Re: [kictanet] New Regulations & the Media: Broadcasting Regulations
I think the media wants the public to believe that the government is issuing regulations unilaterally. However, as Dr Ndemo pointed out, the media have previously snubbed meetings to discuss the regulations before they become law. Makali confirmed this by the following statement: it has also been pointed out that there is an element of bad faith in the manner the ministry always proceeds, despite protestation. our meetings, submissions and petitions never seem to curry favour with the ministry, hence a sense of deja vu. the apparent reluctance of the media to engage sometimes with the ministry is borne out of the sense, rightly or not, that you have taken this as a personal cause/agenda to prosecute, and the public is only improvised as a pawn in the drive to hem and castrate the media. In an opinion piece in today's Nation (http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/846842/-/5qd4jt/-/index.html) a media consultant points out that the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act which empowers the Minister for Information and Communication to make regulations does not require him to seek the approval of the industry; he only needs to consult CCK. If this is true, it shows the government went out of its way, I believe in good faith, to seek the views of the media industry but the media, for the reasons stated by Makali above, refused the offer. They cannot, should not, cry foul now. I would advice the media to repent their bad faith in government and adhere to the regulations, especially those concerning content by keeping 'adult content' off family times, if not off altogether. This will win back some public sympathy and probably get enough support to deal with the legitimate concerns they have with other sections of the regulations and the government. Jotham K. Mwale --- On Wed, 1/20/10, Rad! <[email protected]> wrote: From: Rad! <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] New Regulations & the Media: Broadcasting Regulations To: [email protected] Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:20 AM I think the point Makali is trying to make is that while indeed, there needs to be some regulation, a unilateral approach to it by government is a slippery slope to bigger problems down the road. One needs to be reminded 'government' not only has its own interests, government is in fact made up with people who as human beings also have interests. Let us take for example Honourable Mwakwere who on record confessed to owning a pair of matatus. How then can he be seen to be making fair and unbiased decisions in the transport ministry to do with the matatus? Remember justice needs to not just be done, it needs to be seen to be done. Let us take another example the occasional bungling in various ministries (ferries, school funds, AIDS funds,land allocations etc). Let's be candid -- It is in the government's best interests that such things do not come to light. The media too has its own vested interests, and can, and indeed has been partisan on numerous occasions. So it is pretty clear that the media's ability to police itself meets with the same skepticism as the police force's ability to police itself and that of the government to police the media. Perhaps there is a middle ground to be explored. Who exactly constitutes the Media council? On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Walubengo J <[email protected]> wrote: Makali, I too have read thro your "thesis" and its not easy read but quite engaging. And just borrowing a journalistic cliche - "every story has two sides". From the government side we have heard the need to get rid of adult-content from our air-waves during Daytime/early evening and on that note I can tell you (without any scientific survey ;-) that the Public is fully in agreement. Indeed during my Dec holiday I did get subjected to an overload of such content during "family-hours" and it is high time it was stopped because obviously the media has failed to). But on the other hand, from your technical analysis you seem to claim that Government is hiding behind this high-sounding ideal to control(micro-manage) the rest of the Media content and basically take back the gains of Free-press that is the hallmark of a free and democratic society (read- getting Kenya back to the KANU days of the 1990s...) I do know the regulations are already gazetted and therefore enforceable (by law) but I do wish we could get still get an "anti-thesis" from Government on this (without breaking the Secrecy act?). Better still, maybe Prof Waema may organize another Town Hall meeting (i do like that ;-) - this time with our Converged Regulator CCK doing the "anti-thesis presentation".... walu. -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet This message was sent to: [email protected] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jokilimo%40yahoo.com
jotham, don't quote me selectively and out of context to justify your preconceived views. elsewhere in my comments, i refer to the kind of consultations which the ministry has conducted and only point out the cause of the underlying fatigue. moreover the line you quote was in response to dr ndemo's post, in which he alleged that the media had declined his invitation to attend some discussions about the regulations. secondly, you are still flogging the dead horse; no one has said the minister does not have power under the act to issue such directions and regulations. that argument we lost in the initial stages when the bill was passed. but the fact of the fact the power to make such regulations is vested in the minister does not mean he does not consult. the minister or the ps is not a god, that is why every law is enacted with due consultations with those to whom it will apply (stakeholders and public) or published for public input before it is gazetted. consultation is implied in a democracy. your justification of the minister's fiat while clearly ignoring the media's input and the specific points or issues i raised about those regulations in my post, but still harping on the hackneyed issue of adult content, doesn't seem to add much value to this debate. david _______________ "If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." — Isaac Asimo, Columbian Author and Scientist _______________ PO Box 3234 00200 Nairobi, Kenya cell: +254 722 517 540 --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Jotham Kilimo Mwale <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Jotham Kilimo Mwale <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] New Regulations & the Media: Broadcasting Regulations To: [email protected] Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 1:58 AM I think the media wants the public to believe that the government is issuing regulations unilaterally. However, as Dr Ndemo pointed out, the media have previously snubbed meetings to discuss the regulations before they become law. Makali confirmed this by the following statement:
it has also been pointed out that there is an element of bad faith in the manner the ministry always proceeds, despite protestation. our meetings, submissions and petitions never seem to curry favour with the ministry, hence a sense of deja vu. the apparent reluctance of the media to engage sometimes with the ministry is borne out of the sense, rightly or not, that you have taken this as a personal cause/agenda to prosecute, and the public is only improvised as a pawn in the drive to hem and castrate the media.
