The heading said: Gachagua Responds to KDF Boss Warning Over ‘Ruto Must Go’ Chants.
The intro of this story by Lutta Njomo doubled down: “Former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua on Saturday, March 29, 2025, responded to Chief Defence Forces (CDF) General Charles Kahariri’s warning against ‘Ruto Must Go’ chants.”
So, what was the news, that Gachagua responded to something? How is that news?
Why focus on Gachagua’s “response”? Who asked him to respond?
By framing this story around Gachagua’s reaction, you missed the broader issue. Why was KDF issuing the warning? What does the crescendo of “Ruto must go” chants signify? What are the political or national implications? These would form the heart of good reporting.
But getting enthralled with “Gachagua’s response” oversimplified the issue. It seemed like the news was simply about one person’s statement or rebuttal. That is not news. It is, rather, a reactionary form of reporting.
How did these chants start? What is the political climate surrounding the statements flying around? What are the potential ramifications for the military and the broader political landscape?
The story didn’t just gloss over these questions, it did not explore them at all.
Here’s the deal. Your story gave Gachagua’s response unreasonably significant space. It did not provide other perspectives on the issue. What are the views of those chanting “Ruto must go”? Or what is the KDF’s role in national politics? These were not explored. That’s how you lost balance.
Moreover, you presented Gachagua’s “response” without critical engagement or exploration of the implications of his stance, which could be vital in understanding the tension between political leadership and the military.
What is the score?
- Depth of Reporting: The story was surface-level reporting. It did not explore the deeper political and social issues in play.
- Contextualisation: No context. The story missed an opportunity to delve into the “Ruto must go” chants (why the chants?), the KDF’s role, and the political implications.
- Balance: The story lacked balance. It focused solely on Gachagua’s response without offering any opposing views or analysis of the broader situation.
- Investigative journalism: This was not a casual matter. The political and military tensions hinted at are grave matters for the republic. This required more investigation and analysis.
