnesses who told him that they had been at the Uplands Beacon Factory where they saw two brothers in a crowd being shot dead by armed police. He published the news to the great annoyance of the government officials who insisted that it was a false report. He was arraigned in court for publishing false news. In court, Muoria explained how he came to publish the offending report and he subsequently apologized for it in a later issue. He was fined Sh150 on two accounts, but after announcing the verdict, the magistrate commented that he found the editor to be frank and an honest man. The printer was also fined, while the writer of the report was sent to prison for about six months. MrDickson Otieno , a school teacher was imprisoned for 18 months for possessing the following books; Geography of China, Wages, Prices and Profits in Archeological Finds in China (Daily Nation, 1 August 1978), because the books were published in foreign languages and publishing in foreign languages was banned – in line with Cold War politics – by the colonial government. In 1960 Lawrence Oguda, a legislator in Kenya’s parliament, lost his seat and was jailed for criticizing the colonial government during a public rally. Media in the Moi era (1979-2002) The one-party system under President Daniel Moi marked the worst years in Kenya’s affront to press freedom and freedom of expression using sedition laws, especially the 1980s and 1990s. The harsh application of the laws to bar opposition politicians from selling their ideas to Kenyans had the chilling effect of curtailing press freedom in the country. Actions directed at curtailing political talk ended up shrinking media freedoms, either by design or default. For instance, Moi proclaimed 1987 ‘a year of discipline’. The media in Kenya was hard hit in that, although limitations on reporting were not written down, they largely depended on the mood or whims of the President, who did not hesitate to take ad hoc repressive measures against journalists. Day-today editorial control of content and perspective was exerted by the Office of the President, through direct-censorship – telephone directives or written instructions backed up by threatened or actual arrest and imprisonment of individual journalists. Indirect methods included threatened or actual withdrawal of government advertising, another method of influencing editorial decisions. This period witnessed the banning of the highest number of publications, arrests and sedition charges in the history of the country. In most of the cases, the motive behind charging people with possession of seditious publications appeared to be to punish them for their views or association with opposition politicians. Other arrests were of people who produced, distributed, sold or had in their possession music cassettes of popular songs criticizing the government (Amnesty International, 1990).

Islamic preacher in the coastal Kwale District, were sentenced to six years imprisonment in 1990 for possession of a “seditious publication”. Others victims of the system included Charles Rubia, Kenneth Matiba, Raila Odinga, Joe Ager, Christopher Kamuyu, (charged with possessing a prohibited publication, Financial Review), Joe Mwangi Mathai (company recorded and sold political songs), Gerald Chirabika Beti and Elijah Rukose Khasalika (for shouting, “Up with Matiba, down with Moi” and making V signs in Kakamega), Charles Rukwaro, (sentenced to six months imprisonment for possessing a copy of Financial Review), George Anyona, Edward Oyugi, Ngotho Kariuki, Frederick Kathangu, Dr. Willy Mutunga, Mary Ager, Florence Nyaguthie Murage, Philip Gachoga Githaiga, a business partner of Kenneth Matiba and his election agent ( arrested for being in possessing a leaflet of an underground political organization, Mwakenya, Muuangano wa Wazalendo wa Kukomboa Kenya, Union of Patriots for the Liberation of Kenya) whose leaflets have called for the violent overthrow of the government and Caleb Mokaya, a schoolteacher (possessing a Mwakenya publication). Many publications continued to bear the brunt of the government’s antics including banning, confiscation of publications, denial of advertisements and the arrest journalists. The culprits included Beyond, Society, Nairobi Law Monthly, Finance, African Confidential and Financial Review (Amnesty International, 1990) In March 1994, four journalists at The Standard newspaper, including managing editor Kamau Kanyanga, were arrested and charged with sedition in connection with an article alleging renewed political violence in Molo. The four were held for over two weeks, having initially been denied bail, and were then required to attend court regularly for “mention” of their cases in Nakuru. This was all done at a considerable cost and interruption to their work. In June the charges of subversion against the four journalists were dropped and substituted with charges of sedition under the Kenya Penal Code. In 1990, Imanyara of the Nairobi Law Monthly was charged with publication of a seditious magazine. Imanyara’s offense was that, in the April/May 1990 edition of the Monthly, he ran an article called “The historic debate: Law, democracy and multi-party politics in Kenya.” The Kibaki era was largely quite, on matters press harassment. While pressure was still mounted to media to censure some stories, it was not obvious. The Jubilee regime has seen the highest number of laws enacted and or proposed targeting media, there is overt intention and high appetite to control media content while physical attacks against the media by state and non-state actors has become the norm. Rarely is action taken by the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions on matters relating to media harassment. Victor Bwire is the Deputy CEO &Programmes Manager At the Media Council of Kenya. victor@mediacouncil.or.ke

