Where were you when you first heard the name Truphena Muthoni? Remember it. Because one day the world may talk about another Wangari Maathai, in Muthoni.
But first things first. The media muddled Muthoni’s debut on the world stage. In a chorus last week, journalists reported that the environmental activist, aged 22, had hugged a tree for 72 hours in Nyeri. They just forgot one little thing: verification.
Here are some of the headlines:
- The Standard, Dec 11: “‘All Hail Truphena’: Environmentalist hugs tree for 72 hours.”
The story framed the act as a completed feat. It read like a celebration. No caveats. No conditions.
- Citizen Digital, Dec 11: “Climate activist Truphena Muthoni completes 72-hour tree hugging challenge.”
Again, the word “completes.” Clear. Final. Case closed.
- Capital News, Dec 11: “Environmental Activist Truphena Muthoni Sets New 72-Hour Tree-Hugging World Record.
Sets. New. World record. Definitive language. No ambiguity.
Then came the Daily Nation on Dec 13: “Truphena Muthoni bags Guinness record as 72-hour tree hug awaits review.”
Bags? What does “bags” mean? A done deal. But in the body, that Nation story by Mercy Mwende said Muthoni’s attempt was “still under review by Guinness World Records.”
Still under review. Those two ideas don’t sit well together. You either bag a record or you await review. You cannot do both at the same time.
To its credit, The Star ran a more careful piece headlined: “72-hour tree hug: Why Guinness World Records hasn’t confirmed Truphena Muthoni’s record.” The story by Felix Kipkemoi explained the process. That Guinness does not confirm records in real time. That evidence must be submitted. That verification takes weeks, sometimes months. That until then, no record exists.
That is the missing context the earlier stories muddled. So, what was that initial chorus about?
Still, there was NTV Beats and Buzz show. In this segment, the panel appeared strikingly unprepared for the conversation they were having. This started to show from the beginning of the segment, when the hosts commented on a photo of Nyeri Governor Mutahi Kahiga standing next to Truphena during her 72-hour tree hugging attempt. The host, Natalie Githinji, dismissed Kahiga’s appearance as a joyride on Truphena’s moment. While it is a fair opinion to make, none of the co-hosts mentioned that the tree Truphena was hugging was actually located outside the Nyeri governor’s office. This was important context.
But that was just the start. Natalie repeatedly referred to Truphena as a child, using terms like, “ni kamtoto.” None of the co-hosts or the production team corrected this framing, and it became the lens through which the entire discussion unfolded. At one point, Natalie even said that the politicians doing photo ops can give her “5,000” or “2,000”, something Laura, the co-host objected to as part of the problem. But Natalie insisted: “Let her just take it, after all she’s just a child. She needs that five thousand.”
While Truphena is of short stature, she is a 22-year-old environmental activist and mental health advocate with a public record of advocacy. This mischaracterisation of her as a child caused the entire conversation to spiral into further ignorance, including DJ Twinizzle questioning where her parent was to “allow” her to do this. He speculated about whether she was eating and even remarked that if Truphena were his relative, he would tell her that her entire effort amounted to “ufala”, meaning nonsense or stupidity.
While hosts are free to express scepticism and opinion, presenting assumptions as truth must be avoided, especially when the facts were so easy to verify. This is even less excusable for a show produced by one of the country’s leading media houses, where access to accurate information should not be an obstacle.
Back to the coverage, it is understandable to want to cheer Muthoni. She is fresh. She is committed. She is drawing attention to climate action in a creative way. Wangari Maathai may have been born again. That deserves applause.
But applause is not news. News is about accuracy. About precision. About saying what is known, and clearly stating what is not. At best, the media should have reported that Muthoni completed a 72-hour tree-hugging attempt and submitted it for Guinness review. That would have been accurate. That would still have been impressive.
Instead, several outlets jumped ahead of verification. They declared a result that had not yet been confirmed. They used language that implied finality where none existed. That matters.
When media exaggerates or rushes to crown winners, it undermines its own credibility. It also does a disservice to the subject. If Guinness later declines the record, the same media will quietly move on, leaving the activist to deal with public confusion. This was not a hard verification problem. Guinness World Records has clear rules. Media houses know them. A simple check would have sufficed.
