Let us glocalize our media for moral progress

The fact that morality is a product of social construction is well established that I don’t intend to lecture Kenyans on. A quick example can be found in Prof. Greenfeld’s excellent essay titled “Modernity and the Mind” that seeks to explain the Russian revolution inspired by the ‘envy’ of modern nations in the West, particularly, France. 

The ‘envy’ was captured by Russian dramatists Dennis Fonvizin, who after visiting France, could not help but conclude that he saw more bad things happening than good ones and many bad people than good. The same rationale seems to apply everywhere in the world. Having seen France, Fonvizin saw no reason to adopt the Western model but surely envied it. In the essay, Greenfeld concludes that what is actually a virtue in France is, most likely, a vice in England. Is modernity the anti-thesis of morality?

Morality and the new normal

Can one therefore argue that immorality is a result of the envy of foreign cultures that paves way for cultural assimilation and subsequent cultural imperialism? Or is immorality simply self-inherent in those that play God, are in the business of ‘othering’ and are convinced that their ideas of humanity and creativity are incontestably rich for uncritical adoption by emerging others? 

Who is responsible for the cultural collapse in Kenya? The obvious culprit is the media but it is not that simple. Immorality has been a thorn in our flesh even before the advent of mass media. But can we trust our ‘foreign’ media to be ‘custodians’ of morality now that immorality is becoming the new normal? If you don’t agree with the latter, then you have not listened to Jaguar’s lamentations in the local hit song Kigeugeu that describes all sorts of immoralities perpetrated by politicians, doctors, wives, constructors and drivers.

Law and order

I am convinced that if an Englishman or woman would visit France, then he or she would be ‘happy’ with the ‘virtues’ in France even though some of them might be ‘vices’ back in England due to law and order. Would the same persons find the same measure of happiness with the ‘virtues’ in Kenya that would compel them to visit again? If not, can the law really be our antidote to immorality given Kenya’s dependence on tourism? 

The answer is complicated and requires a whole thesis. However, history has proven that law and order can be used to tame the reptilian brain of deviant characters in the society. When this is well done, it helps shape moral behavior. That is why liberal Western societies believe in freedom but within the confines of law and order. Without the latter, which entails rewards and punishment in social learning theories, then the society can be a jungle.

Africanizing modernity

Instead of importing foreign programmes, the media should support the production of local content that reflects the realities in Kenya. The current local edutainment programmes such as Tahidi High, Machachari, Inspekta Mwala, Heartlines, The legendary Vioja Mhakaman and Vitimbi, Papa Shirandula, Waridi and others should be supported since they can influence and shape behavior in the country positively. 

The most successful evidence of the role of local edutainment initiatives in shaping societal morals is found in South Africa where locally produced content has helped address challenges like HIV/AIDS, crime and poverty.  However, this calls for thorough investments beyond the media to include liberal arts educational training that would Africanize modernity.

Newtown shooting is business unusual in Hollywood

The recent terrifying event in Newtown, United States where a gun man killed 27 people among them 20 children has raised questions on gun control laws where the President has called for change. Apart from that, the incident has also subtly introduced debates about television violence where interestingly, following the shooting, Hollywood, the greatest entertainment machine in the world, has employed self-censorship (business unusual) of violent content fearing that it could be insensitive with the news still fresh in the minds of audiences.

Cable networks like HBO, TLC and NBC either postponed or cancelled airing programmes with violent content. The Film Society of Lincoln Center in New York even canceled the screening of Tom Cruise's violent new movie, “Jack Reacher”. The argument being that, in the wake of national tragedies, entertainment companies in the US ritualistically assess the content of their programming to ensure it is not offensive.

However, the Newtown incident is a new challenge to media scholarship in the United States which dates back to the early theories of media effects that centered on whether or not, in deed, television causes violence. The latter position was dismissed in audience research giving too much credit to the intelligence of the audience as opposed to the power of media content to influence audiences. Media scholars must now go back to the theoretical drawing board to methodologically investigate various hypotheses regarding the validity of claims held about the relationship between television and violence in the society. 

