Something must be amiss when process triumphs over substance
What you need to know:
- Unlike public media which must (or should) be non-partisan given that it is funded by taxpayers with a variety of opinions and positions, the NMG has a right to choose its political positions.
- It can choose to be pro-regime, oppositional or non-partisan, and it’s up to us as readers to vote with our pockets.
- And over the years, NMG has taken all these positions at one moment or another even as it declared itself officially non-partisan.
I will be surprised if Nation publishes this column. For it is a critique on how the country’s largest and most important media group has handled the situation between itself and Denis Galava, the former editor who was summarily dismissed recently.
Mr Galava wrote the now famous and sharply critical editorial on January 2 on Mr Uhuru Kenyatta’s performance since taking power in 2013.
It was an unexpected editorial from the Nation Media Group (NMG) which has been treading an extremely fine line since 2013, preferring to let a few independent columnists do the heavy, direct critiques of Mr Kenyatta.
Full disclosure: I have met Denis Galava maybe once or twice, as the editor of Saturday Nation, and communicated by email and phone a handful of times. But I respect him as one of the key and courageous people behind the meteoric rise of the Saturday Nation, which is now the near top selling newspaper in the NMG saddle.
NMG could well respond that this is a private contractual matter between itself and Denis, but that would not be totally accurate. Had Denis been fired for being drunk on duty or for persistent incompetence that would have been a private contractual matter.
But there is no doubt that this editorial got the powers-that-be all hot under the collar and baying for blood. Could there have been pressure on the NMG bigwigs following this editorial?
You won’t find anyone publicly admitting this, but you would have to be from Mars not to know the considerable pressure that our media routinely works under, especially with a regime that is so heavy on image.
Sometimes the pressure is harsh and threatening. Other times it is corruptive, which is why the “brown envelopes” culture is pervasive in the media.
The fact that this saga was about an editorial elevates it to the public domain, touching on press freedom and the partiality or otherwise of the NMG.
TREMENDOUS INFLUENCE
Though privately owned, the NMG occupies a public space and has tremendous influence on shaping public opinion. Occupying that public space gives it power, and therefore responsibility to that public. Its actions and decisions within that public space are thus a matter of public interest and relevance.
Unlike public media which must (or should) be non-partisan given that it is funded by taxpayers with a variety of opinions and positions, the NMG has a right to choose its political positions.
It can choose to be pro-regime, oppositional or non-partisan, and it’s up to us as readers to vote with our pockets.
And over the years, NMG has taken all these positions at one moment or another even as it declared itself officially non-partisan.
It started as a pro-nationalist, pro-independence paper before independence, before becoming an ardent and hearty supporter of the Jomo Kenyatta regime, which partly explained the popularity of Hilary Ng’weno’s Weekly Review from the mid-1970s.
It also clearly supported the Moi regime, which created room, from the late 1980s for critical media like Peter Kareithi’s Financial Review, Bedan Mbugua's Beyond, Gitobu Imanyara’s Nairobi Law Monthly, and Pius Nyamora’s Society to thrive.
On the Galava issue, the NMG’s position is that procedure — hopefully published and availed to editors — was violated. Now, whenever process trumps substance, something is seriously amiss: Which is why Article 159 was such a creative novelty in the Constitution, before being trashed by the Supreme Court (now in a crisis) during the election petitions.
VIOLATION OF PROCEDURE
Using the violation of procedure to severely punish someone is wrong.
The NMG bigwigs were either unhappy or could have been pressured to be unhappy with the editorial. In which case, they could simply have written a counter editorial praising Mr Kenyatta to the heavens.
Ultimately, the message that this action sends, like the 1982 firing of George Githii from The Standard after he wrote a scathing editorial on the growing repression of the Moi regime, will be to increase self-censorship thereby restraining the freedom of expression.
But let’s hope that unlike 1982, this will not be a signal for increased repression.
