Striking a
balance between watchdog role and
sensation
By Kodi
Barth
Media Maverick
Is the local press
gravitating toward sensational journalism?
Sample
these headlines: "Scandal of secret debt files in
toilet" (Standard, December 19); "Ministers and
MP held in swoop on prostitutes" (Nation,
December 14); "Kibaki’s second wife speaks out"
(Standard, December 14); "Narc scandals alarm
donors" (Standard, Dec 2).
Add these to broadcast
stations’ hullabaloo over "the red briefcase" and the
Baengele clan feuds in the wake of Vice President
Michael Wamalwa’s funeral and the question of
sensationalism can’t be easily wished away.
The furious debate sparked by
the Nation’s Koinange Street story, for example,
was roundly debated as sensational.
In media jargon, the debate
was about the journalistic pendulum of engagement versus
relevance. We ask if journalists should emphasise news
that is fun and fascinating and plays on people’s
sensations; or if the media should stick to the news
that is the most important. Should the media chase
stories that people want to read or should they stick to
giving the people information that they need?
This has been the essence of
recent debates. What most people didn’t realise,
however, is that posing the debate in this manner is
actually a distortion. The point is hardly about what
people want versus what people need. Journalism is
practised – and received – differently. There are
readers whose first interest in the paper is the
headline story, and there are those whose first stop is
business news, etc. The journalist’s task is to find the
way to make the significant interesting for each story,
and finding the right mix of the serious and the less
serious that offers an account of the day.
Journalism has the obligation
to make the significant interesting and relevant.
Consequently, the journalistic ideal lies between what
people want and what they need. We have said here before
that the purpose of journalism is to provide people with
information they need to understand the world. The first
challenge is finding the information that people need to
live their lives. The second is to make it meaningful,
relevant and engaging.
In other words, part of
journalism’s responsibility is not just providing
information, but providing it in such a way that people
will be inclined to listen.
This our pressmen and women
have been doing effortlessly, especially in the
headlines. The question is if the meat of the stories
has equally lived up to the challenge of journalistic
standards. Did the Nation’s sex story, for
example, deliver on the journalism of
verification? Did they seek the subjects’ side of the
story before publication? Did the Standard’s
subsequent reporting the next day, alleging pressure
being brought to bear on the police, satisfy ethical
demands of verification? Were the stories delivered
compellingly? Or did frequent drawbacks of haste,
ignorance, laziness, formula, bias and cultural blinkers
compromise journalism principles? Or was it all about
selling the paper?
The journalistic equilibrium
in local Press coverage began to seesaw a while back. A
rough pointer to the turning point is when the
Standard made an overhaul among its senior
editors last September. That’s about the time the
paper began to hit the streets with headlines
that make readers sit up and clear their throats. The
stories, largely touching on the country’s ruling elite,
have been reported boldly. They have demonstrated
commendable research skills. Even if structure was
occasionally tortured, like in the November 18 coverage
of Ghai and his alleged contemplation of resigning, the
stories have been told compellingly.
The issue across the board
has been about turning the spotlight on investigative
journalism.
The first mention of
investigative journalism goes back to 1964. It is then
that the Pulitzer Prize, the world’s most coveted award
in newspapers, went to the Philadelphia Bulletin,
a Pennsylvanian paper. These roots are so strong
that they form a fundamental principle: Journalism must
serve as an independent monitor of power. This is
what the Standard, with its bold headlines,
appears to have started practising in earnest last
August.
As far as professional
journalism is concerned, however, it doesn’t matter that
one media house led the race for hard-hitting headlines.
The point is that with our country embracing more and
more the freedom of expression, our media is creeping
out of hitherto complacency journalism, especially as
was practised during the Kanu regime. The Press is
beginning to candidly take up its legitimate watchdog
role.
Justified by the obligation
to make governance transparent, this principle is about
watching over the powerful few in society on behalf of
the voiceless many, to guard against tyranny.
There is just one thing that
the local media must keep in mind. The watchdog
principle has been misunderstood around the world to
mean "afflict the comfortable". Journalists have come to
misuse this principle, using it as "comfort the
afflicted and afflict the comfortable".
What has been wanting across
our media spectrum is the evidence of a serious attempt
to report all sides of an issue. This is why part of the
audience has been yelling sensationalism.
Kodi Barth teaches journalism
at United States International University-Nairobi.
| 
