Media should approach stories independently and with minimum risk

Just a thought:

The World Press Freedom day was celebrated on March 3^rd 2015 in the backlight of the attack on three journalists from the Nation and Royal Media Services at Galana Kulalu Ranch in Tana River County. The three were said to be in the company of Tana River County officials who had gone to seek for the release of cattle that had “trespassed” into the ranch.

Outrage and condemnation greeted the attack on the “team” in equal measure but there was less probing of what may have led to the attack. Is there anything that the journalists did wrong which warranted the attack? Did the officers just descend on them the very moment they saw cameras trained on them? Were the journalists independent messengers or they had already taken a position in regard to the unfolding story? So far only the journalist’s side has been told and any attempt by security officers to tell their side of the story is half-hearted as the media has already taken a position on the issue.

I must declare here that I do not hold any brief for the police service but I must admit that it is highly unlikely that the police could have descended on them for the sheer fun of it. Secondly, the incident provides an opportunity for debate among media practitioners, trainers and academics on how best to approach stories independently and with minimum risk.

One thing that has not featured prominently in the reportage is that the journalists were taken to the field by Tana River County officials who already had formed a frame within which they wanted the story reported. I guess that with the journalists on their side, the officials would bring out the victim issue and the wrongful detention of their cattle better.

The independence of the journalists was compromised the very moment they agreed to be transported to the field by County officials. I know that many media houses have their own transport arrangements, a measure that is taken to ensure that the independence of the journalist is maintained. But again, the journalists work in far flung areas where media houses may not have invested in their transport. Certainly, transport is one of the biggest headaches for Editors who at times may not give a hoot to how a story from correspondents was obtained as long as it has not been missed.

Formally many media houses have issued guidelines on how stories should be obtained but more often when you work as a correspondent, those guidelines are best reserved for the office. For the media house, they serve as a form of fallback mechanism just in case there is a complaint about an individual journalist. Informally there exists an unwritten code between sources and journalists and more often the exchange of envelopes never gets mentioned.

The Tana River county incident highlights the challenges of reporting from the field. There are many reporters in the country who work as correspondents. To them they operate in a different world altogether. They have to look for their own transport, source stories and ultimately be paid based on contributions which may at times be late. The journalists rely on tokens, have to be transported to news sites and be given money for lunch. Some of the journalists are in the payroll of their benefactors. 

These are issues that cannot be wished away by claims of independence and the issuance of policy guidelines and biased reporting. They require to be highlighted and acted upon. Unfortunately, the media purports to work in public interest is at the end of the day a business and all the investor is interested in is the bottom-line line. Where thither are such organizations like the Media Council of Kenya, The Kenya Correspondents Association and the Editors Guild? Can they go beyond outrage and condemnation and act tangibly to have the working of journalists improved.