Reverend Lawford Imunde and Sheikh Aziz Said Rimo, an

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

TRAINING As the body charged with the responsibility of promoting high professional standards amongst journalists in Kenya, the Council conducts specialised and tailor-made trainings for media practitioners in a number of areas. The trainings that are structured for various categories of journalists also aim at promoting ethical standards and professionalism among journalists and are conducted both in-house for different media houses as well as in regions.

The focus of the trainings • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

The Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya Public affairs / political reporting Governance reporting Election reporting Health reporting Business reporting Extractive industries reporting Safety and protection of journalists Trauma counselling and emotional self-care Investigative reporting Conflict sensitive reporting Freedom of expression and hate speech Historical injustices and how the Kenya Constitution 2010 addresses them Science reporting among other topical issues

Journalists’ trainings and skills upgrading The Council has remained steadfast in ensuring that journalism in Kenya remains a more professional and respectable field. To this end, the Media Council of Kenya has developed a training curriculum for middle level colleges offering diplomas in media and journalism studies in Kenya.

Visit www.mediaCouncil.or.ke for more information

NEWS

Inside the Council

Council Bets on New Curriculum to Raise Quality Of Training By Kevin Mabonga

Members of the curruculum committee updating journalists on the implementation of the curriculum

The Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD) has approved a diploma training curriculum for middle-level colleges offering diploma in journalism and media studies. The curriculum, developed by the Media Council and had been under validation since 2014, was ratified on June 25, 2015.

with the Kenya National Examination Council. The curriculum provides for, in addition to the traditional course units, industry-driven courses and lays emphasis on specialisation for trainees. It comes with specific tailored course teaching modules that seek to fill the competence gaps in the industry.

It has already been examined by the Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) Authority and the Commission for Higher Education (CHE) and given it a clean bill of health. The Media Council Act (2013) provides the legal framework for the Council to regulate the standards of journalism training. Under Section 6(1) (f), the Council is required to set standards in consultation with the relevant training institutions for professional education and training of journalists.

The Council has already set up an industry-led committee for college inspection and accreditation. The teams will move around the country to ensure training institutions have complied with the set standards and have the requisite personnel and equipment. There is also a team for examinations that will work closely with KNEC on exams setting and marking.

The Act empowers the Council to consider and approve applications for accreditation by educational institutions that seek to offer courses in journalism. Section 46 makes it an offence to offer training without accreditation by the Council.

With these new developments in the industry, training of journalism is set for a new phase, which will ensure courses respond to industry needs.

With the approval, all colleges will be required to use the curriculum and their examinations handled in collaboration

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

NEWS

Inside the Council

Journalists, security agents seek to bridge information gaps By Kevin Mabonga

Media Council of Kenya convened a strategy meeting in Naivasha in which reporters and representatives of security organs shared views.

issues.

