Media Maverick
By Kodi Barth

The Nation reported on Tuesday a startling development from government.

The Ministry of Information and Communications, said the paper in its Business Week pullout, is proposing to set minimum professional standards for broadcasters. These standards, it was reported, will be monitored by a Broadcasting Content Advisory Council.

From a first reading, the development is noble. Among standards to be addressed are, "the need to ensure that comments are honest expression of opinions" and, "the need to report news truthfully, accurately and fairly without intentional or negligent departure from facts."

Bang. This, actually, is the face of professional journalism, which the government may have found twisted out here in our practice.

But the development can be read in either of two ways. One: in the light of questionable practice, this could be an honest attempt by government to bring order into the broadcast industry. Two: the development is an outright infringement on press freedom.

The question to ask is: does government (read, the Executive) have any business telling the Press what to do and how to do it?

Let us be honest. It is the business of government to supervise order. It is one of the reasons people since Adam have entertained some sort of government.

So that when Civil Service boss Francis Muthaura complains that a section of the media has defamed him and allegedly has the ‘offending journalist’ thrown into jail on the eve of his daughter’s wedding, a referee is sought.

When Water Minister Martha Karua goes to court alleging flagrant abuse and disrespect by Kiss FM, it is a cry for some sort of order among broadcasters.

The dilemma, however, is that the modern press is viewed as the Fourth Estate. It has been so, even before US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart publicly explained it in 1974, that the idea of press freedom was "to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches."

The facts are that wherever the Press has been accepted as the Fourth Estate, democracy has been better served, and prosperity has come closer within reach.

What doest his translate to? This: by all intent, Raphael Tuju’s ministry proposal may be in good faith.

But the bottom line is that where media is concerned, government has never been viewed as an honest broker.

Why would government possibly want to do the right thing for the media?

There is no denying that a media industry may be in dire need of regulation, but the job simply can’t be trusted with government.

Every democratic country has stipulated a code of journalism ethics.

Found online at the International Journalists’ Network, www.ijnet.org, Kenya’s is one of Africa’s most comprehensive.

That code was not drawn by government.

And it was not the job of government to enforce it. Besides, it embraces in principle everything the Tuju ministry proposes.

The sensible thing for the government to do, if media practitioners have trudged on their own code of ethics, is to take them to court; not storm into the house with a hammer.

But chances are that the government is coming in as a wolf dressed in sheepskin.

We would see the wolf when they’ve effectively kicked media out of town.

Just like it almost happened last December in Kyrgyzstan, a central Asian state.

The Kyrgyzstan government surprised everyone when it brought to Parliament a Bill seeking to abolish criminal charges for libel.

The draft law was said to aim at supporting the development of mass media. The unprecedented law would require a plaintiff to deposit 5 per cent of the total damages claimed pending a court’s decision.

That, said a government official, would result in reducing the number of suits brought against the media and render the sums of claimed damages more reasonable.

But as sceptics quickly found out, a few loopholes in the draft would eventually work against independent media outlets, the only voice of dissent in that country, and render them bankrupt.

Let us suppose, on the other hand, that our government’s proposals were drafted in heaven.

And that they became law. Who in government would decide that "comments are honest expression of opinions"?

Who in the Ministry of Information and Communications would adjudicate that news is "truthful accurate and fair"?

Who will sit on the judgment throne to decide broadcast content carried no "intentional or negligent departure from facts"? Does government wish to qualify as media experts?

Media simply cannot be cosy with government. It doesn’t matter what perfume the latter douses itself in; media cannot be caught in bed with government. It would be a deep betrayal of the citizens.

For media professes to watch, on behalf of citizens, the functions of government; reporting on efficiency, successes and failures of government agencies.

Another reason our media cannot take this lying down is a reading from history.

Wherever the press has conceded a finger to government, the latter later has subsequently demanded the entire arm.

All said, let me still play the devil’s advocate.

Perhaps we should all be asking a different set of questions in this whole thing.

One: are our media practitioners, the people who so influence opinion and society, professionally trained?

Two: do the people – and government – know what to expect from professional media practice?