- KICTANet - KICTANet

[Fwd: FW: online discussion on The Kenya Communications ( Amendment ) Bill 2007 - introduction]
by alice 05 Jun '07

05 Jun '07

Dear all forwarding message from Muruiki Mureithi regarding the Kenya Communications Amendment bill. best alice -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Muriuki Mureithi [mailto:mureithi@summitstrategies.co.ke] Sent: 05 June 2007 12:44 To: 'Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet' Subject: online discussion on The Kenya Communications ( Amendment ) Bill 2007 - introduction Colleagues As you are aware the Kenya Government has at last published the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Bill 2007 . The purpose of the Bill published on May 17th , 2007 ( world telecommunications day) is to amend Kenya Communications Act 1998 . The structure of the bill as a follows; Clause 1 - 14 - change of name, new definitions, ICT policy development and promulgation , governance of the sector and constitution of the regulator , fines for contravention of the act Clause 15 - introduces part IVA on broadcasting services - regulation , licensing and revocation , and promotion of local content Clause 16 -29 - enhances penalties of the contravention of the Act, reduce the duration of notice of a grant of licence, refusal to grant or modification, exclude certain classes in the notice of grant of licence Clause 30 . introduces part VIA on information technology - legal recognition of electronic communications, electronic records and electronic transactions , offences . introduces part VIB universal service fund - establishment and operationalisation . introduces part VIC Fair competition and equal treatment - definition of dominant operator , investigation of unfair treatment clause 31 introduces miscellaneous provisions on National communications secretariat, establishment of the advisory councils ( content and universal service), action in the occurrence of an emergency, use of information by an operator, service to CCK etc clause 33 introduces two schedules . fourth schedule - operation of advisory councils - content and advisory . fifth schedule - transitional provisions and proposes to repeal other acts - Kenya broadcasting act, penal code, evidence act , part VII electronic records To understand the implication of the Bill , you need to study the Kenya Communications Act 1998 which is being repealed and the Bill itself . Once enacted the governing law will be information and Communications Act and will have far reaching implications in the sector for the next decade or so. it is therefore important for stakeholders to study the document. KICTAnet facilitated a review of the Kenya Communications Act 1998 last year using the a draft bill prepared by the Ministry of Infocom and developed a report supported by the stakeholders. This document made a number of proposals which were presented to the Permanent Secretary Dr Bitange Ndemo. Some of the proposals have been included in the Bill As this Bill awaits discussion in parliament , KICTANet wants to facilitate an informed debate on the Bill , these comments are intended to support the evolution of a law to make Kenya effective user of ICT for development .I invite you to read the Kenya Communications Act 1998, the Kenya Communications ( Amendment) Bill 2007 and the proposals by KICTANET as a resource for your comments . The Act and the Bill are available at the government printer and meanwhile we are making arrangements to scan have all documents hosted in a website for ease of access by end of Wednesday . We start the online discussion on Thursday 7th and will start with Clause 1-14 and follow the sequence . In the meantime , we welcome any comments on the structure and the process of online discussion between today and Wednesday 6th Regards Muriuki Mureithi

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Media Bill
by Wainaina Mungai 05 Jun '07

