When gate-keepers fail, their media houses lose credibility

NAIROBI: The major difference between online and offline media is that the former is interactive and thus attractive to (inter)active audiences keen to comment on or participate in conversations about content.

Accordingly, newspapers (and other media) in Kenya now have interactive online platforms where readers can critically interact with content and other readers/users, and demonstrate their ability to reason and participate in rational and meaningful discussions.

However, the ‘open’ and ‘free’ spaces are increasingly becoming sites for hate speech, opprobrium and bigotry. Thus, it is no secret that some of the contributions are notoriously uninformed, uncivil and vituperative and accordingly off-putting to those looking for meaningful engagements and dialogues.

Granted, used well, the platforms can be important democratic sites and spaces for sharing views and ideas and aggregating opinions about issues that affect society. Besides, the comments can be vital feedback on the quality of arguments as well as the the (un)popularity and usefulness of opinions and information in the articles.

What’s more, readers look forward to comments because some offer useful and different perspectives, and thus enhance and enrich the comprehension of issues. This is of course when readers and contributors are rational, knowledgeable and civil and tolerate even views that they may not necessary agree with.

Indeed, as media scholars, for example Joyce Nip and others suggest, the space gives “people a voice and therefore power...The people’s participation itself and what they produce are regarded with the hope to contribute to an informed citizenry”.

Some media houses have employed moderators to ensure that defamatory, unsubstantiated and unacceptable comments are deleted or not published. However, the struggle between control or moderation and freedom in such online spaces is becoming conspicuous particularly in an era when freedom of expression is cherished as a fundamental human right.

Defamatory statements

Granted, it is an oft-accepted view that freedom of expression is never absolute and that boundaries should be set and respected. And those boundaries are often clear in comment policies. The Standard’s comment policy states, under the ‘No libel or other abuse’ requirement, that contributors “must not make or encourage comments which are: defamatory, false or misleading; insulting, threatening or abusive; obscene or of a sexual nature; offensive, racist, sexist, homophobic or discriminatory against any religions or other groups’.

The Star’s policy indicates that ‘unwarranted personal abuse and defamatory statements will be deleted; strong personal criticism is acceptable if justified by facts and arguments; and, deviation from points of discussion may lead to deletion of comments.’

Irrespective of these warnings, the sites often have comments that are unacceptable, defamatory, offensive, abusive and obscene. This rubbishes the policies, and demonstrates the inability to moderate discussions and make them meaningful and the space a platform where people can engage rationally.

The Nation did away with user comment below their stories because they could perhaps not afford to moderate reader commentary or postings. Peter Mwaura, the Nation’s Public Editor argued that many readers and potential commentators are “withdrawing from the comment platform because some members of the community engage in toxic comments, insults, off-topic personal attacks”.

There are notorious commenters who do not care about their writings knowing that the Internet will perhaps protect their identities and make it difficult for them to be held accountable. It is clear that they cannot repeat their statements in offline discussions or spaces.

Hiding behind pseudo-names

For example, the story in The Star about Uhuru Kenyatta’s education at Amherst College in the U.S headlined “Curious’ Kenyans task Amherst College to clarify Uhuru’s degree status’. It was hugely ‘popular’ based on the number of comments. By Friday morning, it had more than 440 comments. Ideally, the number of comments should show the level of interest in, and popularity of the story. And that story was anything but.

Some of the comments are clearly unpalatable, offensive and defamatory, and violate the paper’s policy. Comments by people going by such names as Baaaaaaba, Jaluo mjinga, Mbiyu wa Mgambo, and Indiazi demonstrate their incapacity to either respect the policies or post meaningful comments.

Those names alone show that they are hiding behind pseudo-names because they do not want to be held accountable. The baneful consequences of trolling, opprobrium and making defamatory comments can be devastating not only to the subject and victim but also to the credibility of the publication.

Accordingly, as the The Star has failed to moderate the platform, it should perhaps prepare for the consequences. As indicated above, defamatory, scandalous, offensive and unpalatable comments/commentaries even in an era of freedom of expression is unacceptable, and serious media houses know that the forum, however popular in the short term, would be perilous not only to their long-term credibility and reputation, but also bottom line.

The writer lectures at the School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Nairobi.