[kictanet] Fw: Kibaki signs Bill into law

[Bill Kagai]

Makali,
Instead of psyching up for a second round of war, why don't we move a notch
higher and do things a bit differently as observed by a leading and
respected journalist, Tom Mshindi.

Herewith, quoting him verbatim;

[Finally, the media's convulsive, strident reaction was too hysterical. We
in the media have often been accused of not being balanced in our reactions
to important national issues compared to our responses to media-specific
issues. This was a good example.

We had a right to be angry but more importantly, we needed to demonstrate
the key journalistic principle of balance in reporting the news.

After all, the Bill had become law and the mode of engagement called for
less confrontation and more aggressive lobbying. This is what finally won
over the President, not the public hysteria.

In more optimistic circumstances, I would say we have learnt our lessons and
should expect more sagacious displays from all the actors. But media and
politicians know that this was just another day in the ever eventful,
love-hate relationship between the two.]

Source -
http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/512130/-/427cut/-/index.html




On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:05 AM, <dmakali at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device
>
> ------------------------------
> *From*: dmakali at yahoo.com
> *Date*: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 06:04:41 +0000
> *To*: Barrack Otieno<otieno.barrack at gmail.com>
> *Subject*: Re: [kictanet] Kibaki signs Bill into law
> Ndudu Barrack,
> The media is a basket of diverse characters and multiple interests trying
> to serve various demands placed on it by many publics. The situation is not
> helped by the fact that every1 assumes that the media should serve his or
> her interests however provincial. Or the assumption that there is one
> homogenous institution called media.
> To be candid, there are massive problems in the industry. But the proposed
> legislation is designed or will have the effect of strangling it rather than
> helping. To start with, I don't see the pt of applauding the things which
> are good in that law if that implies accepting or lessening on the gravity
> of the bad ones. Yet what I see on this ict list is just that -cheer readers
> excited by the ict provisions we have all been waiting for and a
> determination to gloss over or sweep aside the glaring omissions or
> shortcomings of the law. I find that myopic and selfish, vis-a-vis the
> greater public interest.
> The media must be understood too. Accusations of sensationalism may be
> valid but what else did the media have in its quest to be heard? Why were
> its proposals ignored? The last resort was to fight back against an unjust
> law using any and all means. And it was going to get worse had sense not
> prevailed. Now again you blame the victim and not the aggressor politician
> for attempting to polarise the nation.
> For me, this debate is polemical if you can't address objections we have
> raised with specific clauses. Dwelling on the good and uncontestable aspects
> of the bill is waste of ink. We don't have to educate the public about how
> the bill is good because, well, that is what it should be. But we have a
> duty to warn the public of an impending disaster.
> And why are some of you on this forum quick to lynch the media but molly
> coddling politicians who pay lip service to media freedom and yet go ahead
> to stab it? Who brought us to this pass?
> The same proposals they rejected with hubris before the passage of that
> bill are going to be taken in this time round. Why? That's something to
> ponder. It only takes silence or collusion such as ICT folks are engaged in
> to end up with tyranny.
> Let me conclude that its not true that the media did not make submissions
> to that bill. It did. And a committee was even set up to do so comprised of
> min officials. What became of their proposals? Let ndemo tell us.
> The truth is we would make proposals but the ministry was hell bent on
> driving thro its agenda so none of our views would be taken on board until
> the law was passed. Then we decided we were not going to take it.
> The moral is that no law should be shoved down anybody just because its
> govt. That era of govt fiat is gone.
> I admit we have quite a big house cleaning job as industry to do. But
> frankly, some of the claims being pinned on the media are baseless. The
> media can't be responsible for the failure of political leadership!
> Barrack, you ICT people will only begin to appeal to us on this side if you
> at least acknowledge the law is flawed in key ways, eg- sections 5, 46, and
> so on. I advice this forum to wait for our detailed amendment proposals on
> tuesday, and desist from vacuous charges of sensationalism against the
> media. What is at stake here is fundamental to our democracy and freedoms.
> David
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device
>
> ------------------------------
> *
> *
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.kictanet.or.ke/pipermail/kictanet/attachments/20090110/4ed8e142/attachment.htm>