The flipside of rehashing news

Early this week, a People Daily reporter wrote to this column, complaining about one newspaper’s lead story last Sunday. The story about Justice and Constitutional Affairs minister Kiraitu Murungi being snubbed by Harvard University for failure to fight local graft was first reported by The People — a week earlier! Last Sunday’s "big story" in the accused paper picked it, added little more than the byline, and ran it like an exclusive.

Again, recently, this newspaper broke the story of businessman Naushad Merali buying out Vivendi at KenCell. Another newspaper picked it up, practically photocopied the story for days on end, and pegged the entire work to an unnamed staff reporter. It’s not fair, a leading editor complained. Neither is it fair that our Press names the original reporters only when the story has been denied or turns out inaccurate.

Now, there is nothing wrong with developing stories initiated by other publications. But journalism practitioners the world over agree that in such cases, attribution of material from other newspapers and other media must be total. Otherwise, it is called plagiarism, and that is one of journalism’s unforgivable sins.

But if plagiarism is a cardinal sin, the use of pseudonyms is fast climbing the ladder of sins.

This town used to read a guy called Ndira Uradi, who wrote scathing page-one propaganda in the Kenya Times, a senior editor told the Maverick this week. Nobody ever saw the face behind that name. Recently, in the run-up to the last elections, a political writer for this newspaper insisted on going by Mathayo Ndekere. The guy had no face, and as you guessed, Ndekere was not his name. When his predictions that were largely read as pro-Uhuru Kenyatta came to a cropper, the guy dropped off the face of the earth.

And now we are living with a character called Leo Juma in another newspaper. From his readings, this is an evidently seasoned political analyst. Yet nobody ever heard his name in this town till the other day. No one I know can find a single picture of Leo Juma. Neither has anyone run into him on the streets. All signs are that we are dealing with a ghost. This is sin, right up in the byline.

Researcher

In journalism, a byline identifies a story’s researcher and writer. When the paper begins a story with the words, "By-so-and-so," this is not merely a brag-line. A respected byline can become a price tag and a brand name. Bylines do sell a newspaper.

Above all, a byline is a mark of authenticity. The practice in this trade requires that writers stand up for what they report. Yes, pseudonyms are accepted as professional titles. And owners have no qualms accompanying them with a photo-ID. Editors may also plug in pseudonyms occasionally for security considerations. But when writers habitually begin to hide behind an inexistent name, it instantly flashes code red.

The bottom line is that something is deliberately being concealed. And the reader is justified to feel gypped.

Journalism is about forthrightness. And forthrightness is about telling the truth as it is. If journalism’s practitioners choose to hide behind a shrouded pillar of pseudonyms, that forthrightness is dealt a mortal blow, even before the story begins.

Conscientious publications already have a hard time protecting subjects and sources in sensitive stories. Some news sources will debate on whether to use first names only or outright false names in such stories – and tell the reader why. Other newspapers simply shun it.

The Washington Post’s list of standards and ethics, for example, flatly states, "No pseudonyms are to be used."

"Before any information is accepted without full attribution, reporters must make every reasonable effort to get it on the record," says the Post. "If that is not possible, reporters should consider seeking the information elsewhere. If that in turn is not possible, reporters should request an on-the-record reason for concealing the source’s identity and should include the reason in the story." The bottom line is that some kind of identification is always possible, and should be reported.

If it is hard to justify hiding a news subject or source, how much harder it is to hide the storyteller! Around the world, the consensus is that pseudonyms in bylines are a no, no. It is an unnecessary blow to credibility.

Pravda.ru, a Russian publication, has alarmingly called the use of pseudonyms the death of journalism. "Articles signed by fictitious names are basically the same as anonymous letters," says the publication. Writers who hide behind pseudonyms can do without any offices. They can bring their own production directly to a newspaper. Then, two or three staff employees do the rest of the job, keeping it secret from the personnel. The end result is a good deal of income. No taxes, just cash.

 Kodi Barth teaches journalism at United States International University-Nairobi.
If you have seen questionable content in the press, write to kodi@kodibarth.com
Website: www.kodibarth.com/

Copyright © 2004 . The Standard Ltd