Beyond clamouring for self-regulation, which I support, media institutions would do the public a great service by explaining how their current self-regulation structure works and how they plan to improve it if at all. Aside from strident reactions to the government's crude attempt at media control, I haven't heard much about internal and proactive self-regulatory structures that exist within the media industry.

Notably, it is this apparent lack of clear and adequate structures for media self-regulation and accountability that seems to have spurred the government's vampiric efforts to regulate the media, a move to which I am stiffly opposed.

As the media deflects statutory control, they should do some housekeeping and strengthen systems through which members of the public's concerns and complaints can be addressed when/if they arise. Such concerns as the media's unbalanced and unethical reporting, sensationalism, lack of depth, insensitivity, invasion of privacy, inaccuracy and tardy retraction or correction of inaccuracies often have merit and should not always be dismissed out of hand.

So far, the voluntary Media Council of Kenya has been the most vocal advocate of self-regulation and a stalwart defender of the media and journalists. However, it should also consider its responsibility to the public. As presently sonstituted, the council strikes me more as a reactive institution keen on defending media organisations than as a proactive self-regulatory body genuinely working in the public's interest.

Other than serving as a self-preservation agency for the media, the council, which was calved as a reaction to the government's attempt to regulate the media, doesn't seem to do much to champion the public's interest. According to the council's Website , its stakeholders are the Media Owners Association, Kenya Union of Journalists( whatever is left of it), the Editors Guild, Kenya Correspondents Association, media non-governmental organisations, training institutions, state/public media and the alternative press.

It seems odd that ordinary members of the public, whose interest is often invoked in the media's battles against government gags, don't feature anywhere in the council, which receives and adjudicates complaints against the media. The council should be independent of the hegemonic power of media organisations and assume a tripartite model structured around the separate and distinct interests of the public, journalists, and media owners or managers.

It should induct public members into its realm in order to open up the media to greater public scrutiny and higher standards and make media outlets more accountable. The council resolves complaints against the media and requires concerned media institutions to public or broadcast its verdict in full and with due prominence.

Unfortunately, this is a moral rather than a legal obligation and can easily be ignored, especially seeing that the council has a mandate that is about the size of the full stop at the end of this sentence. As a trust, the council seems toothless because it can only judge complaints against the media on the basis of ethics and not law. It should have teeth to impose fines and other sanctions, obviously with room for appeal.

On its Web site, the council lists only two resolved complaints - one against the People Daily and another one against KTN - all filed in 2004. I don't know if the council has resolved any other complaints, but I was woefully disappointed by the spit of information on the site. I am keen to know more about other complaints thus far handled by the council. I would like to know the statistics and the nature of the complaints and the resolutions reached in each case.

In the spirit of keeping its affairs open to the sunshine of public scrutiny, which it demands of other institutions, the council should share such key information on its Website. The council also has a code of conduct by which journalists and media institutions are expected to abide.

In keeping with its professed role as an autonomous body that aims to promote excellence and professionalism in journalism, I would expect it to provide Kenyans with regular updates of media outlets that aren't adhering to the code of ethics, for we all know that media houses are not paragons of virtue.

The council can be the only champion of the public's interest because the media tend to keep quiet about their own business, especially dark spots, when the public actually needs to be kept informed. The media must operate in the same fishbowl as other institutions that depend on public goodwill to make profits.

If there was more uncompromising coverage and dissemination of media issues and trends, the general public would be better informed, more discerning and more media-savvy. While at it, the council may also be able to explain why teachers, nurses, doctors and lecturers, all have effective unions but journalists don't.

The world over, self-regulatory media councils provide the best shot for media organisations to carry out their watchdog function without undue influence from those who need to be watched the most-governments. I applaud the council's spirited efforts to keep the government from plunging its legislative claws into the Kenyan media industry.

However, I expect it to evolve from being a lackey for media organisations and start serving as a true advocate of the public's interest. It is the only way for the council to remain credible and relevant.