Media face tough task of letting go of the fear

In a fast-evolving world, the mass media is walking a tightrope, trying to maintain its foothold.

Over the past six years, print has seen a decline of 52 per cent in daily sales volumes, while online platforms have nearly tripled their reach due to what has become the ‘power of platforms.’  

The mystifying shift is not just about social media and changing consumer behaviour but also the irrevocable demographic transition. Regardless, the traditional media remains critical.

Amid State and media run-ins sparked by Gen-Z demos that saw journalists hold street protests on Wednesday, it’s now urgent to heed calls for Kenya’s newsrooms to begin taking a firm unified stand on important but contentious national issues.

Neutrality in journalism must be allowed to die a natural death. Drawing from America’s case, news section and opinion (Op-Ed) desk are independent. In most US newsrooms, these two departments are self-regulating, like the left hand that doesn’t know what the right does.  

This separation oftentimes results in contradictory standpoints. Because a newspaper, with news and opinions in it, is published under a single masthead, and a TV or radio bulletin aired as a single programme, it may sound illogical to claim that editorial and Op-Ed sides are distinct.

Critics describe this separation as a procedural mockery but they also concede that when decisions on opinions and editorials are made without caring what’s in the news, public interest wins. This explain why political endorsements by US and British media’s OpEd sections have become an acceptable practice over the years.

Indeed, it’s true that when a media house takes a stand on a matter, it may risk losing its perceived impartiality. Its independence could also be questioned. For instance, ‘CNN’, ‘New York Times’ and ‘Washington Post’ faced criticism for opposing candidate Donald Trump in 2020. On the other hand, ‘Fox News’ ratings reached new highs for backing Trump.

More recently in the UK, ‘The Sun’ and ‘The Sunday Times’ backed Labour’s Sir Keir Starmer with editorials written urging citizens to vote him, sparking debate about bias. Still, US and UK audience ever more look up to the media to make choices at the ballot or know if a certain decision or legislation is good or bad for them. They report, interpret then take a stand.

In their own liberty also, western media are heavily opinionating news, and it augurs well for the quest to tell stories beyond the ‘he said-she said’ model. Their freedom with headlines is also striking. After US President Joe Biden dropped off the campaigns and referring to Trump’s July 13 assassination attempt, ‘The New European’ wrote that ‘The bullet hit Trump but killed Biden.’   

Big question: What should the media do to protect public interest when a country’s problems stem from bad decisions and an ill-informed citizenry? The answer is relevant for all Kenya’s media houses, which I challenge to start taking common positions on critical discourses.  

The Fourth Estate has special powers bestowed by the people. Just as it sets the agenda, it can protect public interest by stating its stand on issues like public debt and corruption. This doesn’t mean forsaking fairness and objectivity. It’s unified bold speak, not pro-media demos organised by impotent industry unions, that will saccour the industry. Let the media use its powers well.

A mutual force of public opinion and media can influence decision-making in transformative ways. Some people call it media advocacy. During the 2007 poll chaos, the media united under the headline ‘stop the madness.’ Last week, two papers ran editorials calling for sobriety. ‘The Standard’ even predicted Cabinet sackings with the headline ‘Last supper.’

NTV’s ‘Memo’ and ‘The gang’ at Citizen are good signs of emerging bold speak. Let go of the fear. We’ll benefit by defending truth. When the media rightfully plays an overseer role, subscriptions, ratings and clicks definitely go upward.