About a decade ago, a joke stereotyping Nigerian versus Kenyan thieves was doing the rounds. It went like this:
Man 1: Yo, man, where are you from?
Man 2: I’m from Kenya.
Man 1: Ah, you’re the guys who still carry guns to rob ATMs? Us in Naija we were done with that 10 years ago. Try to catch up, guys! Use technology, man! No sweat.
If this stereotype were true, Kenyans long caught up already.
The Standard a few days ago broke a stunning story about brazen stealing at the Ministry of Education, where over Sh11 million was reportedly looted quietly by an evil genius, using only technology.
According to the story, the Education Ministry wired out all these millions in drip-drip nominal amounts between August 2019 and June 2018. The wires went to Free Day Secondary School Funds in Kakamega County.
Except there is no such school. Anywhere in Kenya. Apparently, an officer with proper access at the ministry, the evil genius, created the fictitious school, opened a bank account for it, pumped money into the account, bought a pimped up car and plots of land, and continued to quietly work away in Khwisero subcounty, his work station since 2010.
“Education ministry officer creates non-existent school, channels Sh11m to it,” said the title of the December 2 story by Jael Mboga. The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission is now investigating the matter, the story said.
Such an important story of public interest! Hard to put down before reading every word. Yet, when you reached the end, you suddenly wondered how the reporter got this story. Because the 11-paragraph story ran in its entirety without a single proper attribution or quote.
Sins started at the top, right after the heading. The caption under an illustrative picture of a hand clasping Kenya shilling bills in different denominations said, “Authorities say the suspect channelled Sh11.1m to non-existent school in one year. [Courtesy]”
Who are authorities? Then, for the average reader, what does “courtesy” mean? The caption tells the reader nothing.
First, drop the lazy attribution to “authorities” already. Unless you’ve named them, which the story doesn’t, this is a crutch for a limping story.
Second, “Courtesy” is short for “Photo Courtesy” or “Image Courtesy.” It typically implies that the newspaper might not own the photo used. But the newspaper may have published the photo with the permission of the photographer — “may” being the key word here.
The practice is easily abused. Newspapers should give due credit to photographers, many of whom are photojournalists in their own right. Then, when the newspaper says “Courtesy of,” it properly means the picture belongs to the identified photographer and is used here only with his or her permission. Otherwise, plagiarism could be cited.
Now to sins in the body.
After the intro, Paragraph 2 said, “It is alleged that a clerical officer at the ministry’s headquarters in Nairobi added a non-existent secondary school to the ministry’s database and channeled funds to it.” It’s alleged by whom?
Paragraph 4 said, “The school purportedly has 1,188 students.” Source?
How did the apparent crime get detected? Paragraph 6 answered this. “The officer’s dealings were uncovered when publishers contracted by the Kenya Institute of Curriculum Development (KICD) could not trace the school on the ground while distributing textbooks.” Again, source? How did the reporter get this information?
Paragraphs 9 and 10 spelled out specifics: a) the suspect bought a vehicle worth Sh2.5 million; b) The anti-corruption authority was able to recover Sh1.9 from the dealer; c) the suspect bought two parcels of land at Sh1.8 million and withdrew Sh7million in cash.
That’s it. No clue as to how these specifics were obtained.
The conclusion was a kicker. “Investigations are at an advanced stage, the anti-graft agency said.” Who at the anti-graft agency said this?
Without attribution, who can tell if this story was verified?
