Kenya needs a reliable and objective public
broadcaster to cater for the interests of the public. Much has been said about
our institutions of governance like the judiciary, the police and so on.
However, we tend to forget that the media or “the fourth” estate is an arm of
government.
So we ask, has anything been done to transform or
support the role of Kenya Broadcasting Corporation as an important institution
in the democratic governance of the republic of Kenya?
KBC has a rich history, having been started in 1928 when
Kenya was a British colony. This means that it was modeled under the British Broadcasting
Corporation. Can anyone argue that any efforts that have been made since this broadcaster
was founded was done in good faith and with the vision of driving KBC to the next
level, perhaps closer to the rank of BBC?
The latter is a respectable global broadcaster with
many observers testifying to its professionalism and objectivity, even though it
sometimes looks at Africa with Western fashioned lenses when reporting events
on the continent – reporting is
sensationalized and does nothing to help the situation on the ground.
KBC’s name was changed to Voice of Kenya in 1964
when Kenya became an independent country and in 1989, the corporation’s name
was reverted by the Kenyan government from VOK to KBC. In all those years, what
has KBC done in terms of public broadcasting that Kenyans can celebrate?
KBC has done nothing, whatsoever, that would convince any keen observer that it has been working hard to represents the interest of the public, not even in the last concluded elections and petitions. It has refused to invest in technology for excellent national and international coverage and it, often, has a crop of demotivated journalists which brings to the foe questions of remunerations, media ownership and funding.
Who really owns KBC and how is it funded? The question of who owns the broadcaster is
clear since we all know it is a state broadcaster. However, it is mandated to
serve the interests of the public within the boundaries of the laws enshrined
in the constitution.This technically means that KBC is a servant of the
state and the public. If this is true, it means that the broadcaster is funded
using public funds (tax) and, therefore, Wanjiku
can demand accountability and even sue the broadcaster for failing to meet public
expectations.
For KBC to be seriously transformed, it needs to
invest in modern technology and efforts geared towards transforming it from
analogue to digital broadcasting. The management needs to be overhauled and if
need be, those appointed be publicly vetted and sworn in under oath to enable the
institution have a clear vision that would attract talented young journalists
for sustainability.
Currently, young journalists employed by the
broadcaster simply use it as a career launching pad to and training ground
before moving to bigger mainstream private media. This leaves the KBC with no
room to develop.
There are few countries in Africa that can boast of
a solid broadcasting foundation such as the ones left in Kenya and South Africa
by the British. In South Africa, even though South Africa Broadcasting
Corporation has its fair share of leadership challenges and internal wrangles
between board members and the Africa National Congress leadership, it has
performed excellently and, currently, broadcasts across the continent through
SABC Africa – Kenya can borrow a leaf.
KBC needs to be transformed into a robust public broadcaster due to the dangerous trends in Kenya where there is media plurality, in terms of the mushrooming of private media, but not necessarily media diversity. The dangers of too much private media dominance have to be pointed out since private media has a tendency to be influenced by political and economic interests depending on who owns them and their proximity to the status quo.
.jpg)