In an opinion piece in today's Nation (http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/846842/-/5qd4jt/-/index.html) a media consultant points out that the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act which empowers the Minister for Information and Communication to make regulations does not require him to seek the approval of the industry; he only needs to consult CCK.
If this is true, it shows the government went out of its way, I believe in good faith, to seek the views of the media industry but the media, for the reasons stated by Makali above, refused the offer. They cannot, should not, cry foul now.
I would advice the media to repent their bad faith in government and adhere to the regulations, especially those concerning content by keeping 'adult content' off family times, if not off altogether. This will win back some public sympathy and probably get enough support to deal with the legitimate concerns they have with other sections of the regulations and the government.
Jotham K. Mwale
--- On Wed, 1/20/10, Rad! <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Rad! <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] New Regulations & the Media: Broadcasting Regulations To: [email protected] Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:20 AM
I think the point Makali is trying to make is that while indeed, there needs to be some regulation, a unilateral approach to it by government is a slippery slope to bigger problems down the road.
One needs to be reminded 'government' not only has its own interests, government is in fact made up with people who as human beings also have interests. Let us take for example Honourable Mwakwere who on record confessed to owning a pair of matatus. How then can he be seen to be making fair and unbiased decisions in the transport ministry to do with the matatus? Remember justice needs to not just be done, it needs to be seen to be done.
Let us take another example the occasional bungling in various ministries (ferries, school funds, AIDS funds,land allocations etc). Let's be candid -- It is in the government's best interests that such things do not come to light.
The media too has its own vested interests, and can, and indeed has been partisan on numerous occasions. So it is pretty clear that the media's ability to police itself meets with the same skepticism as the police force's ability to police itself and that of the government to police the media.
Perhaps there is a middle ground to be explored. Who exactly constitutes the Media council?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Walubengo J <[email protected]> wrote:
Makali,
I too have read thro your "thesis" and its not easy read but quite engaging. And just borrowing a journalistic cliche - "every story has two sides". From the government side we have heard the need to get rid of adult-content from our air-waves during Daytime/early evening and on that note I can tell you (without any scientific survey ;-) that the Public is fully in agreement. Indeed during my Dec holiday I did get subjected to an overload of such content during "family-hours" and it is high time it was stopped because obviously the media has failed to).
But on the other hand, from your technical analysis you seem to claim that Government is hiding behind this high-sounding ideal to control(micro-manage) the rest of the Media content and basically take back the gains of Free-press that is the hallmark of a free and democratic society (read- getting Kenya back to the KANU days of the 1990s...)
I do know the regulations are already gazetted and therefore enforceable (by law) but I do wish we could get still get an "anti-thesis" from Government on this (without breaking the Secrecy act?). Better still, maybe Prof Waema may organize another Town Hall meeting (i do like that ;-) - this time with our Converged Regulator CCK doing the "anti-thesis presentation"....