Luckily, with the advent of new media, there are new ways of investigating media, particularly television, content for violence which, traditionally, has been centered on audiences, the technology itself and content. For example, the three dimensions in new media such as interactivity, demassification and asynchroneity can be used by scholars to follow-up individual audiences as opposed to mass audiences (demassification) to examine how they interact with technology such as cable networks and utilize programming (asynchroneity) and the potential effects of such habits. It will be interesting to see whether the ‘time worn’ bullet theory will be given a new lease of life in the new hypotheses that will emerge and possibly new media theories in the wake of the Newtown event.

For now, Hollywood’s response to the shooting largely supports the premise that television does influence the audience and its content can sometimes be offensive. Violent programming has a significant effect on the audiences and may be the sources of societal violence as evidenced in the July 20 2012 Aurora movie theater mass shooting in Colorado US during a mid-night screening of the movie “The Dark  Night Rises”. Even though the suspect was being examined for mental illness, he confessed to have wanted to kill people and law enforcers found a Batman mask in his apartment. Batman is a fictional comic book and 1986 character of the television series “The Dark Nights Returns”.

The current events in the US and the Middle-East are restructuring the globe

Here in the US what seems to remind you that Americans are going for elections in November this year is the media, apart from the few cars pasted with campaign stickers like “Osama is Dead General Motors is Alive” and “Vote Republican, Since Everyone Can Never be on Welfare” representing both the Obama and Romney campaigns respectively.

The truth is, American electoral politics is actually beyond maturity even though it still conceals discourses of race and prejudice regarding questions of the welfare of minorities and the poor. The fascinating thing about American campaigns is the manner in which democrats and republicans work tirelessly to convince the electorate about their policies. Among the many competing policy issues, right now it seems the question is about who has a better economic plan that will restore America’s and thus global economy to a clear path of consistent growth. Another issue is regarding America’s foreign policy courtesy of September 11 terrorist attacks and anti-American sentiments in the Middle East and elsewhere. Electoral questions concern who has the gravitas to be the powerful man in the World today.

But where do US electorates learn all the electoral politics. The point is, American media has been the arena in which conflicting interests between democrats and republicans play out. If you pay attention to the media coverage of rival political contenders, both sides are equally convincing as it played out in the just concluded national conventions. Millions of dollars are spent on “approving” political messages in the mainstream media as campaigns get ‘dirty’. It takes little effort to see how CNN is pro-democrats or liberals while Fox News is pro-republicans or conservatives and sometimes appears to be anti-Obama.

The underlying reality is the fact that Obama and Romney are faced with new and complex challenges that never faced any of their predecessors in the history of American history. For example, the pressure of assuring Israel their full support regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions with Israel threatening to attack Iran, stabilizing the current regime in Afghanistan, where American soldier operating alongside their Afghan counterparts are killed by the latter, and the current mess in the entire middle east. That is, the conflict in Syria and anti-American demonstrations in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Nigeria, Yemen, even as close to home as possible, in Sudan. 

Out of this conflict zones, Egypt is particularly important because of the peace treaty the country made with Israel on the 28^th of March 1979 in Washington DC, following the prolonged Arab-Israeli war under the leadership of Anwar Sadat, witnessed by President Jimmy Carter. The treaty was signed for the sake of stability in the middle-East which is also now under threat. In fact, America has been giving Egypt financial and other forms of assistance since then and was instrumental for regime change in Libya. New questions are arising in the political stage in the US on whether the recent events in Egypt would jeopardize US relations with the country. These are issues that clearly pose a huge new foreign policy challenge to the current American presidency. But what is the crust of this new challenge then?

Out of the many challenges America faces in the modern world today, the most salient one is ‘terrorism’ which has become a huge industry. Every day billions of dollars are spent on intelligence and technology in the hope of defeating terrorism. America is currently flying Drones in parts of the world that, in their view, harbor terrorists. They sent a couple of them to Libya after an attack of their embassy in Benghazi that left their Ambassador and three others dead. The truth is, counter terrorism efforts cannot materialize without the support of local governments. Events unfolding in Libya, Tunisia and the entire Arab world are perhaps the beginning of the last experiments of the competence of the regimes in that region to fully co-operate in the collective and collaborative global effort of ‘fighting terrorism’ to restore peace and security. 

