BY FRANCIS ILAHAKA
The Broadcast Media
kENYA
media is ones on the spot ahead of next month general election suspected to be
one of the most expensive in the last 50 years
Media
on spot is not new topic in Kenya but the problem that majority of as has short
memory scholarly poverty of memory because media war in Kenya can be traced in
Kenya since 1900.
According
to historical file British government
used media to silent Africa by applying colonial journalism normally practiced
by Reuters
The
first war of media in Kenya is recorded in 1902 when colonial government used
Colonial Times and the Leader to attack both Asians and Africa not only that
they used media to fight Africa business, forcing Alibhahi Mulha Jeevanjee to
start East Africa Starndard currently the Standard with the major objective of
promoting both Africans and Asians business.
Not only that during colonial time local
politicians like the late Mzee Jomo Kenya was a journalist who later becomes
the first Kenyan to publish abook Facing Mount Kenya, Achieng Oneko was also a
journalist.
After Uhuru Kenyatta used media to develop Kenya and that is why KNA and paper
like Kenya Today and Kenya Yetu were launched.
In
1983 KANU under Moi launched Kenya Times
and propaganda which iworked for as a young journalist
In 90s politicians Matiba launched the People
as opposition paper followed by other tribal publication with the major
objective of removing KANU from power.
In the first few days there hard been cases of
politicians attacking media for being against some coalition, the attack was
leda by CORD Otieno Kajwanga while
commenting on nomination of shame.
Last week some of Royal media FM station were shut down by the
government for not following law,
For historians it is not for the first time
for the government to take action against Macharia media empire KANU regime under Moi police stormed into the
station and destroyed some equipment, not only that political magazine were
also attacked.
This means that Kenya media normally changed
during election period with scholars
claiming that majority of Kenya journalist especially presenters are poorly
trained.
Following
in how media reported on 1992 general election the historical background which
every serious Kenyans and politicians including journalist should read
Kenya had two broadcast media houses. The Kenya
Television Network (KTN) is a private media house which by then provides only
television (TV) broadcasts of programmers from both Cable News Network (CNN)
and other sources. Its audience coverage was very low for two reasons: very few
Kenyans own TV sets (a systematic weakness which KTN shares with KBC); and KTN
broadcasts have a geographical range that waslargely limited to Nairobi and its
environs. Also a number of households with TV sets do not tune into the KTN
frequency for one reason or another.
The Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) is a
public-funded state corporation with both TV and radio broadcasts. The latter
are in both Kiswahili and English, and various Kenyan languages.
Monitoring of the broadcast by the two houses indicate
a very high level of bias in favour of KANU. According to monitoring reports
covering five days in October 1992 (22nd to 26th), KTN broadcasts demonstrated
a one-to-four bias against the opposition parties and in favour of KANU; for
every one report of opposition activities, there were four of KANU activities.
Besides, the quality of information and footage reflected a more positive
attitude towards KANU. For example, opposition stories were mostly reader ones,
whereas KANU stories also depicted actual footage, irrespective of their
geographical origin. In another example, actual footage showing an estimated
crowd of thousands of supporters attending a FORD-K rally was described as
showing hundreds, creating the impression that the party was less popular. And
the station very often broadcast KANU press conferences denouncing the
opposition.
The public-owned KBC was even more biased in favour of
KANU in its reporting of events taking place throughout the country. In
general, both TV and radio stations loudly and persistently broadcast news,
events and reports to KANU's advantage. The stations engaged in open and blatant
campaigns in favour of KANU, thus becoming some of KANU's major campaign fora.
Presidential functions and activities of KANU groups and personalities were
covered live and extensively. In total, the broadcasts portrayed KANU as a
formidable party, a people's party which had achieved unprecedented success in
all aspects of the socio-economic life of Kenyans, and which had in President
Moi an immortal and indispensable leader.
Comparatively, opposition parties and leaders were
portrayed as tribal, trivial, and of little substance that could be of use to
Kenyans. Squabbles were highlighted, and statements made by the opposition
given meanings which were patently negative. Opposition rallies were either
attended by a small number of people, or were marked by unruly behavior and
even violence according to these broadcasts.
Monitoring done in August, September and October 1992
indicated a very strong pro-KANU bias. The monitoring reports showed that KBC:
•
allocated
disproportionately much more time for reporting-political news and information
relating to KANU than any other political party;
•
at
times allocated much more air-time to KANU than to all the opposition parties
combined;
•
concentrated on favourable
news and information with respect to KANU, and highlighted news and information
which tended to put opposition parties in an unfavourable light;
•
was
unable or unwilling to discriminate, between news and information concerning
events and functions involving the President in his dual capacity as head of
state and as head of KANU; thus, KANU functions were given prominence as state
functions, with commensurate air-time;
•
attached
slanted and biased meanings to news and information involving opposition
parties and figures, depriving the audience of the opportunity to make a
balanced judgement, and, consequently, portraying KANU in a very positive
light.
In specific terms, during
one of the periods of review (August, 1992), 100% of the air-time for reports
on KANU was used to broadcast news and information favourable to KANU and its
officials.
Similar air-time for reports on FORD dwelt on news and
information unfavourable to the party and its officials. No air-time was
allocated to news or information relating to DP, KENDA, SDP, or other political
parties, in the form of either programmes or activities. During the second of
the periods (October, 1992) KBC news carried no items/reports of any kind on
either medium on the opposition parties or their activities. This is so despite
the fact that the opposition held various rallies in various •parts of the
country, some legal, others without authorization by the administration. On
the other hand, the ten (10) minute radio and fifteen (15) minute TV newscasts
averaged five KANU/Moi election items, all positive in tone and content.
