With the general election
in Kenya just a few days away, and local journalist already facing charges at
the International Criminal Court in The Hague over the 2007/08 post election
violence, the place of conflict sensitive journalism in the country appears to
be critical more than ever before.
Each
day, journalists both in print and electronic mainstream media are grappling
with the question on whether it is indeed their role to promote peace in the
country. They are each day wrestling with the question on whether it is indeed
their role to give out a “black out” to inciting statements being churned out
every day by mainly political leaders both at national and grassroots level.
The journalists, in the comfort of their newsrooms or while in the field are each
day grappling with the question on exactly what constitute “inciting statement”
or what constitute “hate speech”.
They
are each day concerned whether it is indeed their role to “gate keep” and
ensure only what cannot cause conflict in the society is published or aired.
They are each day haggling on whether they should stick to the journalistic
rules that media is the mirror of the society and what is published or aired is
indeed a mere reflection of what is happening in the society whether good or
bad.
I
posed several questions to a few journalists in the Kenya’s mainstream media on
some of these issues. Do you think it is your role as a journalist to promote
peace in the country? Do you think it is your role as a journalist to report in
such a way that you promote peace and not violence? And if yes, how can you do
that?
In
response, a veteran political journalist, Mr. Walter Menya who has worked for
Daily Nation for a considerable number of years and who now works for the Star
Newspaper stated that one needs to look at the legal provisions regulating
media that prohibit publishing material that could cause hatred among
individuals or groups of individuals. He added that in particular, The National
Cohesion and Integration Act of 2008 as well as the Communication Act of Kenya
require that journalists promote peace in their reporting.
“It
is the duty and responsibility of a journalist, therefore to promote peace all
the time. However, in doing so, it is ethically wrong to 'kill' stories based
on our individual and idiosyncratic value-judgment,” Menya opined.
Mr.
Yusuf Juma, a journalist at Radio Jambo, one of the leading Swahili stations in
the country, on his part stated that reporting facts and doing so
responsibly is a cardinal role for a journalist.
“I
don't know if that entails promoting peace, but what if there's
violence in a certain area, are you supposed to hide that in the name of
promoting peace? But reporting on it with a measure of responsibility and here
I mean fairness, objectivity and reason is important,” stated Juma.
Alphonce
Shiundu, a political writer with the Daily Nation when asked if he considered
it his role as a
journalist to promote peace had this to say: “Yes!
I do have a moral compass. The thing is I do what I do because I believe we
need a better way of life. My obligation is to the citizen. The citizen has to
know that it is in his interest to live in peace. My role is to give reliable,
truthful information, to help that state of tranquility to persist. Nobody
likes violence in their backyard. It all looks cool running all over war zones
and other conflict zones donning this tough-guy jungle shirt, with a
bullet-proof vest and looking oh-so-tough. But when that violence is in your
backyard, and your family, friends and everyone you know is threatened, it
stops being a job.”
From
these comments, one can deduce a fact that the media can be a source of
antagonism and an instigator of conflict rather than a source for peace. It has potential to create “us versus them”
mentality among the respective populations, to the point of inventing crimes
and fuelling atrocities.
In
addition to fanning the flames of ethnic tensions, the media can be guilty of
obstructing peacemaking efforts by failing to objectively present views of the
minority. Hitler
used the media to create an entire worldview of hatred for Jews, homosexuals,
and other minority groups. Rwanda’s Radio
Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM)
urged listeners to pick up machetes and take to the streets to kill what they
called ‘the cockroaches.’
Broadcasters in the Balkans polarized local communities to the
point where violence became an acceptable tool for addressing grievances between
Serbs and Croats in former Yugoslavia.
Locally,
at no other forum has the media been indicted so strongly in its role in
conflict as was the case before the Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence (CIPEV)
which is commonly referred to as the Waki commission and which investigated the
2007/2008 violence.
The
report documents that many witnesses “recalled with horror, fear, and disgust
the negative and inflammatory role of vernacular radio stations in their
testimony and statements to the Commission.”
The
witnesses indicted journalists for “having contributed to a climate of hate,
negative ethnicity, and having incited violence.”
To
the government, and going by the testimony of the Information and Communication
Permanent Secretary Bitange Ndemo, there was absence of a new regulatory and
legislative framework, leading to something of an uncontrolled free for all.
According
to the PS, some media took advantage of this lacuna and began to “operate
freely and sometimes recklessly and irresponsibly,” including using individuals
who were not trained journalists, who were partisan, and sometimes were
politically biased.
I
posed the same question to practicing journalists and who indeed covered the
events leading to the violence as well as the aftermath and sought to know if
they think the media let down Kenya in 2007 and 2008.
An
editor in one of the leading media houses and who did not wish to me named had
this to say: “If I was Philip Ochieng, I
would do a revision of the book 'I accuse the Press' to incorporate the
failures of the Kenyan media in 2007. Every media house in Kenya worth writing
about invested heavily in the 2007 elections, including paying correspondents
up to Sh20, 000 to report results in real time from tallying centres. That
investment however bore nothing as no media exhibited the muscle to stand up
and be counted. Secondly, certain journalists became mouthpieces of various
politicians and political parties, spewing out the garbage that they were
handed in press releases. Same journalists also 'glorified' opinion polls
without asking the very basic questions that any journalist worth the
designation ought to have asked.”
