Media bias in Kenya generally in favour of ODM and particularly in support of Raila Odinga became conspicuously evident on April 1st 2007 when all the papers splashed Steadman poll results which indicated that Mwai Kibaki was in a clear lead by 34 %. Rather than presenting this fact in a straight forward manner, however, Jeff Otieno and David Mugonyi of the Sunday Nation wrote the story with a splash headline screaming “The Man to Watch”. The story mendaciously expressed the two journalists’ opinion that that man was Raila.[1]
Though the paper admitted that Kibaki had “widened his lead at the top”, it still thought that that meant “the President is losing to ODM.” This despite the fact that all the top ODM leaders combined i.e. Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka had a total popularity rate of 31% compared to Kibaki’s 51 %. In an inside page story of the polls Jeff Otieno and David Mugonyi amplified Raila’s popularity overtaking that of Kalonzo Musyoka even though they admitted the polls actually showed that “Musyoka would perform better than Mr. Odinga if he was to confront Mr. Kibaki as the joint opposition candidate.”[2]
The Sunday Standard of the same date treated the Steadman polls in the same manner of downplaying Kibaki’s lead in favour of glorifying Raila’s triumphant defeat of Kalonzo Musyoka. In another screaming headline praising Angwambo the paper said: “Raila Finally ‘Hummers’ Kalonzo”. In the story Patrick Mathangari wrote: “Raila Odinga has taken the lead from his ODM-Kenya colleague Kalonzo Musyoka in the latest opinion polls”. It is not until the second paragraph of the story that we are told that the real leader according to the polls was in fact President Mwai Kibaki. It is in the third paragraph that readers are told the truth: “The ratings gave Kibaki 51%, Raila 17% and Kalonzo 14%.”[3]
The story was much more professionally handled by both the Sunday Times and The People.
The examples given above show clearly that the mainstream national newspapers have journalists who appear to be participating in the election campaign that is now going on in the country. The dangers of journalists participating in election campaigns rather than reporting them professionally are obvious. In a paper I presented to the African Studies Centre at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands in 1998, I warned against journalists becoming sycophants by engaging in the game of hype and hoopla while covering election campaigns.
At that time I said: (whenever journalists took sides) “the so called party leaders received favourable coverage while their opponents got hostile coverage because journalists were not able to promote equality between all the candidates of all the political parties…What happened in Kenya in 1997 was what many journalism scholars would call horse-racing journalism where the readers, viewers and listeners were told simply who was wining and who was losing just as in the game of horse-racing.”[4]
There is little doubt that journalists in Kenya are already engaged in the horse-racing game and what is more they have either consciously or unwittingly taken the liberty of placing Raila Odinga in the lead. On any given day Raila’s name appears in no less than ten times in each of the national papers.
Despite his harsh criticism of the Steadman polls which placed him ahead of Kalonzo Musyoka, its results made Raila go to Nairobi’s Bishop Joseph Ogutu of St. John Evangelical Gospel Church at Imara Daima to be “anointed for the country’s top job”. The story was the Kenya Times front page splash by Edwin Mutai who mentioned Angwambo’s name 15 times.[5] The Standard story by Andrew Teyie was also the page one splash and mentioned Raila’s name 24 times.[6] Though the Nation used the story by Lucas Barasa on page seven, he too used Raila’s name 15 times.[7]
The deliberate repetitive usage of Rala’s name has been a subject of controversy which led to his main rival in the ODM-Kenya Kalonzo Musyoka’s complaint to journalists publicly. It is a well known propaganda tactic which was perfected by the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. According to the Centre for Media and Democracy, which strengthens participatory democracy by investigation and exposing public relations spin and propaganda, if you repeat something over and over, no matter how outrageous it may be, people will come to believe in it.
The non-profit making international organization says: “A good example of this is the claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. No evidence has been found suggesting collaboration between Iraq and the Al Queda network, yet Bush Administration officials have repeatedly mentioned the two in tandem.” [8] As a result a recent opinion survey by the Council of Foreign Relations shows that more than 40% of the American people believe that some or all of the attackers on 9/11 were Iraqi nationals, when in fact none were.[9]
Today the majority of Kenyans must believe Raila is the most important presidential candidate because of the sheer number of times his name appears in the mainstream print media.
According to Randal Marlin one of the pioneers of the techniques was US Senator Joe McCarthy “whose name is associated with ‘guilt by association’. He named Communists with whom some target individual was associated in one way or another, without dwelling on whether the association was significant or not.” Marlin says the mere repetition of the target name in the context of so many communist helped to seal the impression that the target shared the same political persuasion.[10] The daily repetition of Raila’s name in all the four national dailies has not only happened to seal the impression that he is a formidable power to reckon with but also driven home the belief that he is the undisputed leader of the Luo people in Kenya.