The critical point is that ordinary civilians irrespective of  race, nationality, gender or religion have often risked being victims of terror and therefore  both the West and the Arab world must accept the reality that peace cannot be realized through any form of violence, whether it involves physical conflict or inflammatory language. There should always be an opportunity for dialogue as means of resolving conflicts. The other point is that even as we celebrate freedom of expression, it should be exercised with utmost responsibility. These are tough questions currently hot in the US campaign trails.

You see, here in America, it really does not matter much who is in White House, whether it’s the democrats or the republicans. The concern is the value of their civilization. The truth is, Americans believe in liberty and democracy which they are convinced is the best system if humanity is to explore its full potential, thus, they are determined to export such values. The tricky question is the extent in which they will achieve this through consent and the role of ally states therein.

Fredrick Ogenga is a Visiting Scholar at the Institute for the Advancement of Social Sciences (Boston University)

Eurocopter: Kenyans must never lose sight of on-going security reforms in honor of Saitoti and Ojode

The loss of two cabinet ministers in charge of the security docket is surely a big loss, especially, during this time when Kenya is at war. But all is not lost since it is during Saitoti’s and Ojode’s tenure that Kenyan security machinery has been beefed up and, practically, put to the mother of all tests and, seemingly, it is performing well. I am referring to the War against Alshabaab in lawless Somali and anti-terrorism measures internally. Little wonder that Kenya was one of the first African countries to adopt the, God forbid, ill-fated Eurocopter in her efforts to counter terrorism, drug trafficking, piracy and other forms of crime within and outside her borders that are a threat to her political-economy.

What Kenyans must not lose sight of, are the major achievements of the ministers in the quest for peace and stability and, in so doing, work jointly to maintain the gains made so far. For example, ordinary internal security issues such as regular check-ups in public places, like malls, bus stations and clubs remain mandatory and must not be taken for granted. Such measures or security practices must work in tandem with the already existing cultural normative practices geared towards socializing Kenyans into realizing the dreams of their fore-fathers. Like it has always been pointed out, Kenyans must remain suspicious of abandoned luggage such as bags and parcels and report suspicious characters to the police. So far, Kenyans have co-operated with these new security measures leading to few arrests and some sense of security and control. These are positive trends.

However, such gains can be easily eroded if they are not protected by law. The latter would lay the necessary foundation for the much needed reforms for the establishment of strong institutions that will guarantee peace and security for every Kenyan. For example, the enactment of National security intelligence act (1998) in 1999 led to the creation of the NSIS which has performed impressively regarding its mandate of identifying security threats within and outside Kenya, collecting and analyzing intelligence on these threats for proper and necessary actions to be taken. The motivation behind the formation of NSIS was to avoid unnecessary violence such as the ones experienced during the 2007 post-election period and predict future threats, through intelligence, from external aggressors such as the Alshabaab. The formation of bodies such as NCIC is commendable, especially, considering the volatile nature of Kenyan elections, like all elections in Africa.

Quoted in the recent national peace conference in Mombasa, Saitoti was emphatic about the need to beef-up security during the upcoming elections and the fact that Kenyans do not want violence. This meant that security is still a big challenge both within the country and around our borders. The government must move with speed in the appointment of selfless individuals in the security docket with the merit and courage that will forever remind us of the character of the two fallen heroes. These individuals will find a lot of files on their desks but they must be intelligent enough to read from the same security script left behind by their predecessors for that will be the only way to secure the vision of a more peaceful and stable nation. So has Kenya made any significant gains in securing herself and does the country feel safe in the absence of Saitoti and Ojode? In terms of the defense force, Kenya has a well established national defense force, the National Security Service has already been created through NSIS and the police reforms are underway. However, the death of the two ministers is a huge set-back which only means that more needs to be done, especially, in police reforms which are not negotiable if Kenya is to achieve its vision 2030.

