The Standard’s Thursday story, “Kiraitu Changes Tune on Review,” literally generated most heat this week. It sparked passionate debate, yet again, on the perennially dodgy constitutional review. It sent a visibly livid Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional Review Chairman William Ruto to the KTN newsroom. There the plain-speaking Eldoret North MP promptly announced to the country that those who warned him he was over-accommodating “dishonest people” may have been right, after all.

All subsequent debate played out in the media and away from public light at a flurry of closed-door meetings around town, turned equally fiery.

But let’s analyze the genesis of the debate. It all started with KTN’s Wednesday exclusive and gathered steam with the Standard’s Thursday headline. The story behind that headline, however, provided an opportunity to turn the spotlight on a few journalistic tenets.

There is no question about the authenticity of that story. But for the sake of journalism, a few questions arise from the story’s reportage. Purely from a journalistic standpoint, that story leaned too heavily on the presumptuous.
The story that started out stating in categorical terms that “Justice Minister Kiraitu Murungi had poured cold water on the optimism generated by last weekend’s Naivasha consensus on the constitutional review process” had no direct quote from Murungi. Not until the 23rd paragraph, after everybody else peripheral to the story had been quoted.

When no relevant quote is forthcoming from the primary subject in a story, a huge gap is thrown into a story. Credibility is dented.

But the quote drama didn’t end there. The next quote attributed to Murungi – whom for unexplainable reasons the Press keeps unconventionally referring to by his first name – appeared tweaked. “He said he expects ‘political noise from those who are trying to use the process as a political weapon, but is ready to take the noise and the political heat,’” said paragraph 24.

Journalistic practice stipulates that whatever falls within quotation marks must be a source’s words, verbatim. The reader expects in the above sentence, therefore, that from “political noise” to “political heat” were Muringi’s actual words. Yet, the third-person article, “is”, instead of the first person, “I’m”, betrays who’s talking – the writer.

The next element that screamed attention was the writer’s tone. Top in that tone was speculation and personal insinuations, two anathemas in news writing.
“Kiraitu’s no-nonsense stance on Naivasha would appear to suggest he has the President’s backing,” said paragraph 10. That is speculation, not interpretation or analysis, the only other things after facts that journalists are allowed to throw into in-depth news stories. Not even the reference to “a newspaper report” on Wednesday that President Kibaki had refused to sign a related Bill warranted this speculation.

The next problem with the tone was the manner of attribution. The story swung from “he revealed” to “the minister now contends…” And in between, “Curiously Kiraitu claims …”

Our newspapers have for too long reported news stories with erroneous attribution like “he surmised”, he “contended” he quipped.” Yet, journalism trainers have from years of experience counseled on the wisdom of sticking simply with the “he said” in attribution. Yes, unchecked repetition of “he said” can render a story stiff, boring and unimaginative. But the wisdom behind skillfully put “he said(s) is that it never betrays bias. It is neutral. Besides, whether a subject “opined”, “quipped” or “revealed” is not the most important thing in a sentence. His actual words are the most important.

What’s the point? This: when the story talked of “the minister now contends that the only way for Kenya to have a new constitution is a-b-c”, it read more like the writer leading the reader on what to make of Murungi.

Needless to say, a story of huge proportions like this demands a proportionately superior craftsmanship. The more explosive a story is expected to be, the more carefully it must be reported. Newspapers cannot be caught breaking journalistic norms in such stories. The danger is that the public will have been unfairly swayed in one direction.

The repercussions are particularly enormous in societies that have taken the Press as authoritative.

Talking on KTN prime news on Wednesday evening, Ruto said he picked the new development from the Press. All subsequent reactions and decisions, including Ruto’s crisis meeting with the Parliamentary Select Committee on Thursday, all stemmed from Press reports. Such authority stems from a tradition of professional practice.

In other words, the public slaps the label of authority on a Press only after the said Press has lived and practiced such norms as fairness, attribution, balance, objectivity and impartiality. When any of these elements begin to lack in news stories, the Press is taking society for granted.