Marlin says propaganda must be simple and easy to understand and remember as far as possible. Propagandists, he says, must make their appeal in simple, catchy slogans that they repeat over and over again. He says the Nazi Dictator wrote: ‘The intelligence of masses is small. Their forgetfulness is great. They must be told the same thing a thousand times’[11]
In many parts of the world media manipulation to sway public opinion in political matters has been a subject of open condemnation by journalism scholars. In America one of those scholars is Robert L. Hilliard who is the Professor of Mass Communication f Emerson College. He says the media manipulation of the American political process occurs in several ways. In that country “individual reporters frequently allow the ego satisfaction of reading thousands or even millions of people with their words and pictures to result in the injection of personal opinion and bias within the context and under the guise of factual reporting”.[12]
Are there some Kenyan journalists who are guilty of manipulation of news either actively or passively? If there are, however few, it would most certainly be reprehensible. What would be even more so is the endorsement of top editors of such unethical behaviour. It would be foolhardy to expect journalists to cover the current election campaigns in Kenya without making very good use of prominence as a news value. While doing so, however, the people of Kenya expect professional journalists to hold high their own ethical principles of Accuracy and Fairness.
[1] Otieno, Jeff and Mugonyi, David. “Raila Tops Kalonzo as Kibaki Leads in Poll” in the Sunday Nation Issue No.15398 of April 1st 2007.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Mathangari, Patrick. “Raila Finally ‘Hummers’ Kalonzo” in the Sunday Standard No.1406 of April 1st 2007.
[4] Kadhi, Joe. “The Kenyan 1997 Election Media Coverage: Their Impact, Influence and Bias” published by African Studies Centre. University of Leiden, the Netherlands.
[5] Mutai, Edwin. “Raila anointed” in the Kenya Time No.3418980 of April 2nd, 2007.
[6] Teyie, Andrew. “Do Not Fear Me” in The Standard No.27759 of April 2nd 2007.
[7] Barasa, Lucas. “Church Anoints Raila for Top Job” in the Daily Nation No. 015333 of April 2nd , 2007.
[8] Centre for Media and Democracy. “PR Watch” published in 2002.
[9] Ibid
[10] Marlin, Andrew. Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. (2002)
[11] Ibid
[12] Hilliard, Robert L. “ Political Reporting: Active and Passive Manipulation.” In Vol. 5 No.2. Fall 1992 edition of Media Ethics Update.
Though the paper admitted that Kibaki had “widened his lead at the top”, it still thought that that meant “the President is losing to ODM.” This despite the fact that all the top ODM leaders combined i.e. Raila Odinga and Kalonzo Musyoka had a total popularity rate of 31% compared to Kibaki’s 51 %. In an inside page story of the polls Jeff Otieno and David Mugonyi amplified Raila’s popularity overtaking that of Kalonzo Musyoka even though they admitted the polls actually showed that “Musyoka would perform better than Mr. Odinga if he was to confront Mr. Kibaki as the joint opposition candidate.”[2]
The Sunday Standard of the same date treated the Steadman polls in the same manner of downplaying Kibaki’s lead in favour of glorifying Raila’s triumphant defeat of Kalonzo Musyoka. In another screaming headline praising Angwambo the paper said: “Raila Finally ‘Hummers’ Kalonzo”. In the story Patrick Mathangari wrote: “Raila Odinga has taken the lead from his ODM-Kenya colleague Kalonzo Musyoka in the latest opinion polls”. It is not until the second paragraph of the story that we are told that the real leader according to the polls was in fact President Mwai Kibaki. It is in the third paragraph that readers are told the truth: “The ratings gave Kibaki 51%, Raila 17% and Kalonzo 14%.”[3]
The story was much more professionally handled by both the Sunday Times and The People.
The examples given above show clearly that the mainstream national newspapers have journalists who appear to be participating in the election campaign that is now going on in the country. The dangers of journalists participating in election campaigns rather than reporting them professionally are obvious. In a paper I presented to the African Studies Centre at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands in 1998, I warned against journalists becoming sycophants by engaging in the game of hype and hoopla while covering election campaigns.
At that time I said: (whenever journalists took sides) “the so called party leaders received favourable coverage while their opponents got hostile coverage because journalists were not able to promote equality between all the candidates of all the political parties…What happened in Kenya in 1997 was what many journalism scholars would call horse-racing journalism where the readers, viewers and listeners were told simply who was wining and who was losing just as in the game of horse-racing.”[4]
There is little doubt that journalists in Kenya are already engaged in the horse-racing game and what is more they have either consciously or unwittingly taken the liberty of placing Raila Odinga in the lead. On any given day Raila’s name appears in no less than ten times in each of the national papers.