05 Jun '07

This debate is now on the right track thanks to Brian, Alice, Dr. Ndemo and Bill; I would ask that the government to consider a structure that gives the media representatives greater visibility in the Media Council and the Advisory Board e.g. having the Chairperson as a member selected by the media or a different model that makes them bodies more "media". Hoping we can all now work to protect the media from government extremes (as the case of Citizen Radio/TV) and protect the people of Kenya from the extremes of a lawless media (as was in the case of blackout given to Martha Karua/Water Ministry and many others). Neither side should be using threats or propaganda. --- Wainaina Mungai Made in Kenya Network P. O. Box 72031 - 00200 Nairobi. Kenya. Tel: +254-20-780669 Cell: + 254-722-811171 http://www.madeinkenya.org/ or Community Access Point (Subukia) subukia(a)madeinkenya.org http://www.madeinkenya.org/projects/ictother.php > -------Original Message------- > From: alice <alice(a)apc.org> > Subject: Re: [kictanet] Media Bill > Sent: 21 May '07 22:26 > > Dear all > > In my opinion, the justification for our media bill would be the policy > vacuum in the media sector and an outdated existing legislative > framework characterised by often times conflicting laws with regards to > the access and dissemination of information. > > Therefore the presence of an implementable legislative framework allows > for the establishment of, for example, professional bodies, which > would monitor professional and ethical conduct and practices, while > protecting consumers. The media sector, I am sure does agree that the > absence of self and or co-regulatory measures in the sector would and > has resulted in many governments, ours included, to consider applying > sometimes unfavorable/draconian regulatory measures (we have seen this > played out in in various aspects/instances) in order to protect Kenyans > rights to dignity, privacy, etc > > I would agree and join Brian in urging the media and all stakeholders > including consumer networks to, quoting Brian, " take hold of the > olive leaf extended by this government - and the goodwill that is > present at the Ministry - and ensure that we have a good if not a great > Media Act" > > > > best > alice > Note: The above comment are entirely personal and do not reflect any > position of the organisations I am affiliated with. > > > Brian Longwe wrote: > > To all, > > > > I would like to take a little bit of your "airtime" and lay down a > > slightly different perspective with regards to the Media Bill that is > > under discussion. (Although my comments relate to any Bill that is > > put before Parliament.) > > > > First and foremost my personal position is that I welcome the move to > > put a law in place that governs the 4th estate. On a recent radio > > input I emphasized that any sector law has two sides to it: > > 1) It defines and protects a particular constituent group e.g. > > Communications Industry (Communications Act '98), Childrens Bill etc... > > 2) It protects society and the Kenyan populace in general from harm > > caused by the parties covered under the Act/Bill > > > > Therefore taking these two elements into consideration I would > > encourage that the media fraternity (and all other stakeholders) take > > this opportunity to engage with the process and ensure that we put in > > place a good if not excellent law/Act. > > > > I will give a short story to illustrate my point: > > > > In 1997, the Kenya Communications Bill was published - it aimed to > > regulate, govern and facilitate the growth and development of the > > communications sector. For those of you who recall, the first draft > > was a nightmare and if that is what eventually became the law - we > > would still be living in the dark ages of blind control. > > > > There was a lot of activity surrounding this bill. I remember a > > number of public forum discussions that sought to provide government > > with opportunity to shed light on some of the less clearer parts of > > the bill (i.e. most of it) but also to hear from the public and > > stakeholders what their views and opinions were. The Institute of > > Economic Affairs played a key role in a number of these fora. > > > > Eventually it became abundantly clear that there was a lot of talk > > but very little action. So a group of non-profits, Insitute of > > Economic Affairs, Econews, FemNet and East African Internet > > Association got together and went clause by clause through the draft > > and came up with a very comprehensive set of submissions that > > addressed what we felt were the key/crucial parts of the Bill. > > > > As many of you know, in the commonwealth law system any bill of > > parliament must go through a series of readings. This allows both > > fellow parliamentarians as well as the public to provide input along > > the process. Public input into the process is normally handled by a > > select committee of parliamentarians who are responsible for > > capturing and channeling the inputs into the process and where > > necessary making amendements/changes to the draft. > > > > In our case, we made an appointment to see the House committe - at > > the time chaired by Hon. Shem Ochuodho - and the Chair of the EAIA at > > the. Mr. Suchindranath Aiyer then presented the paper to the House > > Committee. At the end of the presentation our group was > > unceremoniously thrown out (paper, submissions and all). I guess that > > was the governance style of the day (read - KANU). > > > > Nevertheless we didn't give up and decided to use all means possible > > to "squeeze" in our submissions. There were breakfast, lunches and > > cocktails held for parliamentarians - none of which seemed to yield > > much. Eventually it was too late - the Bill had gone for 2nd reading > > - and passed without any changes - now only the Minister and > > President could make any changes. But we didn't give up..... > > > > At the end of the day we were able to find a way of getting the draft > > to the then Minister - Hon. Ntimama. He read through our comments, > > understood all of them and passed them to the Attorney General to > > incorporate. The Kenya Communications Act '98 - which has governed > > our communications sector for the past 9 years consists of almost > > every single point that we had in our draft. As an individual I will > > always have respect and admiration for Ntimama - he was truly > > concerned and focused on this role. > > > > I have told this long story to make one strong point. As a country we > > need good laws to ensure that not only our present - but our future > > and that of our children can be brighter than our present. I would > > strongly encourage the media and all other stakeholders to take hold > > of the olive leaf extended by this government - and the goodwill that > > is present at the Ministry - and ensure that we have a good if not a > > great Media Act. > > > > Regards, > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > On May 21, 2007, at 10:14 AM, bitange(a)jambo.co.ke wrote: > > > > > >> Dear All, > >> I feel compelled to respond to Kanja's surprising response to the > >> Media > >> Bill. Media especially MOA has decided to distort information with > >> blatant > >> disregard of a journalist's cardinal rule (objectivity) to poison the > >> People of Kenya with lies and propaganda; > >> > >> Here are the Facts > >> . > >> The Bill was drafted by stakeholders among then Kanja himself; > >> The content especially on the code of conduct for journalist were > >> transposed from the current code of conduct with the Media Council; > >> All stakeholders were kept informed throughout the stages of the > >> Bill > >> and Kanja as the former Chair of MOA received letters informing him > >> of the > >> progress; > >> The Bill does not seek to control, it simply gives some teeth to the > >> Media council to regulate professional journalists; > >> Regulation is not control (think, we all are free to drive but we > >> must > >> drive on the left hand side); > >> Without regulation you have quacks as journalists who may plunge the > >> country into chaos (just listen to Venacular FM stations to > >> understand why > >> we need professionalism in Journalism and remember what happened > >> with Hope > >> FM); > >> The controversy in the Bill arises from funding. MOA and KUJ did > >> not > >> want to fund the Advisory Board and the Media Council instead they > >> asked > >> the Government to finance; and > >> Government funding comes with certain strings as you all > >> understand and > >> even if you were to fund you will expect the recipient to adhere to > >> certain rules (we have gone through this with the World Bank even > >> though > >> we did not like it). > >> > >> > >> Bitange Ndemo > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------- > >> This message has been scanned for viruses and > >> dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is > >> believed to be clean. > >> --------------------------------------------- > >> "easy access to the world" > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> kictanet mailing list > >> kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > >> http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > >> > >> Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/ > >> mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40isisweb.nl > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > kictanet mailing list > > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/wainaina%40madeinkenya.org >

