Not many people know this but Kenyan media houses, newspapers especially, are groaning under the weight of multi-million-shilling libel claims. The owners, as a good Nairobi reporter might write, “are a worried lot”. Editors are anxious.
Legal departments work overtime sniffing through copy to pick out any likely source of trouble. Sub-editors, the unsung heroes of journalism, have been trained and retrained on libel.
Threats have been issued even. At least one media house tells journalists that if their story attracts a libel award, they will bear a percentage of the cost. Things are that bad.
Kenya is increasingly a litigious society. People have become more aware of the value of their personal reputation – including filthy scoundrels ensconced in high political offices.
Nairobi and other towns are also crawling with starving or greedy lawyers scrambling for a quick buck. The equivalent of ambulance chasers. They follow the news not to be informed but to pick out potential libel.
This is an issue of media freedom no one wants to discuss openly. Libel suits have cast a pall of fear over media houses across town.
Scribes must be cautious. This is not a call for self-censorship. Far from it. Stick to the professional bible – The Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya. Be meticulous.
On January 30, The Star published a grovelling apology for a story it carried last year.
“On August 15, 2019, The Star published a court story headlined, “It was pay for good time – woman in theft case”. In the story we reported that Joyce Okoth told court that she had taken electronics from a man as compensation for her services after spending four days in his house “serving him without pay.”
“It has come to our attention that Ms Okoth did not utter these words in court. Those words were indeed said in court but were instead said by the complainant in his testimony in a theft case against Ms Okoth.
“We take this opportunity to apologise to Ms Akoth for any harm or embarrassment caused by the story. We also assure her that the story was not published out of malice.”
What happened here? The reporter was not attentive. He or she attributed information to the wrong person. Just that.
This is sloppy and utterly unacceptable. It is a problem that cannot be cured in the newsroom. Editors and subs are not in court. If the story says so and so said this, that is what will be published. The reporter was there. If the facts are mixed up, too bad.
Publishing an apology is painful for any media house. It means at least two things. First, admission of failure to do a thorough professional job. That hurts credibility. And second, the media house must have been contacted by the aggrieved person or lawyers threatening action.
Think about what goes on in the heads of your editors when they face these two points. What does your employer think about your work when they have to apologise for your report?
Dear scribe, be totally professional.
