Journalists should strive to be fair in coverage of campaigns

The Fourth Estate should treat all candidates fairly. [iStockphoto]

Early this month Deputy President William Ruto raised concerns about media bias and skewed coverage of presidential campaigns. He argued that some media are reporting in favour of Azimio la Umoja’s candidate Raila Odinga while vilifying his camp.

Expectedly, the implicated media houses termed the claims groundless. However, there is a reason why the media council of Kenya's CEO David Omwoyo, advises that the media must take the allegations of biased and skewed coverage of the candidates seriously.

Bias, which Collins dictionary describes as ‘a tendency to prefer one person or thing to another and to favour that person or something’, hurts both the specific media houses and the media industry in general. 

Assuming that Ruto's allegations have some truth, the Fourth Estate should treat all candidates fairly.

Additionally, the Kenya Editors Guild and the Media Owners Association should borrow a leaf from the Media Council of Kenya. They must pronounce themselves on the matter because they are the most affected should society shun mainstream media. There are a million reasons why it should not be business as usual when the Fourth Estate is accused of bias.

First, mass media trades perception and thus, understands the power of perception more than any other cultural institution. We live at a time when mainstream media is facing the competition of alternative media - where society can seek asylum. Since the mass and traditional media market is competitive, the Fourth Estate has many hurdles to jump for its survival. Dealing with perceptions of bias, favouritism and lack of objectivity should be their house rule.

Understandably, the media is caught between the financial 'rock' and the business closure on 'hard' grounds. They are boxed in normative regulations that check their content and programming to ensure fairness and objectivity.

Such laws raise red flags whenever the mainstream media hankers for profitable but sensational content reserved for the gutter press. However, they have no option; they must choose to serve the moderate society and endure or the consumers of gutter content and exit the mainstream media club.

Second, the world over, it’s challenging to separate the media and the owner's interests. Yet, if owners of media conglomerates will sustain, they must serve all and sundry fairly. There is danger in media indulging in open political partisanship because ‘there comes a Pharaoh who does not know Joseph’ one time.

Therefore, the Fourth Estate can decide to either listen to politicians or listen to the inner voice that tells them that the August elections will come and go. On this matter, the lips of politics and politicians are incredibly seductive and sweet; their soft words are oh so smooth...but it will not be long before they are gravel in the mouth, a pain in the gut, and a wound in the heart—thus is the unsolicited wisdom from Proverbs chapter five, verses three and four.

For instance, Raila, responding to his rival’s woes, already threw a sweet bait in the media’s way. He argued that as media, they have the freedom of expression to choose to praise or vilify a candidate. Never fall for such traps - Raila has complete freedom to politick, and so is Ruto. Nevertheless, for the Fourth Estate, there is no freedom of bias. There is no assurance of business after partiality.

Finally, who doesn’t know that media bias can produce results both ways? It can be used successfully to set an agenda favouring a preferred candidate. In this case, the partisan media must crash the other candidate so they won't rise to revenge - but can the Fourth Estate live up to this Machiavellian rule of tyrants? No!

On the other hand, media bias births sympathy for the denigrated candidate - no one will forget how it feels to be disparaged, fouled and denied their right of fair treatment.

-Dr Ndonye is a lecturer in the School of Music and Media at Kabarak University