[kictanet] why bullying won't help

Thu Jan 15 16:33:24 EAT 2009

Rebecca,
I don't think you people are willing to listen to what the media is saying. And as long as you proceed with that bias, there is unlikely to be any constructive dialogue or debate about the actual issues - whcih i urge you to focus on. Blaming the media for not having acted properly (and am not defending it here) is not going to wash. First because you need to understand why the media resorted to certain actions, and secondly because  you are conferring too much credit on the govt/ministry for what has happened or not happened. The fight, to use Bill Kaigai's words, is not even one between you (ICT people) who have jumped in between and the media, but between the media and the govt/parliament, particularly the ministry which is desperately trying to rope in everybody to its side in an unnecessary war against the media.

Who is bullying who? The media or the ministry which wants to legislate wapende wasipende, laws which we genuinely feel can be better?

First, the deputy speaker can not even justify that legislation. As it has emerged, most of those MPs had not read or were not awake to the implications of the bill that a few passed. And so we should sit back and fold our legs and say we can do nothing about it? That is relapsing to tyranny (Frankly, if you as me, parliament has effectively replaced the executive as the seat of dictatorship in our country. I am willing to defend that position anywhere.)
If inded you followed the legislative process, you would have noticed by now that not a single amendment was taken by the MPs when the Bill went through the readings. Why? How democratic is that for Parliament. MPs should not lord it over everybody, and be haughty about their legslative power, when most of them know zilch about the legislation they pass. So, should the media be blamed for not trying when it raised its voice and made all manner of presentations to the VP, PM, Minsters, Parliamentary Committee? Are you aware that before the law was passed, the media had interceded with Kalonzo, Raila, Karua, Rege's Committee, and the Ministry of Information? So, it is not for want of trying that the media found itself in this situation.

I am surprised at your claim that we should have gone out to look for govermnent to ask if there was any legisation . Surely,  are you serious? Is it the business of the media, or anyone else for that mater to go inquiring if the govt does not disclose if it has legislation coming on a particular sector? How come you want to excuse the ministry for that mischief, and blame Macharia instead for the offence of the ministry? I dont get it.

I must point out that since the beginning of the year, the ministry has been hellbent on controlling the media. It tried to usurp the role of the media council (i will come to that shortly) early last year but was repulsed. Eventually a task force to look at how to improve the media act to address its weaknesses was constituted, with a rep from the ministry. It had a short, one month period to discuss and produce recommendations for amendments. That was five months ago. Up to now, it has met only once, the deadline has been extended indefinitely. In the meantime, the ministry has succeeded in shoving through the Communications Act. Start by asking the ministry what is happening to the task force headed by Priscilla Nyokabi of ICJ, then may be you will begin to comprehend the media's beef with the ministry.

The point has been made that the media council has not been effective. That is again another lie. What is not being stated in all this hulla balloo of condemnation is that the media act was only passed in september 2007, and came into force in october, when elections were due in december. By then, the institution of the council charged with aribtrating complaints - the complaints commission - had not been formed! Nor the finances provided. Even so, what exactly does the act say? If does not give the council power to attack or interfere with media houses. It provides a mechanism for the public to respond to media content. It is not the Council to go after r police the media but the public to compain about what it is unhappy with or contrary to the code of ethics of journalism as provided in that media act.  so to blame the media council for not acting is clearly wrong (even with the reasons given above). How many people actually know that the council is
 supposed to do? How many compaints has the council "received" apart from people whining in public. The procedures are all there - you write to the council to compain about a particular station or newspaper; the council summons the media house and gives it 14 days within which to repsond, then the matter goes before the complaints commission to arbitrate and make a finding and issue orders to be obeyed by the media house. That is as it should be. All parties are heard.

For your information, the complaints comission was formed three months ago and is now functional. It has received compalints, including from the govt, about some stations. 

It is not correct ot say that the media are self-regulating or they have failed because that media council is a statory (read govt) body with media, govt and non media representation. The complaints commission is also a non-media body (the chair is a lawyer with qualifications required of a high court judge!) Please note - the era of self-regulation ended with the passage of the media act, 2007!

swhich is why the media has argued that the controls under the new comm act are parallel to what already exists, and all content issues should be moved under one statute. 