3 2

Re: [kictanet] Media Bill 2007.
by bitange＠jambo.co.ke 04 Jun '07

04 Jun '07

Dear All, The issue as to who sits on the council is a non issue since the bill takes care of different stakeholders and all of those affecting the industry such as: Media Owners Association Kenya Union of Journalists Writer's guild Media Education Trainers Association. They could propose other names as they wish but the bill proposed other stakeholders such as: Law Society of Kenya A representative from the dissabled (because our society for many years has discriminated such groups) A representative from Cotu (Many issues around Media is as a result of poor pay to Journalists which unfortunately leads to corruption) A representative from the Chamber of Commerce Kenya Bankers Association (No specific reason for including it but simply because it is a professional organization) If nobody wants it there then remove it. Please note even as the list is criticised, nobody proposes relevant organizations that ought to be there. Arguments that Journalism should not be equated to other professions since many people write to the papers is baseless. Yes many people contribute but it is the editor who selects what is appropriate for people to read or hear. There is a distinct line between a professional journalist and a contributer. The bill does not impede any person from making contributions. Does it mean that anything we write should be published without editing? Regards Ndemo. > Dear All > I can't say that i have read the media bill,but the little that i have > read in the media is lopsided and based on their side of the story.The > only complains that i keep on hearing in the numerous talkshows that are > aired on the TV only highlights the point that the coposition of the media > council is not good or is made up of people who are not of that > proffession.They dont come up to say anything else about the various > clauses which will hinder their progress or how the government is trying > to oppress them,am not trying to say that its not there but those are the > things which should be highlighted for us to be able to support their > arguments well.One funny thing that came out in one of those talkshows is > that the KUJ was not with the media owners and that the bill would be very > good for the them(KUJ).i believe that the bringing in of models and > comedians as journalist has set the precedence for the government to bring ---------------------------------------------- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. --------------------------------------------- "easy access to the world"

