Media sources: You cannot not communicate

Media sources: You cannot not communicate

By MUSYOKA NGUI

One cannot not communicate. This quotation is attributed to Paul Watzlawick (July 25,1921-March 31,2007) an Austrian-American family therapist , psychologist, communication theorist and a philosopher.

My post today is anchored on the above notable idea.

When covering news stories, media persons encounter sources that are reached but do not answer calls. This could be because they know the story and don’t want to be quoted. Which is good. And bad.

When secrecy shrouds a bad news, authorities bluetick the media. For the sake of balancing the story, media personalities get all angles to the story. All efforts humanly possible are pursued. When a source refuses to grant an interview to the media, it is important to report that the source shut the door in the face of the reporter. The audience have enough IQ to judge.

There are few terms I’d like to point out that the audience encounter and deserve to understand the meaning-albeit-“in my view”…..

It was not immediately clear-this shows that the source didn’t confirm the news happened by the time of going to press.

I can neither confirm nor deny-this is the situation where the authorized officer of the institution in the news leave the judgment to the reporter and the public to decipher what to believe or not.

According to sources privy to the (news) –this is usually the anonymous sources that don’t want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the story. But in this case, the journalist is best advised to keep the script supporting documents in case the story boomerangs.

Multiple sources confirm that….-this shows that the reporter has done their homework and compared the narrative cited by authorities and most of the sources hold the reported mainstream narrative.

Sources close to…-this shows that there are friends or colleagues or family related to the person in the bad news that spoke to the media and are believed to know the truth about what is in the news. In this case, it’s important to avoid naming the sources close to the person in the news to avoid retributions.

PS: When covering news it’s important to respect the privacy of people in the public interest stories in the bad pieces. Description of narratives should avoid leads that covertly or overtly identifies a confidential or a classified source. Careless description such as the pronoun she or he is enough lead to tell curious readers who you are hiding behind the mask. It’s time for media scholars to consider using gender neutral names such as “they” or “their” or “them”. Also consider unpinning the titles and specific designations that could sell out sources that trust you to cover the public interest news.

Sorry, I’m not sorry

Sorry, I’m not sorry

BY MUSYOKA NGUI

I often am encountered with situations that don’t need a middle ground. Situations that prompt a “may be”. Others are just okay with a “no comment please”. Situations which aren’t either black or white. Not bright nor blurred. Neither yes nor no.

NEITHER YES NOR NO

But a simple yes and/or no answer can prompt arguments, controversies, and theories and if unchecked, lies.

As a journalist, having studied sources and answers they give, it’s important to prod further and not read too much into the details. It’s often said that journalists are the most lied to persons in any profession, except the oldest, prostitution (pun intended).

So being a journalist requires a practitioner to be untrusting and doubtful. When you’re told the wall has a wet paint, touch it to feel if it’s wet and if not prod the answer given.

DO YOUR HOMEWORK

Sources give a cover story. This is the story they want you to run. It might not be the true story but they want you to run it anyway. This is where research comes in handy. Do your homework before, during and after interviewing sources. Compare information. Give sources who aren’t broadcast an opportunity to tell their story.

Running fake news destroys one’s credibility. Once an audience stops trusting you, they never will. It’s like losing virginity. You lose it once and can’t be regained even if you have surgery to reset the system.

Check with your peers who cover the same story you do. Share notes. Compare. Contrast.

Journalists should develop a thick skin to avoid being hurt by mean and jealous sources. Fact is, not everyone loves you. The feeling might be mutual even. So it could be good riddance for either parties involved. Do not be afraid to say, sorry, I’m not sorry. Neither should you be apologetic about your professional conduct to sources that want to twist the story in their favour. Be fair.

NO THANK YOU

Have guts to know your worth and drop a no thank you if the deal doesn’t have your interests at heart.

Sometimes we are hated for what is perceived as an egotistical attitude. Much as you know your worth, trade it well and cede grounds to agree on the negotiations at the table. Have your irreducible minimums that cannot be crossed and if they are crossed back off.

We are trusted a lot. Do not make a source lose that trust in you. Sources confide classified information to you. Don’t quote unauthorised sources to prevent consequences for this on their part or on your part. You can rot in jail or the source gets economic sanctions for a news story that you run. Double check the story and remove all bad things then run.

2/3 gender bill sent back to the sender

2/3 gender bill sent back to the sender

By MUSYOKA NGUI

Sometimes things become clichés. I followed the national assembly debate about gender bill and it was eventually shelved because they failed to make the 233 required numbers to implement it.

The Constitution 2010 passed and 2/3 gender representation should be implemented not from 2019 February but from 2010. Women are the majority in the society and ironically, they are the minority in decision making table.

But what I found curious was the blanket provision that the 2/3 gender representation should be implemented for women just because they are women. Aren’t men also locked out in some social spheres that require 2/3 gender rule implementation?

REWARDING CRONIES, SURROGATES

Feminists were up in arms protesting that 2/3 gender rule was long overdue and rightly so. But why create nominated slots to reward cronies, surrogates and yes persons and in some instances spanner persons bordering on nepotism, elitism and cronyism?

True, both houses of parliament require to observe the 2/3 gender rule but why reserve that for political parties to share the slots according to their number of seats they have in the parliament?

What you see is not what you get. Beyond the posturing, rhetoric and lies is the real cost. At whose cost will the new seats be implemented? Isn’t what a man can do a woman able to do too? Other than the genetic and biological functions, all games should start at 0, 0. Why start a match that is already 5, 0 and expect fair play?

Not just political representation that should be addressed. If the debate is honest and devoid of ill motive, there is need for observing the 2/3 gender rule in both selected and elected positions. Competence and qualification should drive the recruitment of Kenyans in implementation of 2/3 gender rule.

MISOGYNISTS, CHAUVINISTS

Male MPs have been blamed for being misogynists and chauvinists but why reserve a seat for women for the mere quality that she is a woman and why occupy a seat just because you are a woman? Especially when such seats are designed to be sat on by "slay queens" and other unkind titles, they fight gender equality reforms. Truth is, there are women who have earned their titles and places in society in a fair and square way not just because they are corruptly related to a political kingpin.

CHECK CORRUPTION

The national assembly, in my view, redeemed their image about being honorable. Cartoonists on national dailies have regularity drawn caricatures of pigs to represent MPs- both male and female. But it’s worth noting that MPs stood up to the Executive and pushed back the pressure to pass 2/3 gender bill for the sake of passing the bill. RAO, WSR, SKM, UMK had all whipped their troops to vote for the 2/3 gender bill. But Majority Leader Aden Duale had to shelf the bill for lack of quorum lest it gets a thundering defeat on the floor of parliament.

The real thing is much as they are under pressure to reward loyalty and leave a “legacy”, that energy being wasted in gender bill should be used in checking corruption. That is the issue that Kenyans can get a direct benefit from not a bill aimed at rewarding cronies and slapping wananchi with exorbitant invoices.

To Duale, send the gender bill back to the sender. See you in February 2019