The opposition parties and
leaders did not accept these double standards and biases portrayed by, especially,
the KBC, since it is a public-funded corporation which is expected to be
impartial and fair to all political parties. They argued that partiality on the
part of the KBC was an abuse of public funds and the trust bestowed on it.
The opposition protested to the Electoral Commission
regarding this issue. But the Commission's promises bore little fruit, as KBC
continued with its bias undeterred. A case was filed by FORD-K seeking a court
order to force KBC to be impartial, but this was thrown out on a technicality.
The only obvious instances when KBC heeded public/informed opinion and the
legal advice of the Commission were when it changed the signature tune for
radio news,-and when it abstained from airing campaign material on the actual
polling day.
The impact of all this on the elections can only be
properly understood when one considers the fact that the KBC radio service
covers virtually the entire country.
It depended upon for news and general information by the
majority, of the people who have no access to TV and
the print media; many of these people are illiterate, and some of them are
politically unaware. The power of persuasion of this media is,, therefore,
tremendous. It is the effects of the exercise of this power which KANU
enjoyed. There is no doubt that KANU had immense advantage over the other
(opposition) parties arising from this power. Although the DP and FORD-K used
the KBC to broadcast paid advertisements, this could hardly even begin to
reverse the impact created by the "free broadcast" services accorded
KANU, not to mention the fact that KANU itself placed similar but more
elaborate advertisements. We have no doubt that this state of affairs regarding
the campaigning adversely affected the elections. (Appendix 9 analyses public
media coverage of political party activities.)
The Print Media
At that moment there was no publicly-owned print media
house. The most prominent locally-published newspapers were the Nation (owned
by the Aga Khan), the Standard
(owned by the Lonrho group) and the
Kenya Times (which was Kanu-owned).
The Nation and
Kenya Times have sister dailies in Kiswahili under the names of Taifa Leo and
Kenya Leo which iworked for as
music and sports writer before becoming sallamu za wasomaji editor, respectively. Besides these, there-were a number of
privately-owned periodic magazines, including Finance, Society, Weekly Review and Nairobi
Law Monthly.
During the period of review,
press coverage mainly concentrated on the presidential and parliamentary
elections. Civic elections were largely ignored, or given treatment only
obliquely when focusing on the other two.
Coverage in the press was
impressively extensive. This was expected. After all, apart from the so-called
"tribal clashes" and the state of the economy, perhaps nothing else
held the attention of Kenyans more than the elections as'a whole. The extent of
this coverage can be gauged by taking an example of one day a week before the
elections. On this day, the Nation
had approximately 459 inches of
head news, photographs and letters, and over four (4) pages of related
advertising. The Kenya Times had approximately 345 column inches of headline news
and photos, one page listing candidates, just over two pages of advertising,
and a four (4) page "Kanu Briefs" supplement. The Standard had
443 column inches of headline news, photographs and letters, and nearly four
(4) pages of related advertising.
Overall, there was a clear bias
towards KANU on the part of the Kenya
Times. Its reports on the
opposition activities were generally negative: it highlighted events in the
opposition camps, and, sometimes, even distorted the same. For example, on the
day mentioned above, its lead story screamed the headline "DP men beat chief to death", claiming that three DP youth-wingers were responsible
for killing a chief in an incident that took place the day after a DP rally.
The Nation had the story on its third page' under the headline: "Irate villagers kill chief, stab 2 in vicious
attack".
The Kenya Times sister,
paper had eight (8) out of its sixteen (16) pages given to a Kiswahili version
of the previous Saturday's "KANU briefs". It also had a supplement on
the life of President Moi and two (2) pages of the Kiswahili version of KANU
advertisements. Taifa Leo, the Nation
counterpart, devoted about 442
column inches to stories, letters, an article and picture on the elections,
with a general spread-focus on the political parties. There were three (3)
pages of election related advertisements. Its lead story concerned the call by
the Catholic priests to the opposition not to boycott the elections.
The story on the chief was given similar treatment as
in the Afar/on, but was on the back page.
A general monitoring survey indicated that although
the Nation gave comparatively more space to election news, the
loyalties of the Kenya Times and its sister paper were in no doubt; they were KANU
campaign machines. This was to be expected, since the papers belong to the
party.
As indicated earlier, only the "big four"
were'able to take advantage of paid advertisements in the print media. There
was fairly heavy advertisement on the part of KANU (especially), DP and
FORD-A, and comparatively less of FORD-K. None of the other parties took
space. Obviously, the issues of finances and affordability are pertinent.
Judging by the number of advertisements, style and space occupied by the
advertisements, KANU must have had inordinately heavy resources. Indeed, it
seemed, so did its supporters, individuals as well as groups. The issue of
financial ability cannot be considered as an individual party's or person's
affair in a national electoral process. The bias here would be obvious. The
elections would be freer and fairer if the resources, including state/public
ones, available to KANU were equally available to the opposition. The bias in
the resource-base was, in our view, a serious indictment of the electoral
process.
Thus, as compared to other parties, KANU seemed to
enjoy unlimited resources, giving rise to a comparative abundance of
advertisements in the electronic and print mass media, in the use of posters,
and even in the use of novel indelible graffiti! This was in addition to the
free and extensive coverage it enjoyed in its papers.
The major objective of this researched piece is to
give Kenyans background of local media since 1900 when media was tool for power
which colonial used to silent’s African
and Africans later used to fight colonial regime
For those who knows history of media in Kenya will
agree with me that war against the state and journalist in not new in Kenya
during election period eg the owner of Clourprint is the victim of attack since
colonial time
During this general election more is going to happen
because politicians own Kenya media and more is going to happen before March 4th
FRANCIS ILAHAKA IS CULTURAL WRITER CURRENTLY WORKING
ON ABOOK MAKING OF KENYA PRESIDENCY FROM KENYATTA TO MWAI KIBAKI
francisilahakai@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment