Re: [kictanet] Media Bill
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"
At the Media Bill Kenya School of Monetary meeting, I proposed that neither government controls nor media is left alone to self-regulate itself. I asked for a independent media watch institute headed by consumers - the *confused* recipients of government propaganda and media self-interest/preservation angles. Obviously this proposal was unpopular to either. "In many a European country public broadcasting performance has come under severe criticism. The institution is said to have too much power with too little responsibility and no room for holding it to account. At the same time journalists are blamed for being too cynical, too scandal and hype focused and, in a competitive market, too much driven by the question 'what sells'. Politicians complain that the media try to set the political agenda, that policy making is unduly influenced and, worse, that journalists tell half truths and whole lies. It is as if the institutions legally or professionally entrusted with symbolic power, are losing the trust of those with political power...." '...The press serves as a watchdog for democracy, but a watchdog that barks too often is useless. An information channel that distorts the information fulfils no function. In any other sector where the product is so vital for society and the risk of a loss of quality so great, the government would have intervened. The principle of press freedom makes this impossible. Consequently this is a task for the press itself, given the potential danger and social harm of media that behave as a political actor without showing accountability..' Death Duties: Kelly, Fortuyn, and the challenge to media governance" http://www.yle.fi/ripe/Papers/Brants_Bardoel.pdf You will find I have retreated to "hide" park on this one. Alex On 5/21/07, bitange@jambo.co.ke <bitange@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@kictanet.or.ke http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
Please unsubscribe or change your options at http://kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/alexgakuru.lists%40gmail.com
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@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@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
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@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@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@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
participants (4)
-
Alex Gakuru -
alice -
bitange＠jambo.co.ke -
Brian Longwe