Without a doubt, these headlines will catch your eye:
- “Why Ruto won’t run on Kenya Kwanza ticket” (Sunday Nation, April 10);
- “Why the Kenyattas want Gatundu south back” (Star, April 8); and
- “Why Raila, Ruto are no longer at ease over politics in Coast” (Standard, March 7).
The first story by the Nation gave no answer to the question, why presidential contender William Ruto won’t run on a ticket bearing the name of the coalition that includes his United Democratic Alliance (UDA), Musalia Mudavadi’s Amani National Congress (ANC) and Moses Wetangula’s Ford Kenya.
In fact, in the online edition readers found a different heading: “William Ruto to run for presidency on UDA, not Kenya Kwanza ticket.”
So, which was the news, that Ruto was running under UDA instead of Kenya Kwanza, or why he was? The heading at the door suggested the latter but didn’t deliver.
The second story by the Star about the Kenyattas and Gatundu South constituency read like a history class. It gave a chronology of Gatundu South’s elected MPs since independence, the marks they left, and UDA’s current wave in the larger Kiambu region.
But that the Kenyattas want the constituency back, not a word about this!
The third story by The Standard gave a long account of politics at the Coast, historically and currently. But it did not give a straight answer to the question, why Raila and Ruto are not at ease.
The failure to address a question posted in a headline suggests that the headline was an empty hook, solely for the purpose of selling the newspaper. It hoodwinks readers. And it’s unethical.
Now there’s a second category of stories headlined, “Why.” These stories get to answer the question, eventually, but too late to count.
Sample these:
- “Governor Mutua: Why I rejected Ruto after talks for Raila” (Star, April 10)
This story rambled on until paragraph 12, when readers found a quote form Mutua’s mouth: “I have a soft spot for Raila. He is a good man full of charisma. Humble man despite his power and influence. He is not just a leader but I consider him as a friend and he looks at me as a friend. He is focused and knows where Kenya is supposed to be.”
That quote directly answered the question, why. A paraphrase of it should have led the story.
- “Why you still can’t get fuel despite Uhuru’s Sh34bn intervention” (Nation, April 7)
This story started with information that’s not news, that the fuel shortage crisis is still widespread across the country. As to why, which was the heart of the matter as promised in the heading, readers had to wait until paragraph 6: because oil firms refuse to release the fuel, citing delays by the government to release the subsidy.
- “Why Uhuru market remains a ghost town” (Nation, April 7).
This was a poorly written news story that started with a bland opinion, that “One would have expected a mad rush by traders to occupy the Uhuru Business Park after its official launch.”
The Nation forgot to even tell us immediately where the heck is Uhuru Business Park – it’s in Kisumu.
But the story rambled on until paragraph 13, before answering the question: “traders feel the location is too far for their customers.”
All three stories were punctured by a delayed lead.
Commendably, here are two stories that deserved “why” in their heading:
- GINA DIN-KARIUKI: Why Raila is best for Kenya (Star, April 10).
This was a commentary. It excelled for the fact that nearly every paragraph was packed with solid answers to the question, why:
Raila Odinga gave people courage to walk away from Kanu; he delivered on the promise of a new Constitution whose key plank is the now celebrated devolved government; he has shown Kenya “ability for forgiveness and reconciliation, even when he has been treated badly. It is due to him that Kenya has, on several occasions, avoided a tribal bloodbath,” etcetera.
- Why Uhuru corruption fight has been a struggle, Raila in UK address (Standard March 17)”
This story is commended for answering the question quickly in the second and third paragraphs: the fight “met with opposition from Deputy President William Ruto and his allies;” it has been a case of “sabotage from within.”
In these two last stories, the merits of the arguments don’t matter. They are commended for delivering on the heading’s promise. They gave answers.
