Journalists are like doctors, they must prescribe measures that help maintain societal calm

The fact that journalists are custodians of human rights and democracy is not coincidental but deliberate. In a liberal society, characterized by certain standards of moral consensus based on human values, it is very easy to assume the relativity of the former. The moral consensus in every society differs remarkably depending on their points of reference. However, there is no doubt that some values are human and are universally acceptable such as those of human rights and liberty. If journalists are there to guarantee that these rights are protected from abuse then – glory be to them.

However, if we examine the conventional journalistic approach in many African countries, then it is true that journalists have failed to carry out this noble responsibility by virtue of how they report issues. Journalists have often concentrated on sensationalism, immediacy and propaganda which has done very little to defend what they claim to be jealously protecting – liberty. Journalists, for instance, have reported conflicts as ‘a tug-of-war’ between two antagonists where one side risks being reported as losing. Of course, they would often argue that one of the values of news is that it is bizarre or unusual and conflicts fits perfectly within such definitions. Such conceptualizations of news which are embedded in Western models of journalism require rethinking.

Currently, classic examples on how the media plays a role in shaping public opinion is evident in their coverage of the Hague trials and the Mukuru Sinai fire disaster. The former has been given prominence due to its magnitude and the fact that public figures occupying public offices in Kenya have been implicated – these are important considerations in light of the news value criterion. However, what the media has failed to do and must do is to measure the degree of audience interest regarding the Hague question through audience research. Naturally, one would expect that audience have a high level of interest on the Hague coverage but only empirical evidence can guide the media in predicting the extent at which it would be useful to give the Hague prominence. Is there any additional human value for the media to represent the trials virtually all day every day?

Regarding the Sinai fire disaster, the media simply represented it as such – a disaster. The media extended this new and problematic or troubling event, which breached the taken for granted expectancies about how the world should be (consensual calm) by linking it to the forms of explanations which have served for all practical purposes. And so, the Sinai disaster is explained through analogies (similar other disasters) like the Bombolulu fire 2001, Sidindi in 1998 and the double tragedies at Nakumatt and Sachangwan tank accidents that claimed hundreds of lives in 2009. Emphasis is placed on drawing audience emotions through victims of the tragedies. Little effort is made to use the occasion as an opportunity to scrutinize and interrogate policy issues like urban human settlement and poverty alleviation to expose those politically responsible. However, episodes where the media covered the heroic experience of rescue workers must be commended.

The epistemological and ontological conceptions of journalism, which our media seem to religiously follow have often been a Western creation which fit perfectly in the west, especially, when the Western media reports on Africa. Consequently, they defeat the faculties of reason when journalists attempt to employ them when explaining events unfolding in Africa. It would seem that, if journalists in Africa reason through Western fashioned lenses to explain realities in Africa, then their reasoning would be naturally flawed. Timeliness, as a news values that underpin the Western journalistic ideology, betrays the need to go deep into the background of news stories to capture historical trajectories and other nuances. It leaves events superficially covered often stereotypically and sensationally.

The challenge therefore is for critical media scholars to come up with counter discourses to deconstruct the Western models of news. It would not help much for journalists and media academics to seat pretty and argue that “news should be unusual and timely,” which is actually a commercial approach. Any simple criticism about the manner in which the media reports issues in Africa should be given a surgical and critical appraisal, for this would act as a fertile ground for the possible conception of new ideologies.

Reporting that characterizes war journalism that blows issues out of proportion should be discouraged. There are obvious examples where reporting has helped escalate conflicts rather than reduce them in different parts of the world from conflicts such as those between India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, to the Invasion of Iraq and, most recently, those in Libya. Locally, the Kenyan media acted carelessly in trying to delicately balance public opinion and official electoral results in 2007 leading to post-election violence.

Reporting based on the conceptualization of elections as “winner takes all” is a time worn mentality that requires diagnosis. Journalists are like doctors, they should diagnose societal issues with the aim of prescribing measures that help maintain societal calm – peace and stability. Beyond the structural and ideological issues influencing journalists, individual journalists have psychological traits some of which are still linked to ideologies of journalistic practices such as objectivity, fairness and balance. The problem is that objectivity is a journalistic ‘myth’ that enables journalists avoid bias and be perceived as fair and is therefore questionable. Given that impartiality is endemic to humans, a deeper universal consciousness that surpasses journalistic ideologies is necessary– that of humanity itself. It is time for our journalists to embrace the same.