Referendum: Media wars get fierce

There have been some fantastic television commercials for and against the Proposed Constitution. A number of them seem to have very little regard for the Code of Conduct and Practice of Journalism in Kenya. Top on that list is an advertisement by the “NO” team showing an unborn baby in the womb with the heart still beating indicating the fetus was alive. Then the camera moves to some living children responding to a symposium interview: one says the unborn child must not be killed because it has blood; the other says it must not be killed as it was indeed a living being. Then the camera moves to a written text saying: Protect life, vote “NO”.

Technically that is an ingenious advertisement. It emotionally moves people and probably has won the “NO” camp many votes. But ethically it is unprofessional. It gives the erroneous message that voting “YES” is supporting abortion when factually the Proposed Constitution says in Article 26 (1) every person has a right to life; and in Article 26 (2) says that the life of a person begins at conception; and in Article 26 (3) says a person shall not be deprived of life intentionally, except to the extent authorized by this Constitution or other written law.

Despite all that the Proposed Constitution clearly says in Article 26 (4) abortion is not permitted unless, in the opinion of a trained health professional, there is need for emergency treatment, or the life or health of the mother is in danger, or if permitted by any other written law. Publishing a horrifying picture of a fetus which ostensibly is about to be killed and then interviewing children pleading for sparing the life of the unborn child is contextually erroneous and therefore unethical. If it is unethical, it is, needless to say, also unprofessional and should not have been accepted by the media houses at whatever cost.

Probably the most controversial TV commercial about the referendum is the one showing the Minister for Higher Education, William Ruto, openly supporting the Draft Constitution. It depicts him saying it is a good document that can do a lot of good for the country. Soon after that the camera shows Ruto condemning the Proposed Constitution and then the camera moves to yet another William Ruto who is castigating hypocritical Members of Parliament who say one thing in the National Assembly and the complete opposite when they are outside the chamber.

From a propaganda point of view that is a fantastic commercial which makes Ruto appear to be the most hypocritical leader who says one thing at one time and the complete opposite at another. Whereas both the footages of William Ruto are basically correct, they are not professionally upright as they are not contextually correct and therefore they are factually wrong. The commercial does not say that the first footage showed William Ruto praising the Draft Constitution after it was thoroughly chopped and reshaped by Parliamentary Select Committee which included himself. The commercial is also professionally wrong because it fails to point out that what Ruto was praising and condemning were two different drafts of the Proposed Constitution at their two different stages of development.

The “NO” camp has correctly complained about the manipulation of films which show William Ruto doing things out of context. What was shown to the public was neither accurate nor fair to William Ruto and it goes against the very first professional ethical principle of accuracy and fairness which says that the fundamental objective of a journalist is to write a fair, accurate and an unbiased story on matters of public interest. The principle demands all sides of the story to be reported, wherever possible. It also says comments should be obtained from anyone who is mentioned in an unfavourable context.

The same part of the ethical principle says whenever it is recognized that an inaccurate, misleading or distorted story has been published or broadcast, it should be corrected promptly. It adds that corrections should present the correct information and should not restate the error except when clarity demands. Obviously the media houses that ran the Ruto commercial had totally disregarded this part of the Code of Conduct and Practice of Journalism in Kenya and the “NO” camp had every right to complain.

Apart from that, the Code prohibits the irresponsible manipulation of pictures which happened with the Ruto footage. The Code says as a general rule, the media should apply caution in the use of pictures and names and should avoid publication when there is a possibility of harming the persons concerned. Manipulation of pictures in a manner that distorts reality, says the Code, should be avoided.

Another captivating TV commercial for the “YES” camp shows the sad picture of Kenya during the post 2007 election clashes. Pictures of burning tires with the rowdy crowds of people carrying sticks and pangas have the immediate effect of terrifying the viewers who are immediately told to avoid similar situation by voting “YES”. Whereas there is an element of truth in the commercial that suggests voting “YES” actually closes all avenues leading to similar disturbances in future, the innuendo of the commercial is that those in the “NO” camp do not want peace. Determining whether or not to accept such an advertisement is an extremely hard professional nut to crack.

Supporters of the “YES” camp could argue that all the facts of the commercial are correct. Indeed the country went through a traumatic period of upsetting disturbances. They could further argue that all that the commercial does is to remind the voters of the dangers of rejecting the Proposed Constitution. Apart from the libelous innuendo of the commercial there are no strong professional reasons for rejecting it. With the defence of justification on their side media houses that run that ad could take a calculated risk of publishing it. It is a powerful commercial with an extremely scaring message.

Among the most imaginative commercials are to be found in the “YES” camp where there are creative heavyweights led by Salim Lone who is one of Kenya’s most ingenious media professionals . Under him yet another “YES” commercial starts with playing the national anthem when Kenya became independent. It shows the founding father, Jomo Kenyatta, participating in the first Uhuru celebration when Kenya’s flag was hoisted for the first time. The commercial then says that independence was short lived as Moi’s dictatorial regime took over. A sad picture of one of the freedom fighters, Mbuyu Koinange, kneeling before the all powerful Moi could make any nationalistic Kenyan shed tears.

The sad picture of Mbiyu’s kowtowing gesture is followed by the courageous verbal protest of the Rev. Timothy Njoya. The viewer can’t help admiring the bravery of the pastor who stood against Moi’s dictatorship. The picture however quickly changes as the announcer says Njoya’s courage was short lived. Then the most shocking episode of torture and cruelty is shown as the Rev. Timothy Njoya is repeatedly clobbered several time as he shouts for a none existent assistance. The heartbreaking disaster of the respected church leader’s misfortune comes to an abrupt end with a solemn declaration: Never again….Vote “YES”! An extremely powerful message that can hardly be professionally criticized as it is both competently proficient as it is ethically upright.

May be the most horrifying advertisement against the Proposed Constitution was published in the Sunday Standard of July 18 on page 13. The full page ad by the Kenya Land Owners and Land Users Association (KELA) proved beyond any reasonable doubt that foreigners have an axe to grind on matters concerning land in Kenya. Before the people of Kenya wanted to have a new constitution that would introduce true democracy and justice in this country very little was known about KELA. That KELA is an organization of foreign land owners with a token insignificant membership of natives was exposed on July 3, 2010 by Gitau Warigi in his Sunday Nation opinion column.

Kenyans must have been shocked by Warigi when he exposed KELA as an organization of foreigners who own huge tracts of land where the indigenous people have no rights what so ever. Kela’s ad in the Sunday Standard tried unsuccessfully to defend the ridiculous leasehold of 999 years against the wishes and well being of the true sons and daughters of Kenya. But the ad showed the war is on and the battlefield is in the media. Those who control the media have both moral and professional obligation to make sure the game is played on a level field. Only a thorough knowledge of the Code of Conduct and Practice of Journalism in Kenya can make that possible.