The June 6 meeting followed accusations and counter accusations over media coverage of national security

At the meeting, Media Council CEO Haron Mwangi said journalists should take their watchdog role seriously, adding that the media should report the excesses of different players, especially in government. Dr Mwangi, at the same time, said journalists must understand how the government operates to be in a position to report effectively. The CEO faulted journalists over ineptitude, saying in some instances, there were errors in pages of newspapers. “This shows journalists do not take their work seriously or there is something wrong with the training curriculum.” Dr Mwangi said. He said the Council plans to launch a curriculum to be used by all institutions offering communication and media studies at diploma level. “The uniform curriculum will help to professionalise journalism,” he added. The CEO said that lecturers would be vetted to ensure they meet the required qualifications. Highlighting the importance of training, journalists were urged to undertake at least two trainings every year.

journalists to observe integrity. “The most important principle in investigative journalism is integrity,” he said. While making a presentation “The nexus between freedom of expression and national security,” Mr John Gachie said the media should not be a scapegoat in the war against terrorism or in security lapses.He urged journalists to continue playing their watchdog role without fear or favour. Mr Mwenda Njoka, the spokesman for the Interior Ministry, urged journalists to verify information before publishing it. He also cautioned the media against seeking security information from “security experts”. “Some of those “experts” have questionable background as far as security is concerned,” Njoka said. He called for an improved working relationship between security operatives and the media in war against terrorism. He also commended the Media Council for organising the forum. Journalists, who attended the forum, urged the government to establish a structured way of disseminating information through a centralized source. This, they argued, would avert misinformation. They also requested the Council to be strict in issuing press cards to ensure professionalism. Mr Victor Bwire, the Deputy CEO and Programmes Manager at the MCK, thanked the participants for honoring and participating in the forum. “Such meetings are important because we share and learn from one another,” Mr Bwire said. Kevin Mabonga is the Assistant Communication &Information Officer at the Council Email: kmabonga@mediacouncil.or.ke

Joe Kadhi, a veteran journalism scholar, reminded participants to always adhere to the Code of Ethics for the Practice of Journalism. He asked journalists not to rush in publishing stories or pictures before considering whether it is necessary and desirable. Kadhi emphasized the need for investigative

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

NEWS

Inside the Council

Journalists feted as Council hosts World Press Freedom Day By Kevin Mabonga

The Annual Journalism Excellence Awards (AJEA) 2015 Winners The Media Council of Kenya successfully hosted this year’s Journalists’ Convention and the Fourth Annual Journalism Excellence Awards (AJEA) gala as part of the World Press Freedom Day celebrations on May 4. The Journalists’ Convention, which was held at a Nairobi hotel, was opened by Deputy President William Ruto. It attracted more than 300 delegates from the media, civil society, donor agencies, academia, research institutions and government. The theme for the day was Digital Media and Knowledge Society: Inclusivity, Development and Public Remit. Hon. Ruto acknowledged the Council’s effort to promote press freedom and responsible journalism. He singled out the inclusion of the convention as part of the World Freedom Day celebrations as ‘a real, value-adding event worthy its theme, original meaning and intent.’ The Deputy President affirmed the government’s commitment to media freedom and freedom of expression. “As long as we understand the totally reasonable limitations to the freedom

The Media Observer

of expression, we are all free to project our views as robustly as we like without having to look over our shoulders,” Ruto said. The DP praised the media for doing a good job but identified corruption and editorial interference as some of the major challenges. He called on journalists to take advantage of the digital era to become innovative and competitive.ICT Cabinet Secretary Dr. Fred Matiang’i said the Jubilee government was committed to press freedom. He urged the media to embrace the new technology. He presented a paper on Digital Age and Knowledge Society: Promises and Prospects for Digital Migration. Media Council of Kenya CEO Haron Mwangi asked the government to create an enabling environment for journalists to work effectively. “Without safety and security, we cannot communicate well to Kenyans,” said Dr Mwangi. Linus Kaikai, the chairman of Editors Guild, noted with concern the direction the government was taking as far as press freedom was concerned. Mr. Kaikai singled out the manner in

April - June 2015

which the government handled the Digital Migration process, saying it wasn’t proper. He challenged the government to safeguard press freedom. “A free and independent media benefits the society,” said Kaikai. Other presenters during the Convention included Dr Muiru Ngugi, Mr Macharia Gaitho, Prof Levi Obonyo, Mr Dennis Itumbi, Mr Joe Ageyo, Dr Bitange Ndemo and Mr Stephen Chege. Journalists Feted As anticipated, the Fourth Annual Journalism Excellence Awards (AJEA) gala lived up to its expectations at KICC, Nairobi. Sponsors were the Communications Authority of Kenya, Safaricom, the Ministry of ICT, KCB, UNDP, UN Women, Kenya National Commission for UNESCO, MultiChoice Kenya, NETFUND and Plan International.

