The price of negligence and incompetence [image: PDF]<http://www.eastafricapress.net/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=573> [image: Print]<http://www.eastafricapress.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=573&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=79> [image: E-mail]<http://www.eastafricapress.net/index2.php?option=com_content&task=emailform&id=573&itemid=79> OUR VIEW While the Media Institute condemns the outrageous selfishness exhibited by Members of Parliament in passing what is clearly a retrogressive law, the media must not escape culpability for what has befallen it. It has become norm for the media to cry wolf when faced with any encroachment on its turf, especially its own welfare. In fact, in the public domain, the strident wailing of the media has become all too familiar and sympathy is waning. And why not; there are many sectors of our society whose cry for attention when their welfare is similarly threatened by government action or legislation hardly get a fraction of the interest the media devotes to its own selfish interests. Truth be told, the media is insensitive and uncaring most of the time. And it gets worse. The media are not even competent in superintending over their own matters either because they are out of depth, they cant fathom the implications of some developments - such as the just enacted Bill - or they are just consumed by their pursuit of profit and basic competition to comprehend the threats to their survival or operations. That cannot be said of the ICT sector, which too is the subject of the same Communications Amendment Bill 2008, but which has had its issues discussed and thrashed out in numerous online lists and discussion forums. Not surprisingly, some media chiefs only came to grips with the implications of the Bill when it had sailed through the First Reading in Parliament a month ago. They long left the job of minding the rights enjoyed by the media almost exclusively to non-governmental organisations that the media cares less about. Consider this: A fortnight before the Bill went to the Third and final phase in the House, an alarmed International Commission of Jurists (Kenya) called a meeting to sensitize the media about the impending law. And when they turned up, some of the media chiefs not only knew zilch about the Bill but what they did after that was even more scandalous. All of them were unavailable for the action proposed to forestall the passage of the law. Even when a press conference was called to raise the alarm, all of them were either busy or conveniently absent. Rather than mobilize the sector, they retreated to their usual boardrooms and adopted the ineffective strategy of molly-coddling MPs, ministry of information officials and other emissaries through informal methods to drop selective clauses deemed to be threatening to commercial interests (principally, the prohibition of cross-ownership). The media did not even give adequate publicity to the Bill prior to the brouhaha, let alone the other aspects relating to ICT. Needless to say, we failed spectacularly and now we are back in our regular dark pit of moaning. What was a clear case of an attempt to abridge freedom of speech was conveniently couched in terms of commercial interests, protection of frequencies, turfs, and so forth. The reporting of the aftermath itself has been terribly wanting. The Communications Bill has all of a sudden become ICT Bill, Media Bill, and other names we have baptised it. How is the public to keep track of our lamentations? In our bid to attract sympathy, ok appeal, to the public, we have also pressed the sensational button, and the inaccuracies are staggering. For one, the offending Sect. 88 was not introduced by the new Bill. It is already in the existing Communications Act and what was on the table was whether to repeal it. That of course, is clouding issues and confusing the bigger picture. At stake is an attempt by the political class to equip itself with the ammunition to circumscribe the fundamental freedom of expression, and arm itself with the ammunition to control the media if it is deemed as unbecoming or threatening to its interests, diverse as they may be. In this regard one cant help but sympathise with the wing of the coalition that is always crying about being shortchanged in the power sharing deal - of what benefit is this new law to the objective of freedom of information in this country? Yes, to be candid, the media is far from innocent. Some of the vulgar content on the airwaves at supposedly neutral hours should not be allowed. Yes, on their own they have demonstrated utter irresponsibility in setting standard thanks to the greed for profit. But to sit and wait for government to legislate their content is perhaps the worst demonstration of lack of leadership among the media management. While the Media Institute joins others in appealing to the Head of State to demonstrate statesmanship and respect for democracy by not assenting to the law, it must be observed that the media has overspent its goodwill and earned its just fruits. Our hope is that the President will not be motivated by short-term parochial interests to endorse a bad law. The Bill clearly impinges on freedom of expression and the media, which are democratic principles that he and other leaders have professed to respect. To turn around and begin to claw back on that at a time when the country is on the democratic assent and awaits proper constitutional reform will be both anachronistic and an undeserving of his legacy. http://www.eastafricapress.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=573&Itemid=79