Sometimes I got it wrong, but it was never out of malice
Because I have pontificated on public affairs for half a century, it is likely that I have wronged many parties. This is a profoundly disturbing thought.
For, in journalism, it is possible to use false facts to write unflatteringly on an individual or institution without knowing it.
For, no matter how cogent a piece of criticism may be, if it stems from an incorrect premise, the conclusion must be unjust. Yet such injustice may be called “objective” because it is not driven by what Willy Mutunga may call “malice aforethought”.
It is probable, then, that I have based a commentary or so on misinformation or prevarication. But, in that case, ignorance of the facts of the case is the only plea I will make – as if in mitigation – to those I might have misrepresented during my 46-year newspaper career.
Published articles
To be sure, I have sometimes published articles that went completely against the prevailing national mood and thus extremely unpopular.
I refer, especially, to the articles I wrote in opposition to the “Second Liberation” movement and its multi-party flank of the l990s. No, I do not apologise for those articles.
For – exactly as I feared – the corruption and tribalism of the leaders of that movement are what have brought Kenya to its present brink of disintegration.
It tugs at the heart that many individuals have outgrown the cheap political sentiments on which they based their intense hatred of me and come to see the direction from which I was coming.
Yes, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I angered very many Kenyans and received much flak. But that is an occupational hazard. For the objective writer does not set out to anger – or please – anybody.
He treads only where the evidence takes him in his search for the social truth.
But – as I say – some of what he takes as evidence may later prove completely unfounded. And he may be called upon to own up and apologise. On the other hand, however, I have not consciously borne any false witness.
I have not cooked up data or – as a newspaper editor – allowed any such thing to be imposed on me with the narrowly subjective purpose of putting anybody or institution at a public disadvantage.
No, despite popular belief, I was not responsible for the “Kanu Briefs” with which my successors at the Kenya Times poured such filth on Kanu’s political enemies in 1992. Fear that I would reject such an assignment might have contributed to my sacking a few months earlier.
Both in general and in particular, I have pilloried racism, sexism, sectarianism and tribalism without ever finding it necessary to cook up any evidence against the race, gender, religion and tribe of those whom we usually accuse of such bigotry – the Caucasians, males, Christians and – in our national case – the Kikuyu, respectively.
Civil bureaucracy
Likewise, if I have heavily criticised corruption and ineptitude both in the civil bureaucracy and in the private sector. I have, in each case, felt powerfully constrained to adduce all the lowdown in possession against the relevant individuals or institutions (named or unnamed).
Maxim Gorky’s frequent admonishment to all artists – including journalists – was that, no matter what ideology drives your activity, your report or commentary or work of art can be considered objective and valuable only if it springs from a true, truthful and realistic portrayal of the subject or theme on which you are working.
My premise may sometimes be wrong, but I always assume the attitude that, no matter how noble the mission is, any attempt to falsify or exaggerate the justification for it, or to add to it any unreal salt and pepper, can only weaken it.
As the celebrated American poet Robert Frost admonishes all writers and artists, “anything more than the truth would have seemed too weak”.