Journalists in radio, TV, and print were recognised and rewarded. John Allan Namu and Mohammed Ali of KTN were crowned the journalists of the year while veteran journalists Joe Kadhi and Esther Kamweru bagged the Lifetime Achievement Award. Prof PLO Lumumba, who graced the event, stressed on the importance of the media in the democratisation process. He called on journalists to remain steadfast in executing their duties. Dr Mwangi observed the steady growth of AJEA and challenged journalists to uphold professional values. He thanked sponsors for the event.

From left to right:- MCK CEO Harun Mwangi, Deputy President Hon William Ruto and ICT Cabinet Secretary Hon. Dr. Fred Matiang’i arrive for the Journalist Convention 2015 at hotel Intercontinental

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

World Press Freedom Day Celebrations Pictorial

2 1

The Media Observer

April - June 2015

10 The Media Observer

April - June 2015

13 1.

Engineer Ambani of the Communication Authority of Kenya,

Deputy President Hon.William Ruto,

Ministry of ICT cabinet secretary,Hon.Dr.Fred Matiangâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;i,

Kenya Editors Guild Chair, Mr.Linus Kaikai,

Media Council of Kenya CEO, Haron Mwangi ,

Media Council of Kenya Chairman,Mr.PeterWakoli address delegates during the Journalism convention to

mark the World Press Freedom Day 2015 at the Hotel Intercontinental,Nairobi.

Delegates follow the proceedings during the World Press Freedom Day at the Hotel Intercontinental

Smiriti Vidyardhi of NTV receives the award for Best News Anchor 2015

Mohammed Ali of KTN receives his award for Best Journalist of the Year 2015

10.

From left Joe Kadhi, Esther Kamweru and PLO Lumumba pose for a picture. JoeKadhi and Esther

Kamweru won the Lifetime Achievement Award. PLO Lumumba was the chief Guest.

11.

John Allan Namu receives the Journalist of the Year award from Mr. Joseph Tiampati, Principal Secretary,

Ministry of ICT.

12.

Mr. Johnstone Mwakazi, the Master of Ceremony at the awards.

13.

Journalists of the year winners, Mohammed Ali and John Allan Namu of KTN pose for a

photograph.

Participants follow events during the World Press Freedom Day celebrations 2015 at Hotel Intercontinental, Nairobi.

You can now pay for Media Council of Kenya Accreditation through M-Pesa Mpesa Paybill Steps Journalists can use the M-PESA service to pay for Accreditation fees at the Media Council of Kenya by following the steps below:

Card Replacement:

Lost press cards will only be replaced upon production of a police abstract and letter from the employer stating the loss.

1. Go to the MPESA menu, 2. Select payment services 3. Choose Pay Bill option 4. Enter 897250 as the business number 5. Enter your full name as the account number 6. Enter the amount 7. Enter your pin and press Ok

Accreditation fees • Local Journalist: Ksh 2,000 • Foreign Journalist: Ksh 10,000 • Foreign Journalist (Short Term - 3 Months): Ksh 5,000 • Student: Ksh 300 • Card Replacement Fee: Ksh 300

IMPORTANT TO NOTE 1. Certificates and portfolio should be provided by ALL journalists accrediting for the first time with the Media Council of Kenya. 2. First year students are not eligible for accreditation. Training institutions are advised to issue them with introduction letters when carrying out field based assignments.

In case of any queries, contact us at: accreditation@mediaCouncil.or.ke

Promoting press freedom & responsible journalism