Four words in a recent political story in The Standard soiled the paper’s credibility on news reporting.
“Ruto, Raila coalition deal ‘as good as done‘”, said the heading of a February 28 story by Brian Otieno. As good as done, eh?
The intro doubled down on the four words: “A coalition deal between President William Ruto and former Prime Minister Raila Odinga is ‘as good as done’, The Standard can reveal.”
The paper straddled the fence with quotation marks around “as good as done”. The quotes meant: well, do not pin this on us, we’re just citing sources.
But, surprisingly, in the same breath, they dropped off the cliff with the attribution, “The Standard can reveal”.
That attribution put responsibility unequivocally on The Standard. It knocked out the quotation marks. The paper now owned the claim.
What exactly did the paper own? That a deal was as good as done. What deal? Welcome the devil in the details.
Paragraph 2 said: “Impeccable sources disclose that the political arrangement between the two, discussed at State House, Mombasa on Monday, is irreversible and ‘only awaiting public signing.’”
Impeccable, huh? What exactly does that mean? “One highly placed source disclosed that…”, said paragraph 3.
What’s the difference between “impeccable” and “highly placed”? None. Both say nothing.
But the same paragraph continued: “Another, who attended a consultative meeting convened by Raila in Kisumu on Tuesday, revealed …”
Ah, now why didn’t you just say so in the first place? That a source who attended the consultative meeting at ABC said blah, blah, blah?
Drop “revealed”. It doesn’t make you any more credible. Keep it simple, matter of factly: he said, she said.
What was the deal? That, opposition leader Raila Odinga was pushing for “some stake in government” of President William Ruto, paragraph 4 said. A coalition deal, so to speak.
But let us stick with “as good as done”. This saying means you can take it to the bank. You can swear by your mother’s grave. It’s ironclad. This will happen. One hundred per cent.
Except for one problem: news writing is not prophecy. That’s left for Sunday pulpits. Newsmen and women consign themselves to only what happened. They might go out on a limb and, with evidence, suggest what the facts might translate into.
But it would be just that. A prediction. And everybody knows you cannot hang your hat on a prediction.
On the other hand, “as good as done” is pushing it. It erases all credibility. This is political talk. It is not factual.
Ask: is this worth sticking my neck so far out? What happens if things fall apart, as they often do in politics? Would The Standard just shrug off egg on its face and move on?
Damage will have been done. Remedy? In news writing, shun the temptation to get carried away. Just the facts works. Plain works.
Readers are not stupid. Just give them all the facts; then, the benefit of the doubt to interpret the facts.
