[kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Kenya communications (amendment) Bill: Is media overacting?

[Mike Theuri]

Alex,

The issues that present themselves are multifaceted in nature and cover many
matters.
The protests in question however appeared to cover two areas

1) The KCA Amendment Bill
2) Rising Food Prices and Taxation matters

Mars Group is part of a coalition of numerous groups numbering over 2000
across the
country. Mars Group has been known for exposing matters relating to
governance,
malfeasance and corruption and has in turn transformed itself into a form of

alternative internet based media which is likely to speedily grow if the
traditional print media
reverts to the oppressed position it was in the 90s leading up to 1997.
http://www.marsgroupkenya.org/partnershipforchange/

Mars Group sent out a message on behalf of the "partnership for change" on
Dec 10
which stated in part:

"All our actions are legal and non-violent.  We can get the change we want
without heckling or losing self-control.  We are in charge of our country
and its destiny.  We don't need to heckle or misconduct ourselves if we
are in charge.  Change starts with us changing our behaviour and as we
change so too will our country change.  Our leaders will follow our lead.
>From now on."

Mars Group's actions were apparently aimed at protesting issue # 2. It is
apparent that
because protesters of both issues were at the same venue, the two issues
became intertwined.
At least one can conclude that Mars Group did not ask those participating to
engage in
disruptive conduct prior to the event.

Has the media been irresponsible? Indeed they have, with media freedom
reaching unprecedented levels. What were once professional media turned
reputable papers into tabloid publications, and some journalists fabricated
stories or accepted brown envelopes to write stories on behalf of interested
parties.

Naturally such occurrences are scattered and there are still a number of
professional members of
the media who uphold journalistic ethics. The industry needs to reign in the
elements who bring
a bad name to the industry. The below provides an insight into some of the
decay in media standards in the country: http://okongospolicy.com/?p=127
Had the industry done a better job at self policing, chances are that they
may have had more support in getting section 88 deleted.

Some sections of the media today are under the control or ownership of
personalities with vested
political interests some of them in elected office today. What Alex has
predicted happening in 2012 will almost certainly take place then and it has
happened in the past before on a smaller scale both politically and for
commercial reasons.

The government is by the people for the people. High handedness in
government and obliviousness to what one's employer is saying is a dangerous
catalyst for chaos when the employer acts out of desperation.

Now the media has become the scapegoat for supposedly mobilising the masses!
Issue #2's seriousness should not be underestimated for what seemingly has
the early makings of a massive movement with economic hardship being the
common denominator. Would the masses adopt the media issue if they were not
vested in issue #2? It would be difficult if not unlikely considering
that it is apparent that the media issue is a relic from the past and what
the media appear to be protesting is its non removal rather than what the
general public believes to be an addition. What is clear is that this
"relic" manifested in section 88 does not have favour with the public and
will soon join the long list of grievances associated with issue #2.

It is said that a hungry man is a angry man, blaming the media for
mobilising the masses when the truth of the matter is that the proponents
(the general public) of issue #2 will adopt any issue that shows
disaffection with those perceived to be in a position to determine whether
one can put food on the table or not, is what one could term as acting
oblivious or what the proverbial ostrich would do were a lion to approach.
Can the 'masses' be calmed downby deleting section 88? Temporarily, yes, but
only until the next feelings of hunger propel issue #2 back to the
forefront.


On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 1:53 AM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru at gmail.com> wrote:

> Grace,
>
> This is a difficult subject but I guess keeping quiet about it does not
> make it
> go away;) Let me start with an excerpt on recent conversation with a media
> practitioner.
>
> --excerpt--
>
> But a professional journalist cannot accommodate judgmental or
> pre-concluded opinion diagonally opposite to their trade fundamentals
> [for @newbies http://blogs.salon.com/0002007///2003/08/17.html and
> http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/11/journalism-101.html ].
>
> After internalising "independence" pretexts when their respective
> coverage were biased towards certain differing quarters, recent
> lessons have now led to our media houses contemplating declaring their
> political ideological alignments (parties or candidates) in future. Do
> not be surprised to find such declarations on TV and  radio stations
> or on Newspapers come 2012.
> --excerpt--
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Grace Bomu <nmutungu at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I had signed up for the mars group protest yesterday on the
> > representation that it was a protest on food prices and MP'S refusal
> > to pay taxes.
> > I am disgusted that the media have used our voices for their causes
> > exclusively, disregarding ours.
>
> What does the Mars Group say about this? Are you likely to participate
> on a similar other initiative under the same circumstances? Do you trust
> our media as mere conduits of information to consumers?
>
> > As a Kenyan, i think there should be a review on cross-ownership of
> > media if democracy is to thrive. Also, considering the role of the
> > media in fueling ethnic/ regional backlash since 2003,  isn't there
> > need for a check on them?
>
> Part One:
> Imagine a situation where one 'Private Sector' tycoon owned *all*
> media outlets. His/her network of companies is chasing a lucrative
> government contract. Some Public Procurement and Disposal Act
> law-abiding Civil Servant detects fraudulent practices, collusions,
> etc (and as a reminder  these are presently worth 700 billion/year)
> and disqualifies the bid.
>
> The tycoon's network of media outlets decides it's time that Public
> Servant was sacked! Do you think he/she can survive the adverse
> orchestrated negative media coverage? Would the successor be as
> stringent when it came to the bids from the tycoon networks?
>
> Part Two:
> It would be mistaken for anybody to try and defend the media on
> their polarising role towards last years elections and their coverage.
> Clearly, they all had candidates they wanted in power, why?above?
>
> What is "media" is it countable big media houses. Remember they
> are businesses and if something adversely affects their revenue lines
> they will either silently kill it, massage the opinion and expressions
> to conform to (or at least not threaten) their business interests. This
> is what happened to your Mars Group representation?
>
> > There may be misgivings on the arbitraly powers conferred to the
> > Minister in charge of security but media has to be checked.
> > The media should give suggestions on alternative ways to check them
> > instead of using all their airtime and acres of newspapers to win
> > public sympathy.
>
> I am concerned with 'arbitrary powers' implications on expression
> I have not read the new version thus I am speculative here...
>
> The last I heard about this was that it had been agreed to BUT a
> committee (not an individual minister) would make that decision.
> The thinking was that a committee would make a fairer decision.
>
> Imagine a situation where the police were denied powers to raid
> any premises where crimes were ongoing?
>
> > Finally, they should stop branding it ' media bill' as the bill is not
> > a conspiracy against media but a bill to amend the communications act.
> >
>
> Our society amazes on its ways of corrupting things, people, ideas,
> movement, even concepts....
>
> Conclusion:
> If either government or the media were left alone, the public would
> suffer badly.
> Excessive government powers+high handedness plunged us into dictatorships.
> Unchecked media excesses gone wild on "Fourth Estate" public watchdog role
> pursuing purely commercial interests would be a very bad thing for
> democracy.
> Between media and government, consumer interests are better served by the
> media. But recall a recent post to the effect that the internet
> remains consumers
> best saviour? For these reasons, I hope our media away from seeking
> "pity" tries
> "earning" public respect.Only then can we rise up aggressively defending
> media.
>
> In the meantime, kindly email to me the "Blue Copy" for my perusal.
> _______________________________________________
> ke-internetusers mailing list
> ke-internetusers at bdix.net
> http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20081214/340a9d21/attachment.htm>