walu.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: [email protected] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jokilimo%40yahoo.com
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: [email protected] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
David, My point in quoting you was to show that whereas the government does invite media to give input (hence doing the right thing by consulting), the media have not been responding in good faith, perceiving every move to be 'draconian' and out to 'gag' them. This (gagging) is the lie peddled to the public to influence their opinion against the regulations and government, making the media look like the victim of unilateral government rules. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it will not work this time. regards, Jotham K. Mwale --- On Thu, 1/21/10, David Makali <[email protected]> wrote: From: David Makali <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] New Regulations & the Media: Broadcasting Regulations To: "Jotham Kilimo Mwale" <[email protected]> Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <[email protected]> Date: Thursday, January 21, 2010, 11:26 PM jotham, don't quote me selectively and out of context to justify your preconceived views. elsewhere in my comments, i refer to the kind of consultations which the ministry has conducted and only point out the cause of the underlying fatigue. moreover the line you quote was in response to dr ndemo's post, in which he alleged that the media had declined his invitation to attend some discussions about the regulations. secondly, you are still flogging the dead horse; no one has said the minister does not have power under the act to issue such directions and regulations. that argument we lost in the initial stages when the bill was passed. but the fact of the fact the power to make such regulations is vested in the minister does not mean he does not consult. the minister or the ps is not a god, that is why every law is enacted with due consultations with those to whom it will apply (stakeholders and public) or published for public input before it is gazetted. consultation is implied in a democracy. your justification of the minister's fiat while clearly ignoring the media's input and the specific points or issues i raised about those regulations in my post, but still harping on the hackneyed issue of adult content, doesn't seem to add much value to this debate. david _______________ "If my doctor told me I had only six minutes to live, I wouldn't brood. I'd type a little faster." — Isaac Asimo, Columbian Author and Scientist _______________ PO Box 3234 00200 Nairobi, Kenya cell: +254 722 517 540 --- On Fri, 1/22/10, Jotham Kilimo Mwale <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Jotham Kilimo Mwale <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] New Regulations & the Media: Broadcasting Regulations To: [email protected] Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <[email protected]> Date: Friday, January 22, 2010, 1:58 AM I think the media wants the public to believe that the government is issuing regulations unilaterally. However, as Dr Ndemo pointed out, the media have previously snubbed meetings to discuss the regulations before they become law. Makali confirmed this by the following statement:
it has also been pointed out that there is an element of bad faith in the manner the ministry always proceeds, despite protestation. our meetings, submissions and petitions never seem to curry favour with the ministry, hence a sense of deja vu. the apparent reluctance of the media to engage sometimes with the ministry is borne out of the sense, rightly or not, that you have taken this as a personal cause/agenda to prosecute, and the public is only improvised as a pawn in the drive to hem and castrate the media.
In an opinion piece in today's Nation (http://www.nation.co.ke/oped/Opinion/-/440808/846842/-/5qd4jt/-/index.html) a media consultant points out that the Kenya Communications (Amendment) Act which empowers the Minister for Information and Communication to make regulations does not require him to seek the approval of the industry; he only needs to consult CCK.
If this is true, it shows the government went out of its way, I believe in good faith, to seek the views of the media industry but the media, for the reasons stated by Makali above, refused the offer. They cannot, should not, cry foul now.
I would advice the media to repent their bad faith in government and adhere to the regulations, especially those concerning content by keeping 'adult content' off family times, if not off altogether. This will win back some public sympathy and probably get enough support to deal with the legitimate concerns they have with other sections of the regulations and the government.
Jotham K. Mwale
--- On Wed, 1/20/10, Rad! <[email protected]> wrote:
From: Rad! <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [kictanet] New Regulations & the Media: Broadcasting Regulations To: [email protected] Cc: "KICTAnet ICT Policy Discussions" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, January 20, 2010, 2:20 AM
I think the point Makali is trying to make is that while indeed, there needs to be some regulation, a unilateral approach to it by government is a slippery slope to bigger problems down the road.
One needs to be reminded 'government' not only has its own interests, government is in fact made up with people who as human beings also have interests. Let us take for example Honourable Mwakwere who on record confessed to owning a pair of matatus. How then can he be seen to be making fair and unbiased decisions in the transport ministry to do with the matatus? Remember justice needs to not just be done, it needs to be seen to be done.
Let us take another example the occasional bungling in various ministries (ferries, school funds, AIDS funds,land allocations etc). Let's be candid -- It is in the government's best interests that such things do not come to light.
The media too has its own vested interests, and can, and indeed has been partisan on numerous occasions. So it is pretty clear that the media's ability to police itself meets with the same skepticism as the police force's ability to police itself and that of the government to police the media.
Perhaps there is a middle ground to be explored. Who exactly constitutes the Media council?
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Walubengo J <[email protected]> wrote:
Makali,
I too have read thro your "thesis" and its not easy read but quite engaging. And just borrowing a journalistic cliche - "every story has two sides". From the government side we have heard the need to get rid of adult-content from our air-waves during Daytime/early evening and on that note I can tell you (without any scientific survey ;-) that the Public is fully in agreement. Indeed during my Dec holiday I did get subjected to an overload of such content during "family-hours" and it is high time it was stopped because obviously the media has failed to).
But on the other hand, from your technical analysis you seem to claim that Government is hiding behind this high-sounding ideal to control(micro-manage) the rest of the Media content and basically take back the gains of Free-press that is the hallmark of a free and democratic society (read- getting Kenya back to the KANU days of the 1990s...)
I do know the regulations are already gazetted and therefore enforceable (by law) but I do wish we could get still get an "anti-thesis" from Government on this (without breaking the Secrecy act?). Better still, maybe Prof Waema may organize another Town Hall meeting (i do like that ;-) - this time with our Converged Regulator CCK doing the "anti-thesis presentation"....
walu.
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: [email protected] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/jokilimo%40yahoo.com
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ kictanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/listinfo/kictanet
This message was sent to: [email protected] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://lists.kictanet.or.ke/mailman/options/kictanet/dmakali%40yahoo.com
participants (2)
-
David Makali -
Jotham Kilimo Mwale