The verdict has been unanimous this week: Gor Sunguh made an ass of himself on national television.

The final proceedings at the parliamentary commission of inquiry into the death of former Foreign Affairs Minister Dr Robert Ouko ended in super acrimony. At least that is what the country gathered from news channels that repeatedly broadcasted the fiery exchange between prime witness Nicholas Biwott and Sunguh. There was huge drama when Biwott, who has long been fingered as a prime suspect in the Ouko murder, insisted on reading his statement to the inquiry. On the other hand, Chairman Sunguh held his ground that the witness would first answer questions on cross-examination. Each man dug his heals into the ground, like an ass. And there followed a fantastic standoff.

"Are you threatening this committee?" Sunguh kept yelling, his neck craned out like a giraffe, his jugular veins stretched to the edge. "Are you challenging the chair? I’m about to adjourn these proceedings?"

Across the bar, Biwott was like a man in fanatical prayer, his hands spread out in mock beseech, his eyes toward heaven. "Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman, Mr Chairman, I’m simply demanding my rights." To which the chair shouted back, "You, Mr Biwott, has never been known to grant anyone his rights on this earth."

Even when Biwott, who rarely ever raises his voice, said the loudest he could that everybody could see what was going on, Sunguh still didn’t get it that he may have been playing right into the witness’s hands. It continued like that, each man doing his best to out-shout the other. It was hilarious. And the news people had a field day.

But let us stay with the media angle. Surely, there must have been a lot more going on in those proceedings apart from the standoff. Why did news channels pick only the bad side to report? Was acrimony and controversy the only news from the proceedings? Don’t news channels cheapen their news broadcasts by pandering only to controversy and sensationalism?

As twisted as this may sound, the fact is that in the news business, controversy is a value. Yes, there really is nothing to report when everything is nice and calm. News people consistently have their noses up for smoky events – fiery, even better.

And there’s a reason for this.

News reporters are trained that when a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens often. But if a man bites a dog, that’s news. News is information about a break from the normal flow of events, an interruption in the expected, a deviation from the norm. News is information people need to make sound decisions about their lives.

It follows, therefore, that a news sense is really a sense of what is important, what is vital, what has colour and life, what people are interested in. That is journalism. So what was important in the Biwott-Sunguh shouting match?

The answer can be found in a reading of history. From primitive times, people have perennially been at war with each other, and with themselves. Strive, antagonism and warfare have provided the basis of stories ever since early peoples began sketching pictures on their cave walls. Some pictures depicting their confrontations with the beasts that surrounded them.

Melvin Mencher, the authoritative teacher on news, notes in his 2003 book, News Reporting and Writing, that the tales that resulted from conflict have been the basis of saga, drama, story and news. To journalists today, conflict and controversy has a deeper meaning. Those who misunderstand the mission of the media complain against what they consider to be an overemphasis on conflict. But, says Mencher, "the advance of civilisation can be seen as an adventure in conflict and turmoil."

There’s a perfect defence to this entire thing, after all. "One way to define, and to defend, journalism is that it provides a forum for discussion on the conflicts that divide people and groups," says Mencher. "And that this peaceful debated makes conflict resolution possible."

There you have it. Gor Sunguh and Biwott may have shouted themselves hoarse. And given another chance, the media would still have played out only the segments where they’re yelling like chicken. The country would get talking – not yelling. And that would be a good thing.

On the other hand, it is important – no, paramount – that the media keep it all in perspective. They must be accurate in their reporting. They must be complete in their account of events. It is useless if the entire Biwott-Sunguh story is only about the shouting. The story must leave no unanswered questions the viewer might have.

The story must also be fair. No story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance. So fairness includes completeness. No story is fair if it is only about irrelevant information at the expense of significant facts. So fairness includes relevance. No story is fair if it consciously or unconsciously misleads or deceives the reader and viewer. So fairness includes honesty with the viewer.

No story is fair if reporters hide their biases or emotions behind such pejorative remarks as "he refused to answer." Or "despite this and that, it was obvious …" Any of this is flashiness, which is not the concern of news. Fairness merely requires straightforwardness.

Above all, no story is fair if innocent people are hurt. There must be no collateral damage in news. We leave that to indisciplined armies.