Why choice of topics and guests is a tricky affair for TV hosts

The period leading to the August 8 General Election is likely to be interesting and problematic.

The media is expected to play a critical role in the provision of information as well as a platform for the articulation and discussion of ideas.

We have already started seeing the development of television programmes meant to offer opportunities for the interrogation of issues relating to politics, elections and democracy.

However, the choice of topics and guests can be challenging. It is particularly problematic when guests are difficult, insulting and clueless about the matters for which they have been invited to interrogate and discuss. What’s more, it is especially worrying when guests are unable and/or unwilling to observe decorum or good television etiquette.

Worrying trend

Recent cases illustrate the difficulties journalists or presenters and media houses face when handling certain guests. Last week’s Citizen TV’s Sunday Live interview with Nairobi Senator Mike Sonko is a case in point.

Sonko, as the interviewer Hussein Mohamed acknowledged, is a tough cookie although not because of his sophistication, rationality or good sense. He was clearly bigoted and some of his views unpalatable.

This brings us to another television programme, the NTV’s Sidebar. The station’s discussion of the 2017 President Uhuru Kenyatta’s State of the Nation address on March 15 was interesting and irritating. That the Sidebar (as indeed Citizen’s Sunday Live, and other programmes) is a good programme that offers panelists an opportunity to critically interrogate important issues is not in doubt. Because of the duration – the programme runs from 8pm through the evening news – it is expected that the panelists have sufficient time to discuss issues.

In that particular panel were Kisumu Senator Anyang’ Nyong’o, Kembi Gitura, the Deputy Senate Speaker, Millie Odhiambo and Nominated Senator Beatrice Ellachi. While Gitura and Nyong’o were calm and collected, and focused on issues, the two women legislators were sometimes uncouth for their inability to observe decorum and television etiquette.

Prof Nyong’o was understandably irritated by Larry Madowo (who presented the programme alongside Wallace Kantai) for his inability to focus on the issues for which they had been invited to the show. As he reminded Madowo, it is always important to focus on issues at hand, and in that context the President’s State of Nation address, and that other matters could be discussed in another session.

Some questions were clearly irrelevant in what should have been a serious programme.

Besides, this is often the folly and vanity of some serious television programmes in Kenya particularly when presenters and moderators are unable to control the panellists or interviewees perhaps because of lack of serious preparedness or their inability to comprehend issues under discussion.

Improper questions

It is also particularly annoying to the panellists when presenters or moderators keep cutting into panellists contributions to ask silly questions.

For it was important to discuss President Uhuru Kenyatta’s State of the Nation speech rather than taking time to discuss matters that were not on the menu.

In fact, while the segment was meant to discuss the President’s speech, it veered off to other matters including the President’s tantrums, who should scold or abuse who, and what right they have to tear into each other.

Good interviewers are often well prepared, and should be adept at managing discussants especially when weighty issues such as those contained in the President’s speech were the subject of discussion. Consequently, the discussions only touched on very few issues, and apart from Prof Nyong’o and Mr Gitura’s contributions, the women did not really add value to the programme.

Other than comic relief, they added little value to the discussions. Panelists should have been invited to the programme on the basis of their understanding, ability to analyse and discuss the President’s speech vis-à-vis the issues that the nation expected the President to discuss.

It is perhaps a serious indictment on the capacity of media houses and interviewers to take on serious issue without falling over themselves and thus being unable to offer direction and control the discussions.

Besides, it is important to be in control, to constantly remind panelist who seeks to bring in side issues to the programme that was meant to interrogate the contents of the President’s State of the Nation speech. In addition to the above observations, and while NTV can choose the venue of the discussions, it is difficult from a technical perspective to understand what informed the choice of Sarova Stanley.

First, there was a power outage that took the programme off air for a few minutes. Secondly, the quality of sound was often not good despite the fact that television stations or media houses have invested in the latest, state-of-the-art equipment.

In essence, the choice of venue, quality of sound and other technical matters should be considered seriously when preparing for any serious programme. Poor sound and picture quality often detract from the seriousness of any programme.

—The writer lectures at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Nairobi. george.nyabuga@gmail.com