A story in The Standard was headlined, “Gen Z to ‘occupy everywhere’ today, dismiss Ruto’s position” (July 2, p.7). But not a single voice of Gen Z was quoted in the report covering three-quarters of the page.
“Some of the Gen Z protesters yesterday said their activities today, which include a peaceful protest dubbed ‘Occupy Everywhere’, are well on course even as they expressed disappointment over President William Ruto’s interview on Sunday.”
Who said this? The Standard did not attribute the claims to anyone.
“The Gen Z, who have described themselves as ‘leaderless, tribeless and party-less but not rudderless’, yesterday visited victims injured in last week’s protests and lauded them for their sacrifice in representing Kenyans,” the report said.
Who exactly described the movement in those terms, or did all the Gen Zs across the country shout out that elaborate definition at once spontaneously without anyone suggesting it prior?
A Daily Nation story, “Gen Z: Why we’re back on the streets” (July 2, p.5), did not attribute the claims of the group to anyone in particular. “The Gen Z have accused the state of failure to act against senior government officials and trigger-happy officers amidst rampant cases of abduction.”
The Star splash (July 2) was headlined, “New generation hell for old guard in 2027”. The story said, “Radical ideology is being shaped online with fiery posts and conversations.”
No one from the movement was quoted. How do we know for sure that random tweets represent the “radical ideology” of Gen Z? Ideology presupposes leadership, organisation.
Attribution is a core principle of journalism. A name attached to a claim makes it credible. Anonymity has its place in journalism. But if a group insists on being ‘leaderless’ and covers itself with the blanket of anonymity, this presents a problem for journalism.
Nation Media Group public editor Peter Mwaura stated that “solid evidence, direct quotes and named sources enhance story credibility and accuracy.”
One could argue that the decision of Gen Z to remain ‘leaderless’ and anonymous is a guerilla tactic that employs surprise while protecting members from profiling and victimisation by the security services. Granted, but if such a strategic decision was taken at all, then it means the movement has leadership.
Journalists should be wary of the danger to truth-telling posed by a group claiming to be ‘leaderless.’ This posture enables the movement to use extensive misinformation, fake news and propaganda as no one can be held responsible for any claims.
That was how the Githurai “massacre” came up. Or the alleged shooting of a 12-year-old Rongai boy with eight bullets.
“Kennedy Onyango’s death was the result of severe haemorrhage, and the nature of the bullet wound indicates that it was fired from a long range. This is contrary to reports that have been going around that Kennedy was shot eight times,” said government pathologist Peter Ndegwa. No other pathologist has contradicted this finding.
The media – and pretty much everyone – seems to have swallowed hook, line and sinker the propaganda that Gen Z is ‘leaderless’. It is impossible for a movement of any kind to be ‘leaderless.’ It is the job of journalists to unmask the leaders.
Who brands the Gen Z movement? Who designs and sends out its messages? Who decides the dates, times and venues for protest? Who chooses the theme for the day? Who creates the hashtags? Who shapes the collective opinion of the group? Who coordinates fundraising and other support? All that is leadership. But the media is happy to trumpet the myth that the protesters are ‘leaderless’.
Gen Z are actors in the public space. The media must not just report their protests and demands but also hold them accountable.
It’s repeated often that the media is a pillar of democracy. That means journalism supports constitutionalism, the rule of law, respect for institutions and procedures of acquiring and exercising public power.
A major casualty of the protests has been freedom of speech. Those who hold a different opinion from Gen Z are buffeted with waves of insults by members of a movement that, ironically, always proclaims its constitutional rights. They can dissent but can’t withstand the dissent of others. If you disagree with them, you are part of the enemy.
The result? The media has generally refrained from any critical reporting of the Gen Z revolt, obviously out of the fear that the protesters would hit them with insults or visit newsrooms and individual journalists “kuwasalimia”. Is such self-censorship ethical journalism? Is such intolerance part of democratic culture?
See you next week!
