Today is not world press freedom day but if recent happenings in our media circles are anything to go by, then there is need for a rethink of what constitutes press freedom.
For a very long time, especially in the 1980s-90s, press freedom was very constrained, with only one national broadcaster in radio and TV.
To a certain degree newspapers, too, very little was said that was perceived not to be politically correct could be tolerated. Journalists were arrested, tortured, media houses were physically attacked, and many people lost their jobs.
Journalist Wallace Githere was thrown down a balcony by the Special Branch and became disabled. Others ended up in the Nyayo torture chambers at the basement of Nyayo House.
Then, news would predictably begin with the headlines of where President Daniel Moi had been, what he did and who accompanied him. Many Kenyans will remember radio bulletin starting with the all too famous line ‘Mtukufu Rais…leo…’
Then came media freedom with the liberalisation of the airwaves in the late 1990s. A robust debate emerged about the opening up of vernacular stations such as Kameme FM, with President Moi openly opposing it, stating that this would lead to further ethnic balkanisation of the country
As we speak, there are more than 100 radio stations alone, not counting the tens of TV stations that have opened up, especially after the digital migration.
Today, there are so many media outlets and it has become the norm that at a press conference, journalists are likely to be more than those being interviewed.
There has, however, been an emerging trend whereby this freedom has tipped over towards open bias and skewed reporting. This is so much that the audience can easily tell which media station is likely to air what kind of news.
The situation is so dire that in some media houses, the editors and media owners dictate who shows up for interviews. Some people are persona non-grata in certain stations due to their political views.
Some media owners have also openly declared their preferred presidential candidate, while others are would be aspirants themselves. For many, the fear of reprisal in terms of being denied government-related advertising jobs, the economic mainstay of many of the media houses makes them pliant to the wishes of the state.
In addition, we have witnessed partiality in the manner in which time is allocated to a political news item on prime time. Further, the angling of the title of the story also matters.
What a journalist says after a news item counts a lot in terms of creating perceptions.
The number of panelists who share similar views is unbalanced. In addition, some hosts end up turning into panelists to please or represent the views of their bosses or holding brief for external forces. Moreover, social media bullying has become rampant with the sponsorship of competing hashtags.
The scales have thus shifted in favour of media freedom, but internal self-regulation does not seem to work.
As we approach the elections season, it’s important for media houses to give equal opportunity to the various sides of the political divide and not to be seen to favor one or the other in order to advance a given narrative.
While in the past the source of news was limited to the traditional TV, radio and newspaper, the public now has more options due to social and other media platforms.
This means that more and more people don’t read the physical newspaper anymore. They prefer to read it online or rather get news from other sources such as blogs. TV has gotten a competitor in terms YouTube videos and channels such that fewer people wait to watch news.
The proliferation of many radio stations means there cannot be only one source of news, especially now that while the national radios still have a command, majority of regions and even localities have their stations.
This means it’s not totally possible to have one narrative being controlled by the government or other dominant forces. Despite the prevalence of such attempts, voters have made their decisions, independent of such persuasions.
Press freedom must, therefore, be exercised with caution and responsibility lest it be used to eclipse the truthto maintain the status quo and deter divergent opinion.
As Malcolm X observed over 50 years ago, “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power, because they control the minds of the masses.
"The press is so powerful in its image-making role, it can make the criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. This is the press, an irresponsible press. It will make the criminal look like he’s the victim and make the victim look like he’s the criminal. If you aren’t careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.”
Freedom is responsibility.