Despite his harsh criticism of the Steadman polls which placed him ahead of Kalonzo Musyoka, its results made Raila go to Nairobi’s Bishop Joseph Ogutu of St. John Evangelical Gospel Church at Imara Daima to be “anointed for the country’s top job”. The story was the Kenya Times front page splash by Edwin Mutai who mentioned Angwambo’s name 15 times.[5] The Standard story by Andrew Teyie was also the page one splash and mentioned Raila’s name 24 times.[6] Though the Nation used the story by Lucas Barasa on page seven, he too used Raila’s name 15 times.[7]
The deliberate repetitive usage of Rala’s name has been a subject of controversy which led to his main rival in the ODM-Kenya Kalonzo Musyoka’s complaint to journalists publicly. It is a well known propaganda tactic which was perfected by the Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler. According to the Centre for Media and Democracy, which strengthens participatory democracy by investigation and exposing public relations spin and propaganda, if you repeat something over and over, no matter how outrageous it may be, people will come to believe in it.
The non-profit making international organization says: “A good example of this is the claim that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. No evidence has been found suggesting collaboration between Iraq and the Al Queda network, yet Bush Administration officials have repeatedly mentioned the two in tandem.” [8] As a result a recent opinion survey by the Council of Foreign Relations shows that more than 40% of the American people believe that some or all of the attackers on 9/11 were Iraqi nationals, when in fact none were.[9]
Today the majority of Kenyans must believe Raila is the most important presidential candidate because of the sheer number of times his name appears in the mainstream print media.
According to Randal Marlin one of the pioneers of the techniques was US Senator Joe McCarthy “whose name is associated with ‘guilt by association’. He named Communists with whom some target individual was associated in one way or another, without dwelling on whether the association was significant or not.” Marlin says the mere repetition of the target name in the context of so many communist helped to seal the impression that the target shared the same political persuasion.[10] The daily repetition of Raila’s name in all the four national dailies has not only happened to seal the impression that he is a formidable power to reckon with but also driven home the belief that he is the undisputed leader of the Luo people in Kenya.
Marlin says propaganda must be simple and easy to understand and remember as far as possible. Propagandists, he says, must make their appeal in simple, catchy slogans that they repeat over and over again. He says the Nazi Dictator wrote: ‘The intelligence of masses is small. Their forgetfulness is great. They must be told the same thing a thousand times’[11]
In many parts of the world media manipulation to sway public opinion in political matters has been a subject of open condemnation by journalism scholars. In America one of those scholars is Robert L. Hilliard who is the Professor of Mass Communication f Emerson College. He says the media manipulation of the American political process occurs in several ways. In that country “individual reporters frequently allow the ego satisfaction of reading thousands or even millions of people with their words and pictures to result in the injection of personal opinion and bias within the context and under the guise of factual reporting”.[12]
Are there some Kenyan journalists who are guilty of manipulation of news either actively or passively? If there are, however few, it would most certainly be reprehensible. What would be even more so is the endorsement of top editors of such unethical behaviour. It would be foolhardy to expect journalists to cover the current election campaigns in Kenya without making very good use of prominence as a news value. While doing so, however, the people of Kenya expect professional journalists to hold high their own ethical principles of Accuracy and Fairness.
[1] Otieno, Jeff and Mugonyi, David. “Raila Tops Kalonzo as Kibaki Leads in Poll” in the Sunday Nation Issue No.15398 of April 1st 2007.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Mathangari, Patrick. “Raila Finally ‘Hummers’ Kalonzo” in the Sunday Standard No.1406 of April 1st 2007.
[4] Kadhi, Joe. “The Kenyan 1997 Election Media Coverage: Their Impact, Influence and Bias” published by African Studies Centre. University of Leiden, the Netherlands.
[5] Mutai, Edwin. “Raila anointed” in the Kenya Time No.3418980 of April 2nd, 2007.
[6] Teyie, Andrew. “Do Not Fear Me” in The Standard No.27759 of April 2nd 2007.
[7] Barasa, Lucas. “Church Anoints Raila for Top Job” in the Daily Nation No. 015333 of April 2nd , 2007.
[8] Centre for Media and Democracy. “PR Watch” published in 2002.
[9] Ibid
[10] Marlin, Andrew. Propaganda and the Ethics of Persuasion. Broadview Press. (2002)
[11] Ibid
[12] Hilliard, Robert L. “ Political Reporting: Active and Passive Manipulation.” In Vol. 5 No.2. Fall 1992 edition of Media Ethics Update.
No comments:
Post a Comment