1 0

MediaBill2007.pdf - Adobe Reader]
by alice 04 Jun '07

04 Jun '07

Hi all See attached the media bill currently under discussion in PDF format. best alice

6 9

Fwd: KCA (amendment) Bill - Kenya Gazette
by Rebecca Wanjiku 04 Jun '07

04 Jun '07

hi all, here is a copy of the KCA (amendment) bill 2007, will also post to the website in afew days, please read and air your views accordingly, regards becky Rebecca Wanjiku, journalist, p.o box 33515, Nairobi.00600 Kenya. Tel. 254 720 318 925 blog:http://beckyit.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------- Looking for earth-friendly autos? Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.

1 0

Media Bill 2007.
by mucheru＠wananchi.com 04 Jun '07

04 Jun '07

Bwana PS, I have read today's papers and I do agree with you that we have everything to worry about. This is particularly because in part I agree with the newspaper reports regarding the Communications Amendment Bill. My fear and worry is that this very serious matter is now going to be politicized and we shall not have a soberly thought-out change in our laws. I have to say as one who participated in the policy formulation process am disappointed because most of the recommendations we made and agreed on seem to have been left out in the gazetted bill and things we totally were unhappy about were left in. Basically we have the original draft the government gave without taking our views which we presented into account. Let me give examples; 1) The definition of a broadcaster and broadcasting (page 1205) both paragraphs are vague and ambiguous. Internet Protocol services can be defined as broadcasting (or not). Laws need to be very clear. This has all sorts of implications especially with the convergence of technologies. Which licence an Internet service provider should get is not clear. Today you can watch BBC and CNN news online. YouTUBE ( http://www.youtube.com ) and many other multimedia sites offer video and other services, Radio stations and POD Casts are streamed online. We raised these issues and we were ignored. 2) Certification Authority (page 1236/7) - certification authority. This is very useful for e-commerce and online trading. With the revised legislation, Internationally recognised and globally accepted certification authorities such as Verisign can only be recognised in Kenyan law if they apply for a licence from CCK. E-commerce is also international. This will put Kenya in an Island and with globalisation this is not workable 3) On the top level domain (.ke) (page 1236/7) - Today CCK already regulates KENIC through the sitting on its board and I do not see the need for increased regulation. .ke is faced with competition from other domain names and we must ensure regulation of the same does not discourage it's use. Registrars locally are able to administer top level domains without CCK and this will not change. These are just a few points to explain my point - the list is not exhaustive I would also like to go on record and state in summary that if the Amendments are passed, am afraid the COST of regulation in Kenya will be so high for example CCK will have the obligation to manage and determine suitable content for the country. Secondly, the cost of monitoring and storing all content in Kenya will not only be astronomical but I also believe impractical and will create a significant "grey market" So Bwana PS, what can be done to incorporate some of the recommendations to the otherwise much needed Communications Amendment Bill. -- Joseph Mucheru mucheru(a)wananchi.com > From: <bitange(a)jambo.co.ke> > Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> > Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 15:03:12 +0300 (EAT) > To: <mucheru(a)wananchi.com> > Subject: [kictanet] Media Bill 2007. > > Dear All, > If you read today's papers, you have everything to worry. It is being > alledged that the ICT Bill is worse than the Media Bill and That > Government did not consult. I know you all participated in many ICT fora > discussing just what is being criticised. After the first reading we have > another go at it but not to kill it at inception. > > I need not tell anyone that this Bill will unlock the ICT potential in > this country. Where were these people when you sacrificed your time to > have a just legislation in place? > > On Broadcasting, Kenya has one of the most liberal laws in place. We have > tried to have a frequency in Britain, China, the USA on reciprical > relations in vain. We toned down stakeholder's requirement on restrictive > cross media ownership by adopting South Africa Model but these people want > nothing but jungle laws in a democratic country. > > Since you access internet, please check, there is no country in the world > that does not have some sort of media regulation. In fact opponents of > these Bills should be asked to name at least one country that has no > regulation in media. > > Regards > > > Ndemo. > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > --------------------------------------------- > "easy access to the world" > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/mucheru%40wananchi.com