To Yusuf Juma, the
radio journalist, “the media partly let
down Kenyans during that period (2007/2008). In as much as facts were
reported, there was no objectivity, some news items, both in print and electronic
bordered on incitement. Our nuances and attitudes crept into the tone of
our stories and the manner of reporting. The Rules of professional
Journalism were violated and that's the yard stick of gauging our
performance during that time.”
But
the most interesting comment came from Shiundu, the Daily Nation journalist. “There was exceptionally good journalism, and there was
pathetically horrendous journalism. Mistakes happened. How else do you explain
the perception all over the country that some media houses were allied to some
politicians? Perceptions of bias are hard to beat at election time. And so it
was during the conflict. Every word is scrutinized, even the angle, no matter
how newsworthy it is, is questioned. From a professional standpoint, the media
did not fabricate the stories. It was a depiction of what was going on, on the
ground, so, really, were we supposed to black it out just because it was gory?”
From
these comments from practicing journalists, who all covered the events of 2007
and 2008 in the country, it is clear there is a nexus between media and conflict, hence the
need for conflict sensitive journalism.
Clearly,
while a considerable amount of
analysis has focused on the media’s potential to support democracy efforts and
build sustainable peace, no similar effort has been given to analyze the role
media can play in conflict prevention. Nor has the media’s capacity to incite
conflict been sufficiently analyzed and the lessons learned.
As
a practicing journalist, who also covered the post election violence, I believe
there is need for journalists to be empowered on how they are supposed to
determine the kind of attention in the course of their work they ought to give
to a given conflict whichever stage that conflict is at.
My
own experience is that in any conflict, irrespective of the stage, the parties
involved put efforts to “spin” stories in certain way to favour their side and
advance their goals and interests. Some of these interests may indeed be geared
towards fuelling conflict and exacerbating atrocities to overpower the
opponents.
With
proper training and continuous retraining, and focus being conflict sensitive
journalism, the journalists can easily pick on these “spins” and know how to
deal with them in order deflate conflict triggers and turn them into peace and
reconciliation drivers.
With proper training on conflict
sensitive journalism, journalists, without compromising their work, can contribute to peace and reconciliation merely by restoring
levels of trust and self-worth in a population on the brink of or emerging from
violence.
Further, journalists have the potential to influence governments, international and
local organizations and drive them towards promoting peace and reconciliation
in a society. But this cannot happen when the journalists themselves are
unaware of the need for conflict sensitive journalism.
Clearly,
in training the media practitioners on conflict sensitive journalism, emphasies
also ought to be on areas such as what hate speech is and how dangerous it is
to advance hatespeech in the media. This is one term whose meaning remains
contentious in virtually all newsrooms.
The Media Council, whose
responsibilities include investigating complaints against the media, describes
hate speech as language “that might incite violence or cause social turmoil.”
The National Cohesion and
Integration Act of 2008 defines it as words “intended to incite feelings of
contempt, hatred, hostility, violence, [or] discrimination against any person,
group or community on the basis of ethnicity or race.” But these remain mere
definitions which may not help much unless they are clearly understood by the
media practitioners.
In April 2012, The Media Council
of Kenya launched guidelines for journalist while covering the general election
with an aim of trying to stop a repeat of the events of 2007.
The council said the guidelines
are aimed at helping journalists provide comprehensive, accurate, impartial,
balanced and fair coverage of the elections.
The council added that this will
help the voter to make informed choices.
The council made it clear that the guidelines will apply to all media
houses - whether private or state owned – as well as the authorities involved
in or policing the process and that have voluntarily adopted them.
Among the issues that journalists
are required to uphold are avoiding corruption as it affects journalists,
reporting in a balanced and fair manner, ensuring gender balance, diversity of
voice and ensuring equitable coverage.
The guidelines are also strict on
social media and stated, “Social media is continuing to play a major role in
journalism and will be an important future in election coverage. However, the
same core principles of journalism as practiced in traditional media should
apply to social media journalism.”
The guidelines also request
individual media houses to come up with specific social media policies for
their journalists. The guidelines want individual journalist to think carefully
before posting anything on Twitter or Facebook saying that they will still be
identified by individual media houses.
Clearly, this is a positive step,
but rules and regulations may not achieve the desired goals if the minds of the
media practitioners themselves are not ready to promote conflict sensitive
journalism.
Proper training to journalists on
conflict sensitive journalist will enable them adequately understand the role
of media in the phases of conflict.
For example, in the Pre-conflict phase, the
media publicizes the competing interests of conflicting parties, which my lead
to a conflict situation, with a view of striking common grounds for a
negotiated settlement of differences and thus raise demands for peace.
In the Conflict Stage,
the media brings to the society the
human, economic, social and political impacts and hence journalist can easily
use their platform to reinforce the need for peace.
And in the Post Conflict phase, the media keeps an eye on the enforcement of peace deals,
pledges, promises that have been put in place by competing parties and ensures
they are implemented.
Journalists also need to be empowered on working in conflict zones. For
example they need skills on how they can use their tools to protect life,
avoid exacerbating conflict, promote peaceful political, socio-economic and ethno-geographical
solutions to conflict as well as how they can help
the local communities disengage from violence and develop nonviolent
alternatives.
They also need skills on how they
can use their tools of trade to address
the underlying causes of conflicts and positively influence policies and effective interventions. After all, once violence
occurs, journalists and their families, just like anyone else in the society
suffer in equal if not worse measure!
(The
Writer is a Senior Political Writer for the Star newspaper and also holds a Masters of Arts degree in International
Conflict Management from University of
Nairobi.)
