In a talk show celebrating World Radio Day last month, radio presenter Fred Obachi Machoka made an observation about communication.

Machoka said that the Voice of Kenya (VOK), as the Kenya Broadcasting Corporation (KBC) was called then, had reserved the communication of news events of far-reaching impact for certain newscasters, the most well-known being Stephen Kigumu.
“Stephen Kigumu was breaking news,” Machoka observed.

Whenever VOK aired news of immense ramifications, he said, it assigned Kigumu to announce it.

“Stephen Kigumu on air [for the] one o’clock news bulletin meant breaking news,” Machoka recalled, saying the news would be about changes in the Cabinet or the announcement of the death of a prominent person.

Machoka was paying homage to an important principle or element at the core of every communication – what communication theorists call messaging.

The principle is that information is very important in any communication or dissemination of the news, or information in question.
The gravity of the messenger must be equal to the gravity of the message he or she is disseminating. Message alone is not enough to be acknowledged, believed and acted upon. The credibility of the message in the eyes of an audience depends on the good name or credibility of the messenger.

The editorial leadership of VOK did not invent this. It is the bedrock of any communication situation. The speaker, the messenger, has always been the heart of communication in all civilisations, ancient and modern, African, European, Asian, Native American Indians or aborigines of New Zealand and Australia.

In all these civilisations, there were special people, acknowledged and respected, who announced or communicated certain aspects of information or news.

Some pieces of information were reserved for Kings or Chiefs to communicate. Information concerning culture or certain rituals, was reserved for other categories of people to announce.

In traditional Africa, we had people especially delegated or dedicated to announce certain pieces of information. The person who announced the death or appointment of a chieftain in the community was not the same person who announced the birth of a child. We see this happen in Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.

It doesn’t matter whether the message is authentic, properly packaged, or reasonable. It doesn’t matter whether it has the capacity to appeal to the emotional and other needs of the people it targets. Its cogency in logic is important.

These principles apply in any communication or rhetorical situation. Why is this so? This is because there are certain occasions that the community needs action by certain people and not others.

The occasion could be a source of anxiety, confusion, ambiguity or conflict. Human beings are very uncomfortable with confusing or ambiguous situations. They want someone, the right person in the circumstance, to address the anxiety, confusion, ambiguity or conflict.

The communication in question needs persuasion. The speech or text, the words and gymnastics associated with it, seek to influence an audience’s actions.

Legacy media appreciates all these dynamics of communications. They appreciate the critical role of the messenger in all their news bulletins and programming.

Regrettably, to new media, digital media, social media, these fundamentals of communication are silly. You see information bandied around without attribution, authority or empathy.

I see the same malaise in politics. Source credibility, logic and empathy make political communication persuasive. However, what is seen in some political formations is a tower of babel. Everyone talking and talking at cross-purposes. This is tragic.

I see some political formations allowing bad men to talk on their behalf. They talk about issues that are far above them in terms of gravity or seriousness.

These men have credibility issues. They don’t hold positions of authority in the ranks of the political formation. But they are messengers of issues bigger than their standing in the society and on behalf of the institutions.

That is not persuasion. That is utter lunacy.

— The writer is a Communication Specialist