Furious debate sparked by Sunday Nation’s lead story, headlined "Ministers and MP held in swoop on prostitutes", dominated the week. Because of that story, Kenyans talked sex all week. And broadcast stations filled hours of airtime with talk shows on the Nation story.

"Speaker" Jimmy Gathu of The People’s Parliament, a late-night talk show on Kiss FM, called me on Tuesday to seek expert views on the journalistic coverage of the story. And quoting chatter I had heard by the roadside, I mentioned the word "paparazzi" on air.

Now that was anathema. The managing editor of a leading newspaper promptly contacted me to protest. "You cannot attach such a stereotype as "paparazzi journalism" to my paper," he yelled the next day. "That word has negative value connotations." My explanation that I was merely quoting what a section of the audience thought of the Nation story didn’t cut ice with my critic. There is no discussion on this, the editor said. I cannot use the words "paparazzi" and "journalism" in one paragraph with reference to Kenya’s mainstream media.

This week’s big story was more about photojournalism than written prose. The only plausible reason the Nation published the Koinange Street story was because it was reportedly backed up by video and picture coverage. And picture coverage of leading personalities has a way of meandering debate to Princess Diana’s paparazzi.

The 1997 paparazzi issue, where photojournalists chased the princess’ car through the streets of Paris and continued to click away pictures even as she died, sparked a storm. Along with the outpouring of grief came an outpouring of anger, which ultimately touched the mainstream press — in addition to what we know as the gutter press, the tabloids.

In similar vein, EcoNews Editor Oduor Ong’wen asked in this paper on Wednesday that we spare a thought for the damaged collective reputation of the Cabinet, the legislators and the university community, whose members were directly implicated in the Nation story. The sex story, Ong’wen argued, may have legal implications.

Were the alleged offenders aware that they were being pictured by the police or the media along Koinange Street? he asked. If they weren’t, then there was a serious breach of the girls’ and MPs’ constitutional rights of privacy.

The negative concept of paparazzi raises the question, is our Media becoming overzealous? This is a version of the questions Kenyans have asked all week, even as the Nation consistently stuck by its story and defended it as legitimate journalism.

But the Nation story has painted the respected paper into a rather precarious corner. Show us the evidence, people are demanding. Will it?

The ethics of photojournalism, the basis for its story, are deceptively simple: anyone in a public place can be photographed. Photographs can be taken of events on private property that can be seen with the unaided eye from the street. But the situation gets trickier when people, even public figures, invoke privacy in a public setting. If last week’s implicated officials were sitting in GK vehicles on Koinange Street, then they’re fried. If they operated from their private cars, then we have drama.

I need to check with my lawyer. But as far as media ethics are concerned, the moment a photojournalist hooks up a telephoto lens to take pictures of a cuddling couple parked in their private car at Jevanjee Gardens, he is crossing the line. Snooping with telephoto lens is being overzealous. If it intrudes into private space, it is an invasion of privacy.

Should the evidence come to show, therefore, that the pictures on which the Nation hung their story were taken with telephoto lenses, or simply that extraordinary lengths went into zooming into subjects, then the good paper is surely going to need the express intervention of St Jude Thaddeus, the patron saint of impossible situations.

As far as journalism is concerned, nobody gives a hoot if the subjects were supposed to be society role models. I’ve said it before: journalism is not religion. The business of journalism is carried out scientifically. Even in investigative journalism, when reporters frequently go undercover, the respected side of the profession boasts of employing only orthodox methods in its reporting: no extortion, no torture, no flowers or gifts. And no snooping lenses into private space.

The paparazzi, therefore, is hardly a likeable fellow.

Yet, believe it or not, there is an aspect of paparazzi journalism that is not condemnable. In their 1999 book, Taking Sides, Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Mass Media and Society, authors Alison Alexander and Jarice Hanson have pointed out that the relationship between the paparazzi and celebrities is a symbiotic one. The two are known to rub each other’s back all the time.

So is the relationship between journalists and politicians. Paparazzi help to create the publicity that keeps politicians in the public eye and fosters positive public impressions of their fame. Ask around. Our own politicians frequently leak out information about their schedules in order to obtain favourable coverage in the media. And only last week, a local broadcast journalist and I had a shouting match over the reason reporters in this town repeatedly chase controversial politicians for headline stories.

At the end of the day, newsworthiness is the number one criterion for deciding to run a story or a shoot. "It is honourable, within the limits of safety and the law, for a reporter or photographer to chase down real news," according to the book, Taking Sides. "If they have to circle their quarry to expose public evil-doing, or simply to document the realities of governance, [journalists] should do so."

But here is the catch. The chase is appropriate only if the news is truly of importance to the public. A serious newspaper does not poke around, soliciting gossip. The stakes are high in the criteria for picking what is news, especially headline news.

Despite any ethical justification for this kind of journalism, however, no newspaper wants to be associated with the word "paparazzi". The better question to ask of the current debate, therefore, is whether the local Press is beginning to embrace sensational journalism. And if so, why?

We’ll take this up next Sunday.

• Kodi Barth teaches journalism at United States International University-Nairobi.

Copyright © 2002 . The Standard Ltd