The passing of the controversial Media Bill that has journalists and other responsible Kenyans up in arms has a sad ring to it. It is laced with the most potent concoction Kenya has seen in years, brewed to kill democracy.

The whole of the Bill seems pretty dark but certain clauses in it come out nakedly in attack of our fundamental freedoms. A clause in the Media Bill forces journalists to divulge their source of information in the event that their stories ‘stir a court case'. In response the Society of Professional Journalists says it believes that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further these lofty ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Part of the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalists) code of ethics (voluntarily embraced by thousands of writers, editors and other news professionals) states that: journalists should:

And as a bottom line: A journalist should be vigilant and courageous about holding those in power accountable.

The purpose of journalism is to provide people with the information they need to be free and self-governing. To fulfill this task, journalism's first obligation is to the truth and its first loyalty is to the citizens. Period.

This means that nothing should be allowed to come in-between. The noxious Bill states that journalists will be required to name the sources to their stories should the stories they write warrant a court case. This, to me, is tantamount to paralyzing and curtailing media activity. Why do I say this? Sources of information are the lifeblood of journalists whether working in print or broadcast industries. Who would want to volunteer ‘sensitive information' to the media knowing too well that they could be exposed to the public should someone find the story unflattering and drag the media outlet to court? Does this mean, then, that the office of the ‘good old' whistle-blower is in its death throes?

---

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (7)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by Kamale , August 07, 2007

A lot of injustice is being done on Kenyans when they are petitioned that the clause by Karue spoiled the whole bill, but no one in the Media including the poster of this story has given us a complete quotation of the amendment so that we can slice and dice the english in it to see what it means, and whether the definitions being given by Karua and Kagwe are correct or it is the media that are right. Can we please get this amendment in its original form Please?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Kamale , August 08, 2007

When a story includes unnamed parties who are not disclosed and the same becomes the subject of of a legal tussle as to who is meant, then the editor shall be obligated to disclose the identity of the party or parties referred to."

Can "..as to who is meant" include sources especially when read together with the "..unnamed parties who are not disclosed"?

Here is what Karue had in mind in his own words:

Mr Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, if you give me a moment to enlighten the gist of this amendment, it is that very often the media, particularly the newspapers, will write a story and to all interested purposes, you can say they mean the Member for Mukurwe-ini, for example. They will describe him fully. They will even write some very derogatory things about something he did over the weekend and so on, but they do not name him. So, if this matter ends up in court, the media normally get away with it very easily just because they say that we never named him. So, the gist of this proposed further amendment is that if that happens, then the media, in this case, the editor, will be obligated to state or disclose who they meant in this story.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

is that so?
written by Stephen Wanyama , August 08, 2007

I would not be surprised if the case was as Kamale makes out. Most of those sitting in Parliament have not the slightest what it is their voting against, or for. Neither you realise do the whips, but then they are the ones doing all the pushing.

Still Bw. Kamale, not everyone in the world can be screaming about a non-existent wrong. Mbuthia's view is backed up by the daily reports from the newspapers, and also by today's moans from the Americans.

P.S. Biwott famously won cases against the Nation, and TBC. The courts do work when there's a reason for them to do so, anyone being paid Ksh 1 m. to pretend to be a leader can surely forfeit some of his much needed privacy for the sake of the common good. If newspaper reporters are too afraid to write some stories, fearing jail or financial ruin, the whole of our society will be worse off for it.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Timothy Wainaina , August 08, 2007

Anyone heard of Judith Miller? There's pressure all around the world on journalists to name their sources. The point Mbuthia makes is that very often there is no other way the story can come out than if it is told by a protected source.

Any mwananchiwho has witnessed a crime and is moved to report it KNOWS that the system bites back. David Munyakei, John Githongo, etc, the examples are uncountable. With no witness protection programmes worth speaking of, we can be sure of only one thing after this Bill passes. crimes will go on unabated, and unreported.

I have heard it said that the Police sometimes use the Press to gather public pressure on an investigation. The strategy is that after having gained some inertia, even political pressure will not be able to put the story down. Is that also going to end?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Kamale , August 08, 2007

Wanyama,

You will notice that I quoted the amendment as reported in the Hansard together with the additional comments by Eng. Karue.

Everytime I read the clause, I am increasingly convinced that we are fighting something that may or may not be there!!

Here is my reading of the amendment as I slice and dice it to see what it means:

"When a story includes unnamed parties who are not disclosed.."

When the media talks of 'sources told us', does this fit into the description above? I would answer Yes.

When the media writes ' The son of a prominent minister was involved in the prostitution ring..' would this fall under the same criteria? I would say also Yes.

Now let us look at the second part of the amendment:

"..and the same becomes the subject of legal tussle as to who is meant"

In the event of a legal tussle, who would raise the legal tussle? Is it the son of a prominent minister or would it be "our sources"? I think the case here would be the one involving the son of the minister who is unnamed as well as his father in the story rather than in the case of the latter. I say this since the amendment refers to identifying who was meant to be the person in the story, in this case, is it Simon Michuki or Owen Mwiraria as both their fathers would be prominent ministers.

What about if the media had the same story but said, " our sources told us that the son of the prominent minister was involved in..." In this case the parties referred to in the story are still the son and his minister father. They cannot cannot include the source since when Simon or Owen go to court, they are trying to clear themselves and the obligation to the Editor is to say who their newspaper meant it to be. I do not see how the sources are brought in unless of course it is the source that is denying providing that information which in any case a media house should be able to confirm if it is so.

I think in Schedule 2 of the Act provides for the protection of sources hence the law could not be contradictory to itself.

That is my interpretation of the amendment as I read it, and which I hope any legal mind would.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Koinange Street
written by mosaisi , August 08, 2007

The biggest enemy of a cause is the person who intentionally gives it a flimsy defense. That is exactly what our press has been up to.
It is common for them to write articles that accurately describe a person or company without naming the party. In some cases this is unnecessary because the information they are passing is already in the public domain.
Sometime back, the Nation wrote an article about a Kenyan whose assets had been frozen by the UN Security Council for gun running. The Kenyan was referred to as "Name Witheld". That story was published more than a month after the UN had frozen Sanjivan Ruprah's assets for violating the UN arms embargo on Sierra Leone. Details on the Ruprah case were available at the UN website.
We also had the Koinange street case. The Nation reported on the arrest of ministers and MPs for solicitation of sex. The parties involved were described by the online edition as:

Two of the three politicians netted by police were first-time MPs while the other has been in Parliament since 1992.
One of the MPs is a 35-year old trained teacher. He is married with a child and is serving his second term in Parliament.
Another is a 58-year-old father-of-three who spent many years overseas as a student and a professional.
They come from Rift Valley Province, the Coast and Nyanza and were all elected on Narc tickets.

The print version of the paper had even more vivid descriptions of those arrested. The story prompted Mwangi Kiunjuri to sue the paper.
Such reporting in my opinion is unprofessional. It serves no good to write an entire article where you talk about masked subjects. A good article should have facts that can be collaborated and that can withstand any challenges raised. Anything less belongs to a rumor mill.

As we call for freedom of press, let us also call for responsibility. The press' irresponsibility gave MPs an excuse to take a big bite into freedom of press.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

joirnalists and their cause
written by bex , August 08, 2007

I am just watching the news about the civil society protesting about the media bill. I am wondering on what basis they are protesting about the bill. Where are the journalists to champion their cause?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Show/Hide comment form

Write comment

Name

Email

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (Registered users only)

I have read and agree to the Terms of Usage.

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment Preview