“Madoadoa” returned to the national political discourse after Deputy President William Ruto’s Eldoret rally on Saturday, January 8. Politicians, security agencies, faith groups, the media, bloggers, everyone, swung at Meru Senator Mithika Linturi for uttering that word.
Linturi apologised. But in Kenya, forgiveness for political sins is selective. The public record has politicians who recently uttered words similar to Linturi’s but no one bothered – or people found a way of spinning the potentially incendiary remarks positively.
On Tuesday, January 11, The Standard splash screamed: “Ruto feels heat over Linturi, whips allies”. The story on Page 8 said: “Deputy President William Ruto has taken full responsibility for the utterances made by Meru Senator Mithika Linturi, terming them as regrettable”.
To take full responsibility for something wrong means to accept blame for it. But is that what the DP did? “Speaking in Bomet and Kericho counties, a day after the authorities arrested Mr Linturi over alleged incitement, Dr Ruto warned politicians allied to the United Democratic Alliance (UDA) against using language likely to cause divisions in the country,” the paper reported.
That is not taking full responsibility for Linturi’s utterance, or is it? “I want to say we do not subscribe to hate and we do not support any talk that profiles individuals or groups or communities because we are a party that strives for unity,” The Standard quoted Ruto as saying.
Here, Ruto clearly condemned and distanced himself from the senator’s utterance. But Mombasa Road deliberately made the DP guilty by association, tainting him with Linturi’s alleged error.
On Monday, January 10, the Nation’s lead story bore the headline, “Ruto’s six gambles in vote race”. The story said the Deputy President had made “six huge, make-or-break gambles in his journey to succeed his boss, President Uhuru Kenyatta, that analysts say could be his political waterloo”.
One of the gambles? “The DP has also declared himself the spokesperson of President Uhuru Kenyatta’s restive Mt Kenya region, which he and his boss used in 2013 and 2017 to ascend to power” (p.7).
“What is not clear is how big an impact declaring himself as the region’s kingpin, in what is seen by some as undermining President Kenyatta, will have on his campaign”.
But the paper did not tell its readers when, where and how Ruto declared himself the Mt Kenya “spokesman” or “kingpin”. That would have helped one to independently assess these claims. Instead, the paper brought in Ndaragwa MP Jeremiah Kioni, labelled in the story as “an ally of Mr Kenyatta”, to bash Ruto for calling himself the Mt Kenya kingpin.
In the past year, only two persons have been named Mt “spokesperson”: National Assembly Speaker Justin Muturi inaugurated in May and Narc Kenya leader Martha Karua, who was made interim spokesperson of Mt Kenya Unity Forum.
As the “learned friends” like to say, the law is very clear. Article 1 of the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism in Kenya binds all scribes to accuracy and fairness. But some scribes who have an axe to grind may invent ways to achieve their goal.
Politician A and B may receive equal news coverage in terms of the number of times they are reported, story placement, number and size of pictures used, broadcast time or newspaper space and so on. But a closer review of the coverage might show that whereas Politician A’s stories are all or mostly positive, the stories about Politician B almost always highlight negative aspects of his campaign: party wrangles, gaffes, defections, political violence, insults and threats, fights over campaign cash and merchandise, etcetera.
What about when Politician A has a rally somewhere and a senior reporter is dispatched from the Nairobi newsroom to cover it, but when Politician B has one elsewhere, the event is left to the local correspondent to report?
Bias is also possible through certain descriptions. Politician A holds a “mammoth rally”, “mega rally”, “jamboree”; his party is described as a “machine” or “behemoth”. His campaign is handled by “strategists” and “think tanks” who are “putting everything together to vanquish” his opponent. He has “distinct campaign game plans”.
But Politician B’s party is an “outfit” whose “errant” members are forever bickering over nominations “amid fears of favouritism”, “exposing the soft underbelly” of the outfit.
Whereas politicians A and B reach out to allies and are busy wooing others to join them, Politician C is reported to be trying to “cobble” together a “third force”.
Politician A’s forthcoming rally is puffed as going to “signify a major radical shift in the region’s politics”, but the reporting of Politician A’s rallies is restricted to the bland “he said”.
The law is very clear. Ondoa madoadoa in election journalism.