1 0

TWO NEW FIBRE CONTENDERS – THIS TIME IT’S SOUTHERN AFRICA
by alice 02 Jun '07

02 Jun '07

TOP STORY FROM BALANCING ACT: TWO NEW FIBRE CONTENDERS – THIS TIME IT’S SOUTHERN AFRICA _____________________________________________________________________ One new major fibre project came into the light of day last week and further details emerged about another. The first is an ambitious initiative to create a Southern African fibre network on the back of the South African Power Pool transmission network: for Expressions of Interest for building it see the Jobs and Opportunities column at the bottom of this week’s issue. The second is WAFS, a Telkom South Africa-managed project that seeks to connect South Africa to Nigeria to relieve capacity problems on SAT3. Russell Southwood investigates. African Dark Fibre Communications Ltd is at an advanced stage of negotiation with the South African Power Pool companies to lay fibre to connect the member countries. In this week’s issue it has issued a request for Expressions of Interest from contractors. Phase 1 of the project is to complete and interconnect the fibre optic networks of three national electricity utilities with one another as well as to a competitive high-capacity undersea cable or equivalent. Phase 1 of the Project is scheduled for completion before the end of 2008. The three companies that to be linked would be South Africa’s Eskom, Zimbabwe’s ZESA and Zambia’s Zesco. The latter two companies are already selling their domestic fibre capacity. A 2001 World Bank study recommended the VSAT communications system with a long-term plan to go over to fibre. The South African Power Pool’s network capacity management system between the three countries is currently handled by VSAT. The fibre across the network would replace the existing VSAT system. Peter Cole, African Dark Fibre Communications said:”Southern Africa is one of the last places on the planet to have access to competitive bandwidth. That’s what we’ll be providing.” The West African Festoon System (WAFS) is a Telkom South Africa-managed project that has already completed its feasibility phase. The WAFS project aims to connect countries along the western coast of Africa from Nigeria to Namibia. At present, only Angola, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon and South Africa have signed up although the project’s promoters want to attract telcos in both Namibia and Nigeria to complete the route. The managing agent for the project is Telkom South Africa which will either connect via Botswana (who may become another consortium member) or Namibia. The consortium has already conducted a feasibility study and met in February 2007 to finalise the tendering process for the project. It appears that it will have the same governance structure as the SAT3 cable as well as also being managed by the same company Telkom SA. Prices on the cable have not yet been fixed. One of the purposes of building the cable is to ensure that some of the countries along its route have some redundancy capacity if there is a failure on the SAT3 cable and that inter-African traffic can be moved off of SAT3. Further information was sought from Telkom South Africa but in time-honoured fashion it has not come back to us, not even to say ‘we have nothing to say’. What do those communications people all get paid for? A report on MyADSL last week quotes Department of Communications Minister Ivy Matsepe-Casaburri from her budget speech last week saying that fair access to international submarine cables was key to driving down international bandwidth rates. This follows President Thabo Mbeki saying that low international calling rates were essential for attracting business to South Africa. Matsepe-Casaburri said:“It is Government policy that the cost of access to international connectivity is affordable and that all arrangements regarding access or use of international cables and/or facilities do not unfairly exclude others from use of or access to the cables.” The minister named 1 November 2007 as the date from when the exclusivity provisions contained in the SAT-3 agreement or arrangements entered into shall be declared null and void in South Africa. The minister further said that she directed ICASA to prioritise and urgently prescribe a list of essential facilities, ensuring that the electronic communications facilities connected to the SAT-3 submarine cable can be accessed soon. Is it going to happen this time or should we advise you to watch the horizon for flying pigs? South African politicians seem to talk a good game when it comes to delivering cheaper international bandwidth but thus far – despite being the people that run the country – have delivered nothing. These same politicians seem able to change the CEO of the company but have been powerless all these years to address an issue they say is so pressing. Is it surprising that countries like Kenya are sceptical when the same South African politicians talk commandingly about open access and cheaper fibre in the context of the EASSy protocol? There are also a couple of interesting rumours swirling round the edge of fibre developments on the continent…Firstly, fibre prices in Reunion, the French colony in the Indian Ocean will fall to US$620 a meg at the end of this year. How does that compare to what you’re currently paying? Telkom South Africa customers might wish to ask their supplier how their current charges are distance-related? For the purposes of fair comparison, they might also add that Mauritius Telecom is offering capacity at US$3000 per meg and below for volume. Those working on SAT3 inside Telkom know its prices must come down so when is it going to happen? The second rumour is that Infraco will build a several terabit international fibre in order to address the current pricing deadlock.

