Media caught between rock and hard place in reporting conflict

In the immediate aftermath of any terrorist attack, the media invariably becomes part of the drama.

At a time of fear, anxiety and concern, there will be great hunger for news and information.

Typical reactions in the wake of the Tuesday terrorist attack on the DusitD2 Hotel and adjacent office blocks on 14 Riverside Drive included parents picking their children up from school early, people leaving work and social places to be at home, and hotels, shopping malls, foreign embassies and other installations that fear they could be potential targets beefing up security, with some shutting their doors altogether.

ATTENTION

Decisions on how to react will invariably be dictated by available information, which means paying keen attention to media reportage of unfolding events from the scene, as well as official government briefing and advisories. In a country like Kenya—which unlike many other African countries has no effective, reliable and trusted public media—that means almost the entire country tuning in to blanket live coverage on various independent TV stations that are not under government control.

Media is not just providing bland news updates, but real-time information, analysis and commentaries from a conflict zone.

It also keeps a critical eye on government performance at both the operational level and in information management.

All these elements were seen, with the Tuesday attack claimed by the Al Shabaab terrorist group.

From the start, it became clear that the government had learnt something from how previous terrorist attacks were managed. Initial government statements were very spare in terms of detail, merely acknowledging that there was an attack and assuring citizens that the security forces were on top of the situation.

MISTAKES

A notable detail from the statement was information that the General Service Unit of the Kenya Police was in direct charge of operations. This might seem like an unnecessary bit of information, but it should be read in the context of mistakes from the Westgate and Garissa University attacks when muffled command lines and jurisdictional turf wars between the different agencies virtually crippled early security responses, contributing to much higher death tolls than might otherwise have been.

At Riverside, it was found necessary from the very beginning to make it clear that the GSU was in charge, at the apex of a multi-agency security operation that also included other formations from the police and the military. The message was that the command structure was clear.

Westgate, Garissa, Mpeketoni and other terrorist incidents of the past were marked by almost farcical media briefings from then Interior Cabinet Secretary Joseph ole Lenku and Inspector General of Police David Kimaiyo.

They provided a lot of information that many found barely credible and responded to questions in a ways that seemed evasive or outright misleading.

From Riverside, the briefings provided by Interior Secretary Fred Matiang’i and Inspector-General Joseph Boinnet went the opposite direction, giving the barest minimum information and fielding no questions.

RED FLAG

The officials may have decided to err on the side of caution, but that became frustrating to assembled media who felt the briefings left more questions than they answered.

That, for any hard-nosed journalist, always raises a red flag. It indicates that information is being concealed. An information vacuum naturally leads to rumour and speculation. It also opens space for mischievous or malicious information on social media to gain traction.

Yet there must be a balance between the need of the media to get and publish as much unvarnished information as possible, and the very obvious need to avoid disseminating false information, or giving details that serve the propaganda needs of the terrorists, compromise the safety of hostages, or cause grief and shock for families of victims.

There are indications that the government was concerned about media coverage of unfolding news, and even considered banning live TV coverage from Riverside until wiser counsel prevailed.

The main worry was TV broadcasts showing security forces mobilising at the scene and preparing to go into action, which some felt might be giving the terrorists operational information.

There was also justifiable concern that some TV stations were giving details of distress calls from those trapped in the complex, down to exact locations of hiding places. In the unlikely event that the terrorists were watching TV, they could have used that information to reach those in hiding. They could also have received the information from accomplices on the outside who were communicating on mobile phones.

The Media Council of Kenya has published an extensive guide on coverage of terrorism incidents.

There is also the Code of Ethics for the Practice of Journalism under the Media Act. Both documents provide invaluable information the dos and don’ts of covering violent conflict, active crime scenes, hostage situations and terrorist attacks.

ANONYMOUS

The guidelines go some way to providing the balance, but it is clear that there are no hard and fast rules, with decisions left to discretion of the editor.

Even on the vexing issue of pictures depicting dead victims, bloody and gory scenes or other disturbing images, the rules do not provide absolute prohibitions. Room is left for use of such images if the editor determines that would be in the public interest.

That was the defence relied on by the New York Times in the midst of a fire-storm over pictures of slain Riverside victims.

A sustained social media barrage by Kenyans on Twitter (KOT) was followed by an official threat by the Media Council to withdraw accreditation for its correspondents in Kenya unless the NYT pulled down the offensive images from its website and apologised.

The media house stuck to its guns, taking a view supported by an anonymous statement issued by the western-dominated Foreign Correspondents Association of East Africa that the reactions were a threat to media freedom.

What the NYT and the foreign correspondents failed to read in the backlash was that debate had grown to the wider issue of racism, with western media outlets accused of routinely using dead bodies and bloody scenes in coverage of conflicts in Africa, but sparing their own home audiences such indignities.

The Media Council gave NYT 24 hours to comply or face sanctions, but it remained unclear why the paper was singled out for the agency pictures that were also used by a number of other news organisations.