For the purposes of moving forward, the media fraternity (MOA, editors guid) have made very specific proposals for amending the Act, among them the following:
1. to move the whole broadcasting section hived off and moved to the media act, and should that not be possible or even after so doing;
2. restrict the coding envisaged in sect 46 to entertainment programs (so as to preserve the editorial independence of the media) and scope to be restricted to adult content, religious programs, decency etc and such code to be dranw up in consultation with the media council.
3. improve on the compsosition of the comm commission by requiring the minister to appoint to the commission people nominated by sectors of stakeholders, including the chair of the media council
4. disengage the minister form issuing directives to the commission
5. reduce the heavy fines provided for offences under the act
6. move all the complaints related to content from the act to the media act, and keep those related to violations of infrastructure nd licencing issues to the comm commission, which should be left with the management of frequencies and infrastructure.
7 amend the media act appropriately to acccommodate the above changes, and additional responsibilities, and provide for funding.

Surely, these proposals are not designed to protect the media or shield it from any criticism, but make it accountable but still independent, not a lapdog of the govt.

I hope this is not outrageous or offending to the ICT fraternity.
~David

--- On Thu, 1/15/09, Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku at yahoo.com> wrote:

> From: Rebecca Wanjiku <rebeccawanjiku at yahoo.com>
> Subject: why bullying won't help
> To: dmakali at yahoo.com
> Cc: "kictanet" <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Date: Thursday, January 15, 2009, 12:27 AM
> Makali,
> 
> I have been involved in the policy making process in the
> ICT sector both locally and within the WSIS process. So,
> allow me to make some observations.
> 
> I was at the forum on Tuesday and agreed with the deputy
> speaker that the media is bullying Parliamentarians and
> expecting Parliament to pass the law in their
> favour.....Bill put it better than I can. You can read my
> opinion
> http://beckyit.blogspot.com/2009/01/why-it-s-hard-to-sympathize-with-media.html
> 
> 
> During the meeting,  it became clear the media did not
> perhaps do what other sectors did in terms of lobbying in
> the process. Section 88 has been there since 1998, is this
> the time the media has just realized that?
> 
> During the drafting process, various sectors are asked to
> amend or draft clauses that do not suit them and present
> what they would want the clauses to read. Was the media
> involved in the drafting process?  I think it is wrong for
> the media to assume that the government or the other sectors
> should have understood the issues or implications while they
> were not there.   
> I was shocked when Macharia Gaitho said on Tuesday that
> when they were in Mombasa discussion the FOI the ministry
> said that that is all there is regarding media, that there
> was no other act concerning the media. I wondered, did the
> media stakeholders expect the government to look out for
> them?
> 
> The bone of contention is the power given to the media
> council and the financing, parties should come together and
> say how they plan to finance it and give it teeth. This way,
> all the concerns will be addressed squarely.
> 
> If our (media) concerns is the libel and the flimsy grounds
> that people institute cases and win awards, I think the next
> stage is for the media to lobby for the amendment of the
> judicature act chapter 35 (am not sure) which deals with
> defamation and shift the burden of proof to the complainant,
> more like the amendments to the UK laws, which we inherited
> and have never amended.
> 
> This way, the laws will be harmonized to take care of all
> concerns and interests. Gaitho put it very clearly that the
> media is not aganist regulation but control. This is the
> time to pursue regulation mechanisms and put them in place.
> 
> regards
> 
> 
>  Tel. 254 720 318 925
> 
> 
> blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: "dmakali at yahoo.com"
> <dmakali at yahoo.com>
> To: rebeccawanjiku at yahoo.com
> Cc: kictanet <kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:28:14 PM
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian
> longwe: KCA2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
> 
> Why is it me? That msg frm maloy makes sense to you? Why
> don't you see anything wrong with that msg. Get real,
> Bill.
> 
> Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Kagai <billkagai at gmail.com>
> 
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:45:28 
> To: <dmakali at yahoo.com>
> Cc: KICTAnet ICT Policy
> Discussions<kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke>
> Subject: Re: [kictanet] Makali's response to brian
> longwe: KCA
>     2008-Broadcasting-The Recommendations
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 
> This message was sent to: dmakali at yahoo.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> kictanet mailing list
> kictanet at lists.kictanet.or.ke
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
> 
> This message was sent to: rebeccawanjiku at yahoo.com
> Unsubscribe or change your options at
> http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/rebeccawanjiku%40yahoo.com