Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Kenya communications (amendment) Bill: Is media overacting?
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@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@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@bdix.net http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
Interesting analysis.... Even from our blackmailed position, we must not forget the role of the media in the post-election crisis as acknowledged in the Waki report. What the media is doing is similar to what some politicians have tried to do by dismissing the Waki Report. The country has degenerated to negotiation by blackmail and distortion. Even Ambassadors have joined the fray and have misrepresented the KC A Amendment Bill as an oppressive "Media Bill". A few politicians are now desperately coming out of the wodwork to stand up as pro-media freedom proponents even where the issue is not a case of media freedom. Political parties have started aligning themselves to take advantage of the masses. There is no honest leadership in Kenya. We are as thirsty as the US and the world was for Barack Obama. Instead of giving in to the distortion and blackmail, we may want to lobby individual media owners to save the country by taking more pragmatic positions as individual media houses. Members of the Media Owners Association (MoA) must start thinking of the national interest rather than bow to pressure from a few more influential media owners. Governance issues in the media sector must become a critical component of the post-election agenda if we are to prevent further abuse of media freedom and get our country back on track. Our nation is clearly facing a leadership crisis that if not resolved, will tear us apart even before 2012. We have witnessed this in the desperate attempts to forestall the inevitable by throwing anything and everything at a problem. As a satirical would put it, we know "someone is trying to switch-off the light at the end of the tunnel" for Kenya. Let's all hope for genuine strong leadership soon. Wainaina On 12/14/08, Mike Theuri <mike.theuri@gmail.com> wrote:
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@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@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@bdix.net http://www.bdix.net/mailman/listinfo/ke-internetusers
-- Sent from my mobile device --- http://www.bungesms.com TWITTER - http://www.twitter.com/bungesms KABISSA.org - http://www.kabissa.org/about/news/member-spotlight-made-kenya-network KAMPALA Workshop presentation - http://m4d.kcl.co.ug/sites/default/files/presentations/BungeSMS_MadeinKenyaN...
participants (2)
-
Mike Theuri -
Wainaina Mungai