David, The top level meetings apparently yielded some results. Apart from the Minister, it would be interesting to see how the legislators who were consulted voted or if they even attended the session. The efforts with the parliamentary committee did not go to waste, Hon. Rege did attempt to introduce amendments based on the meetings, but it has been reported that only 25 MPs were present. The media could have done better in lobbying MPs to be present for the vote. Had the media managed to locate 30 legislators in favour of the amendments and ensured they attended the proceedings, the matter would not be in its current state. I think it would be quite reasonable if the media accepted to have a compromise on the issues. It would not be right for the media to declare that it is for 'all or nothing at all', it would be selfish and self serving to deny the public of the bill's greater benefits by failing to compromise. The controversial clause has been present for many years now, if someone wanted to lynch the media, they would not need the new bill to do so. At the same time is the media aware of an event that will certainly occur that could be termed a national emergency resulting in 'raids'? Does the media have something up its sleeve that it is not keen to reveal publicly? I believe the answer to both of these questions is no. The media has nothing to worry about if it self regulates and exercises good judgement. The media has had many opportunities to self regulate, but some content that is broadcast or published is appalling, inappropriate and is certainly a factor that had led many to believe that the media needs hand holding. Sensationalism is not a prerequisite for good journalism, neither do newspapers need to turn into tabloid publications in order to sell. Professional and objective journalism will always sell itself without having to stoop low. As the saying goes, chema chajiuza, kibaya chajitembeza. The media might be surprised to find that favour can be found by approaching the issue in a positive rather than in a doom and gloom manner. The media/activists are reported to have spent Ksh 2m to advertise a 'prayer meeting' this past weekend. Wouldn't the media have done well to use such resources to educate the public positively and not engage in what borders on incitement? It is not necessary to label everything 'bad'. For example, why not publish or explain, what clause 88 is, its history, what is means for the industry and offer a number of alternative scenarios and recommendations on what should be done. A good example would be how commercial concerns express their views in opposition to legislative proposals without appearing to be antagonistic, given the focus of this forum, an ICT example would fit in well: http://www.ebaymainstreet.com/federal/net-neutrality/ The failure to recommend or offer suggestions as to what should be done does not help the media's case. If the President does not sign the bill, he will have to send the bill back to Parliament with a memorandum, how are the public, legislators and concerned parties supposed to know what the media would like the memorandum and bill to contain? By embracing the positive aspects of the bill, the media is likely to find allies in both the public and private sectors willing to support their position. When businesses, banks, investors are turned off by the media's approach of 'killing' the entire bill and wading in dangerous territory, the media is bound to seen as a villain of the very parties it relies on for some of its revenue. It is not an extraordinary effort for the media to seek out 50 MPs even 100 or more if need be, some of whom may not have read the bill, put forward the media's case while also advocating the same for the memorandum. A little more restrategizing and reorganisation on this could accomplish a lot more than engaging in uncivil disruptions. Diplomacy is never dead, it can fail, but it can also be revived. There is an opening for a revival to take place if the media seizes the opportunity. On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 1:35 PM, <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:

Theuri Very well put. The media has certainly not handled the aftermath well but I see it as a reaction to the failure of diplomacy. To be fair, the media did quite a bit of that. Top level meetings were held one after another with pogisho, ndemo, kalonzo, karua, raila, and twice with rege and his parl committee. That's quite an effort. Truth is, at this pt, better the bill fell apart, regrettably to the detriment of the ict components, and we have the sect 88 intact, than pass a new law with all those flaws and inherent danger. Some1 is waiting to latch on to that law soon as its assented, to lynch the media. Yet I totally appreciate we need some urgent regulation of the broadcast sector. But not such crass controls as the bill provides. The trouble is that the media can't dedicate too much time to the good parts because, well, that won't help to cure the bad! And our suggestion was to drop the broadcast parts and have the ict and comm parts sail but ministry people don't want that! They want to force it through and the mps who have been swearing to tame the media even didn't want to consider the minor changes the committee and ministry had proposed. That's malice aforethought. That's why this has turned into a free for all betwn supporters and opponents of the media. Am inclined to think this is a battle the media shouldn't lose in the interest of our democracy and civil liberties. David

Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device

------------------------------ *From*: "Mike Theuri" *Date*: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:19:01 -0600 *To*: <dmakali@yahoo.com>

*Subject*: Re: [kictanet] [ke-internetusers] Kenya communications (amendment)Bill: Is media overacting? David,

What happens if the media campaign succeeds, the bill is not signed and Parliament fails to override thus killing the bill? Section 88 will remain where it is and neither the media nor the public will have gained.

The media could gain some traction by objectively covering the bill in its entirety. The media could do well to inform readers of what's new, what's positive and what's negative. A well reasoned approach would reveal for instance concerns revolving around the appointment of officials to the commission or positives such as the bill's approach to e-crimes. The media's approach needs to embrace diplomacy and be willing to engage in compromise. For instance instead of calling for the deletion of section 88, the media could seek common ground and offer among its alternative suggestions to deletion, provisions that prevent abuse of section 88.

While the media did not mobilise the masses, the media appears to be engaged in what could end up inciting those who have already "self mobilised" or are united as a result of food insecurity and related economic issues. The media and the public stand to gain nothing by taking advantage to fuel a volatile situation.

The media already has painted a bad image of itself, through the actions of a few. It is likely that the chief executives of media establishments could have sought audience with the President and/or the PM to discuss their concerns and made more traction in getting the bill sent back to Parliament than have individuals engage in disruptions and heckling. A rational approach has a better chance of succeeding than an antagonistic one. The media hopefully has that in mind as they plan their next move.

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:37 AM, <dmakali@yahoo.com> wrote:

...

That's not true. You have obviously exaggerated in trying to put across your cheap propaganda. Ndemo was on k24 this morning and he was of course not opposing the bill. Plus, you should ask yourself, who has come out to support the bill and not been given airtime. Yes, the media is campaigning, but it has not yet agreed or employed any of the strategies you have listed. Their time is coming. And we don't need to go to previous regimes to show brutal attacks against the media. The worst have taken place under the current regime! You have more to be grateful than disgusted with the media. Be just a little more reflective and considerate otherwise your diabolical hatred of the media lacks foundation. David Sent from my BlackBerry(R) wireless device