Media’s crucial task at the repeat election

Early this year, local media stakeholders made a commitment to adhere to election guidelines developed jointly with the Media Council of Kenya.

Media houses expressed their desire to facilitate robust coverage and, through that, enhance a free, fair and democratic general election. They acknowledged that media freedoms come with responsibilities and committed to, among other things, assist voters to make informed choices through their coverage.

They also pledged to uphold their duty to all players in the election, the major ones being candidates, voters and the nation. To this end, the media undertook to be accurate, fair, balanced and impartial in their reportage and reporters were trained appropriately.

While the training was not — and could not — be exhaustive within the limited time frames, it focused on key areas and important considerations to effectively allow the voters to make informed choices, give candidates the space to put across their ideas and have media report freely and express opinions on matters of public interest.

This detail is important because there is a history.

JOURNALIST TRIED

Kenya’s media was accused of having contributed to the 2007/2008 post-election violence that saw more than 1,000 people killed and thousands more displaced.

A journalist was even indicted and tried at the International Crimes Court at The Hague, the Netherlands, for crimes against humanity.

Predictably, in 2013, the media was very cautious in its election coverage, crusading a peace agenda.

For this, fingers were pointed at it for focusing on peace at the expense of the critical issues that affected the election’s outcomes.

Many blamed it for turning a blind eye to the events of the elections and the public felt duped by an institution they had trusted to provide up-to-date information and hold various institutions to account.

RESTORE CONFIDENCE

Against this backdrop, in 2017, the media was determined to make things right and restore the confidence of the voters and the citizenry that they would cover every story as it unfolded.

Key among the commitments was to send agents to all the 290 constituency and 47 county tallying centres. Their brief was not to report their own tallies or declare winners but, rather, report on the final results as presented by the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC).

To do this, media houses invested heavily in technology and personnel, having a representative in every constituency.

Key to the preparations, reporters and editors mapped out scenarios that would ensure, irrespective of the outcome, that they would have the capacity for truthful and accurate coverage.

DISABILITY FORUMS

The media did incredibly well in giving political candidates time and space to articulate their agenda. While this may not have been equally distributed, a deliberate effort was made to allow the main players and special groups such as women, youth and persons with disability forums. Never has the media been so deliberate in doing this, and it was visible.

Fast forward to Election Day and many recall that the media were the first at most polling stations. They wanted to bring us the stories as they unfolded. However, why the media did not cover with enthusiasm the announcement of results at polling stations and tallying centres remains unknown.

But the media have a chance to redeem themselves. The public has bestowed a lot of confidence in the media. As they cover the repeat presidential election, therefore, let them do it in a way that speaks of their commitment to serve the public good.

Dr Booker is a lecturer at the Aga Khan Graduate School of Media and Communications, Nairobi. [email protected].