Hearts are broken whenever media breaks news about a road accident anywhere in the country.
Learning that 12 lives had been lost in yet another tragedy at Nithi Bridge, Tharaka Nithi County, devastated families and friends of the victims.
But, as in any form of news coverage, particularly involving a tragedy, where public emotions are likely to run high, media practice demands objectivity, fairness and great sensitivity, even as journalists pursue accuracy.
Further, media should give a balance of views to represent fair comments from the parties involved.
The People Daily’s overage of the Nithi Bridge tragedy failed this crucial acid test of objectivity and fairness. Its Wednesday, September 4, front page, headline screamed: “How Ruto lies killed Nithi 12“.
In mixing the subject of the Nithi Bridge accident with politics, the media house walked the lane of political propaganda as opposed to objective news reporting.
The story on page 4, which started off as a commentary, stated: “Even among the most optimistic of Kenyans, last Saturday’s tragic accident at the notorious Nithi Bridge that claimed 12 lives has not helped to diminish the growing perception that President William Ruto is, at best, a master of empty promises – or even outright lies.”
In singling out the President as the “cause” of the accident, the publication implied he was principally to blame for the deaths. How?
The newspaper quoted that early last year the President made an undertaking that his government had set aside money to redesign the killer bridge in Tharaka Nithi County in a bid to reduce accidents.
So, according to its title on page four, “Nithi Bridge: How Ruto lies killed Nithi 12”, the editors placed the demise of 10 adults and two children, on President Ruto.
Yet, the editors greatly evaded the professional responsibility for objectivity, to separate propaganda from facts.
The People Daily might have attempted to whip people’s emotions that President Ruto and his government did not deliver on his promise on time.
Yet, so many motorists cross the bridge without incident. Police stated that driver error was the reason for the accident. He was on the wrong lane, leading to a head-on collision.
Further, the area police boss quoted in the media said the driver might not have been quite conversant with the route and terrain.
The police comments bring into perspective the need for journalistic objectivity on how human error and environmental factors can lead to an accident.
Yet, journalists at times have tended to overlook personal responsibility in a tragedy.
By failing to lay facts as they are, media takes the short route of feigning complacency, which ends in misleading the public.
Even if the President had made a promise to have the bridge redesigned and reconstructed, that doesn’t take away personal responsibility from the private motorist or driver of a public service vehicle involved.
Zeroing in on the need for urgent structural action, former Transport Cabinet Secretary Kipchumba Murkomen is reported explaining a government plan to redesign the bridge to make it a dual one, work on the sharp corners, and install speed bumps.
Normally, such promises can end up in smoke, especially when journalists locally and at the national level fail in their job of follow-up, and simply become part of the complaining public when a tragedy happens.
In the end, irresponsible journalism will cost the nation dearly for engaging in political propaganda.
