Local media’s coverage of Deputy President skewed
By People Reporter, January 30, 2020MARK KAPCHANGA
A glance at newspapers any day, or TV and radio news reveals a sustained coverage of Deputy President William Ruto. Only that in most cases, the media seems to be systematically attacking the DP since he became the country’s second-in-command after 2013 election.
I acknowledge the media needs to fulfil an important watchdog role in a democracy by holding those in power to account.
Undeniably, we do not expect the media to divorce itself from being critical, and to pose tough and probing questions to those charged with running the country.
Ruto is a consummate politician, a deputy leader of a ruling party, Jubilee, the Deputy President.
Despite his underprivileged background, he has proved to be ruthlessly aggressive, intellectual and a go-getter.
However, is the caustic, open and hostile media coverage he has persistently received in recent months justified?
Could the Kenyan media, through their professed critical reporting, be systematically delegitimising Ruto as one of the most popular politicians?
Recent newspaper headlines, most of them antagonistic, some carrying almost similar content day in, day out, endorse this argument.
For instance, on January 22 , a local daily carried front page story entitled: “Police reopen Sh272m Ruto fraud probe”.
Another wrote “State re-opens 2004 Ruto land fraud case” as a Swahili daily sold “Uhuru aiga Moi kuzima wakosoaji” to its readers.
Why is the criticism not applied to other top politicians? What does this say about our media and independence(or lack of, thereof)?
The Building Bridges Initiative seems to have given the media fodder to attack the DP.
“Ruto isolated as BBI drive gathers steam”, “BBI secret plot for President to sack Ruto” are some of the stories that have dominated newspaper headlines.
Some of the stories have prompted the DP to respond, at one time urging Kenyans to ignore the “choreographed, paid-for propaganda”.
The above examples illustrate show how Ruto has been portrayed unfairly by our press through vilification that has gone well beyond the editorial confines of sober debate.
Ironically, Ruto has often been denied his own voice in the reporting on him. Sources seen as anti-Ruto have tended to outweigh those that are for him and his takes on issues.
While we appreciate that our media have to air what is in harmony with their own interests, this cannot validate their negating of their public duty and upholding the fundamental tenets of journalism.
Why would Ruto be methodically treated with scorn and ridicule in a way that no other political leader has been in Kenya?
The media has time and again associated the DP with disrespect to the President and painted him as wealthy and corrupt.
The result has been a failure to give media consumers —the public — a fair opportunity to form their own judgements about him.
It is thus my opinion that our journalism has parted ways with its watchdog role. Instead, it has turned into an attack-dog.
This is unhealthy from a democratic point of view. This unwarranted editorial skewness poses ethical questions on the role of the media.
When a democracy cannot rely on its press to provide its citizens with information about political parties that meets the underlying standards of fairness, then we can expect a political process that is equally lopsided.
A self-appraisal would help our media to cure this disturbing editorial trend. — The writer works in the Office of Deputy President