Why new Code kills journalism vitality

Local newspapers on the streets in Nairobi. PHOTO | FILE 

In Summary

• For example, it says: “Headings shall reflect and justify the matter printed under them.” But how much of the matter must be reflected? One hundred per cent?
• For example, the Code says comments “shall be obtained from anyone who is mentioned in an unfavourable context”. Even if there are justifiable reasons for not obtaining the comments, such as the person being in Greenland or Ituri rainforest, the journalist would still be violating the Code.

By PETER MWAURA
More by this Author

Bensouda applies to the Trial Chamber to adjourn Uhuru’s case.

Daily Nation: “Not enough evidence on Uhuru: Bensouda”. The Standard: “Hague Trial: I have no evidence against Uhuru”. The Guardian: “ICC prosecutor asks for Uhuru Kenyatta trial to be postponed”. Financial Times: “Kenyatta case close to collapse”. Justice In Conflict: “What a Mess: ICC Prosecutor Seeks Delay in Kenyatta Trial”.

No two news organisations report an event the same way.

Journalism is not an exact science. The new Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism, however, treats journalism as if it were an exact science, and journalists as if they had no right to make mistakes.

FACTUAL ACCURACY

The Code, contained in the Media Council Act 2013, is too clinical and restrictive. It uses the word “shall” in place of “should” used in the old Code contained in Media Act 2007, now repealed. “Shall” is imperative, while “should” is permissive or discretionary.

The Code uses “shall” 66 times, making it difficult to implement many of its provisions.

For example, it says: “Headings shall reflect and justify the matter printed under them.” But how much of the matter must be reflected?

One hundred per cent?

It directs that the media “shall not publish a story that falls short of factual accuracy and fairness”.

How many stories can meet this threshold 100 per cent?

It requires that corrections “shall be given same prominence as that given to the information being corrected”.

That is, regardless of the nature of the correction. The Nation published on Tuesday, quite prominently, a correction on page 6 for an erroneous story it published on page one on Sunday about Gen Julius Karangi’s term.

According to the Code, the correction was not of the “same prominence”.

“Shall” means a rule is mandatory, compulsory. It’s a word of command. “Should”, on the other hand, suggests an obligation or duty, an expectation.

But it is not an absolute requirement. It gives leeway. It advises a person to do something but the rule can be broken for justifiable reasons.

There are so many imponderables in journalism that it’s unwise to use the term “shall” rather than “should” in an ethical code.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE

For example, the Code says comments “shall be obtained from anyone who is mentioned in an unfavourable context”.

Even if there are justifiable reasons for not obtaining the comments, such as the person being in Greenland or Ituri rainforest, the journalist would still be violating the Code.

The Code further says: “The media shall not identify victims of sexual assault or publish material likely to contribute to such identification.”

The old Code uses the terms “should not”, which means you could make exceptions, with good reason, without violating the Code.

For example, when Ngugi wa Thiong’o’s wife Njeeri was raped in December 2004 and she chose to go public to declare she was raped.

If the Code is enforced to the letter, it will kill vitality and creativity in journalism.