Journalists and columnists need to be factual and inform readers
A display of Kenyan newspapers reporting on Pope Francis' visit to Kenya. Readers use both fact and opinion to make decisions. PHOTO | KEVIN ODIT | NATION MEDIA GROUP
What you need to know:
- Journalists and columnists must help readers by showing clearly in their writing what is opinion and what is fact.
- Dr Nyairo uses opinion and fact skilfully interwoven in such a way that the reader has no doubt as to when she is fronting a fact or an opinion based on a fact.
Joyce Nyairo, in her commentary published yesterday in the Daily Nation, “JSC should pick a Chief Justice who fits aspirations of Kenya,” shows that opinion writers and journalists can, without being tendentious, help readers to think about issues and form their own opinion. Readers use both fact and opinion to make decisions.
Journalists and columnists must help readers by showing clearly in their writing what is opinion and what is fact.
Dr Nyairo’s article sets a good example that can be emulated by others in view of the fact that one of the most common complaints from readers is that some journalists and columnists present them with partisan information that masquerades as news analysis.
Another complaint that readers make is that they are often served opinions that are not based on facts.
The complaints are important because for information to be useful, readers need to know whether it is true or not, and if it is an opinion, what it is based on. The need to distinguish opinion from facts, and to base opinion on facts, are key tenets in journalism.
Readers need both facts and opinions. They need facts to make decisions and form their own opinions. They need other people’s opinions to stimulate their own thinking about issues and to build their own opinions and ideas.
But before looking into how Dr Nyairo has done it, let me also mention another relevant and often repeated complaint: Some journalists and columnists do not carry out adequate research before they put pen to paper.
An example of this was Nyambega Gisesa’s “Uhuru opposes tactics he used while in opposition” published in the Daily Nation of June 7.
The article stated that while serving as Opposition leader, Uhuru Kenyatta defied government orders barring lawmakers from demonstrating on the streets during the Mwai Kibaki regime.
“Many years later, history has repeated itself, but this time Mr Kenyatta, who is seeking re-election as president, has abandoned the tactics he used in the Opposition, where he spent years fighting for political power,” the article said.
“The son of Kenya’s founding father, who once said the police will never muzzle the power of demonstrators fighting for a just cause, is using the same means used on him against his critics.”
HOW TO DO IT
The writer did not do enough research to know that, as one reader pointed out, the two eras cannot be compared. “For his information we got a new constitution in 2010 and things that could have been right there before could not stand under the new constitution... Those were different constitutional and legal regimes. It is lazy journalism that dwells on comparisons and generalities without looking at the difference in constitutional basis of the actions in 2006 and 2016.”
Dr Nyairo uses opinion and fact skilfully interwoven in such a way that the reader has no doubt as to when she is fronting a fact or an opinion based on a fact.
She begins her article by recalling some of Dr Mutunga’s accomplishments that “deserve continuity”, then dwells on his “negative legacy”.
Then she comes out with one of her conclusions: “We cannot afford to maintain such a precedent. Neither can we afford to keep up the divisive culture of sneaky, colluding, undermining, backstabbing framing of innocent people that thrived under Dr Mutunga.”
Throughout her piece, Dr Nyairo bases her opinions on proven facts that everyone accepts, or probable facts that seem reasonable to believe are true.
Thus she does not come out as a propagandist for a particular side or cause. That is why her piece is helpful for a reader who is seeking information and an opinion to make up his or her mind about an issue that is important for our justice system — how to select the next Chief Justice.
She concludes her article with words that are as transparent as the conclusion itself: “What we need is a transparent process that will respect the demands of history and match the job at hand to the right personality and the right skills set.”
Send your complaints to [email protected]. Call 0721989264