1 0

[Fwd: MediaBill2007.pdf - Adobe Reader]]
by alice 01 Jun '07

01 Jun '07

The media bill, attached. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [kictanet] MediaBill2007.pdf - Adobe Reader] Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:34:15 +0300 From: alice <alice(a)apc.org> Reply-To: Kenya ICT Action Network - KICTANet <kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke> Organization: Association for Progressive Communications (APC) To: alice(a)apc.org Hi all See attached the media bill currently under discussion in PDF format. best alice _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alice%40apc.org

1 0

Re: [kictanet] Media Bill 2007.
by Kagwe James 01 Jun '07

01 Jun '07

Dear all, A very good example of abuse of media freedom is what is happening with the MUNGIKI issue. Everything done out there by any criminals is blamed on MUNGIKI even before it has been properly investigated. Please do not mistake me in this.... I ain't saying that they are not criminals, for heavenly sake they are, but that we should make sure we confirm they are the ones who did it before we report. The result is that even thugs will do anything and make sure they at least mention the word MUNGIKI to their victims. Also because of the upsurge of the reports on MUNGIKI we are actually glorifying their actions and making them feel they are real heroes. The way it is being reported.... you would think there is no government or police or that the government is doing absolutely nothing about it. Something definitely needs to be done about media freedom... the aim I hope is not to clip their wings or fix them, but to make them always think deeply of what they are reporting before they go on air. This happens in any profession and journalism should not be an exception. -----Original Message----- From: kictanet-bounces+jkagwe=aforbes.co.ke(a)kictanet.or.ke [mailto:kictanet-bounces+jkagwe=aforbes.co.ke@kictanet.or.ke] On Behalf Of Brian Longwe Sent: 01 June 2007 02:51 To: Kagwe James Subject: Re: [kictanet] Media Bill 2007. Bwana Ndemo, I could not agree with you more. I have been appalled and dismayed at the outrageous response that has come about regarding the Media Bill. The mere fact that it is a Bill means that this is the time for whoever has anything to change/remove/add should do it. It is not yet a law until it has passed public review, parliamentary review and government review. I was even shocked today to hear some politicians who I used to have respect for referring to it as a draconian law designed to stifle and control - I don't even think the individual had any idea about the background and origin of the Bill. I think it's time for truth and clarity to come forth. Brian On May 31, 2007, at 8:57 PM, bitange(a)jambo.co.ke wrote: > Dear All, > Our media continue publish one sided stories. In my view it is > important > that we shed some light on the Media Bill and the Integrity of the > Industry. > > It should be obvious that integrity in media is of great importance > to the > public, to individual journalists and their institutions, and to the > health of the media enterprise. The increasing social, economic, and > political significance of media has led to greater demands that > journalists and their institutions be held accountable when using > public > funds. Media subjects and their families expect journalism to do > what is > necessary to minimize the risks posed by irresponsible reporting. > Society > rely on the honesty and competency of professionals, and society's > confidence in and support for media rests on public trust in the > integrity > of journalists and their institutions. It is incumbent upon the media > community to create and nurture an environment that both promotes high > ethical standards and preserves public trust in journalistic inquiry. > > Yet, all is not well in the media community. Several high-profile > incidents, ranging from blatant disregard for the principal of > objectivity, to the fabrication of articles, to the death of > breadth of > subjects outside politics, have raised concerns about the integrity of > those engaged in media. During the past year, we have seen too many > instances of media misconduct, like the front page pictures of > Matheri's > innocent children. Another leading daily fabricates a story that an > opposition leader visits State house. Who will forget the Hope FM > incident where innocent lives were lost yet the Government was > blamed for > not taking action in advance. Incidents such as these have in > most cases > tainted the noble profession of journalism. The Media Bill is indeed > Media Council Bill just like the Nursing Council Act, Medical > Practitioner's Act, etc. Lawyers, Pharmacists, Architects, > Engineers all > subscribe to some Act of Parliament to guard against their own > excesses > and the consumers. > > In the past few days we have witnessed Media at its worst - > manipulating > public opinion - by only telling one side of the story in the process > breaching their own ethical standards. Check all articles on Media > Bill. They have even gone to the extent of gathering a number of > activists and calling such meetings as stakeholder. Government > which is a > major stakeholder (supplies 90% of the news through KNA to Media > houses) > is not even invited. Not one of those meeting that they have > entertained > the other side of the of the story. This indeed should be the very > reason > why the Media Council must step in to advise on media's > responsibilities. > > In Tanzania where the same process is going on, views are analyzed > from > both sides. Media does not retract on their word. Despite the > fact media > developed the current Media Council Bill, they continue to argue that > Government did not consult stakeholders. You now understand why a > good > constitution was defeated. Should we allow a few individuals to make > decisions that affect our future? There is imminent danger if > media is > not regulated simply because they have not managed to regulate > themselves > without statutes. Do you want to see another Hope FM scenario? > Vernacular stations are preaching Venom and if it gets worse, you > know who > the media will blame. > > Our only hope is that we are increasingly becoming a knowledge > society and > Internet with or without print and electronic media will enable us to > communicate. Media has refused to publish alternative views on the > Media > Bill. Luckily they cannot mislead everbody. > > > Ndemo > > > > ---------------------------------------------- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by Jambo MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > --------------------------------------------- > "easy access to the world" > > > _______________________________________________ > kictanet mailing list > kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke > http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet > > Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/ > mailman/options/kictanet/brian%40isisweb.nl _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list kictanet(a)kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jkagwe%40aforbes.co.ke

1 0

Apple TV + YouTube = What's Next
by Alex Gakuru 31 May '07

31 May '07

[BusinessWeek.com] Top News May 31, 2007, 10:06PM EST Google and Apple's deal to show video clips is a major step in the race to bring Net entertainment to TV by Arik Hesseldahl <snip> In the high-stakes race to bring Internet entertainment from the PC to the TV, Apple and Google were already at the head of the pack. By joining forces, the electronics maker and search giant just extended their lead. On May 30, Apple (AAPL) Chief Executive Steve Jobs said Apple TV, the company's newly introduced device that transmits digital entertainment to television sets, will begin carrying clips from Google's (GOOG) YouTube. For Apple, the addition of content from an already popular video-sharing site could help sell more Apple TV units, says Tim Bajarin, president of technology consultant Creative Strategies. "With YouTube, [Jobs] might have struck a new nerve and in the process gotten more interest," he says. Big Plans And it's likely to be a harbinger of future cooperation between the two companies, especially considering their existing ties. "You can't rule out more collaboration," Bajarin says. Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Google adviser Al Gore sit on Apple's board of directors. The companies have a history of collaboration. A Google Maps application, complete with satellite photos, was one of the headline features Jobs demonstrated when he first unveiled the iPhone in January (see BusinessWeek.com, 1/10/07, "The Future of Apple"). <snip> <http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2007/tc20070530_192371.ht…> --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!

1 0