The latter is entirely pegged on the state of her national security, which can be defined as the government’s capacity and capability of mobilizing political, economic and social resources in a manner that would guarantee its legitimacy to power and the safety and security of its citizens. In the three days of national mourning, Kenyans must remember that implementing security is an enormous responsibility which needs proper planning, coordination and synchronization from various stakeholders. Therefore, its success banks on the extent in which it is sanctioned and supported by the rule of law on one hand and citizens on the other. Most importantly, the executive must jealously support the necessary reforms in honor of Saitoti, Ojode and Kenyans.



Fredrick Ogenga is a lecturer in Communication and Media Technology and a Visiting Scholar in Boston University Department of Sociology.

braco_od@yahoo.com.

Debates in Media and Elections in Kenya are Healthy

One of the roles of the media is to provide a platform for deliberating important issues. However, in an article published on the (DN, May 8), Mr Isaiah Cherutich has shot himself in the foot for two reasons. Firstly, in this century one cannot afford to celebrate the power of the media. Secondly, he risks censoring a vibrant discussion that is taking shape on the role of the media in the society. If we think that debates in media and politics are sterile, then one would prefer a society without a media. Mr Cherutich has the opinion that media scholars must not challenge each other. I totally disagree. In a vibrant democracy, multiplicity of thought in a public spheres such as the media is a welcome move towards democratic advancement – Scholars are therefore encouraged to debate.

The writer’s roof-top cry reminds me of the traditional rivalry between journalism and media studies. The latter is presumed to be the academic backbone of the former. The fact that he echoes the error made by Prof Obonyo regarding who sets the agenda during an election and the controversy surrounding whether or not media manufactures ‘reality’ is a testimony that he is theoretically malnourished. The reason why he holds such a view is easy to establish since it is inherent in his epistemological premise emanating from a media practice background or ‘school of thought’. The latter has got very little to offer regarding media theories. Mr Cherutich’s  argument that those who practice in newsrooms as ‘journalists’ have got more moral authority over critical media discourses than those who merely research on media theories in universities is unsustainable.


If he considered more modern media theories, then it would seem like a joke to insist that media does not ‘manufacture’ consensus and this should not be conflated with the idea that media fabricates issues. The conclusion that media is not in the business of ‘cultural production’ is misleading since it also means that journalists who use the media to produce discourses of violence during elections should not be held accountable. A better scrutiny of the conduct of the media should go beyond assumptions that the media is too powerful on one side and audiences are helpless on the other. If we are convinced that such a relationship is immutable, then we are taking things for granted.


Flesh and blood journalists must be held accountable for their ‘facts’. The latter are usually chosen selectively in news representation. Media representation is problematic because it necessarily alters the original. Journalism is like a search light that can choose to illuminate selected facts while leaving others in the dark. Objectivity, that Cherutich ‘cherishes’, is a journalistic myth (system of coherence and relevance) that is meant to safeguard against accusations of bias. In fact, his story did not reflect objectivity. Journalists would generally balance stories as a conventional practice with little emphasis on what they choose to say on both sides. So questions should concern rethinking journalistic conventions beyond the normative Western ones. Can Cherutich offer us some viable options?


He also contradicts himself by rubbishing theoretical foundations of journalistic practice (media studies) but yet goes ahead to mention three, ‘old school’ theories.  One cannot simply argue that journalism is a newsroom practice therefore we should do away with theories. We can equally not argue that those academically equipped to understand the modus operandi of the media have got nothing of substance to offer when critiquing the media. In fact, criticisms about the conduct of journalism are what led to the birth of media studies as a discipline. Lastly, we should refrain from assuming that the media is too powerful. Audiences are equally intelligent, capable of accepting, rejecting or negotiating what they see in the media, therefore, critical media debates are healthy.


Fredrick Ogenga is a lecturer in Communication and Media Technology, Maseno University and a visiting scholar in sociology, Boston University, USA.


braco_od @yahoo.com

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.

Yes we have e-tv, SABC and other news outlets in South Africa but a journalist is either good or evil

Call it conservatism or old-fashionism but psychological factors are still important variables that influence news content. Of course Prof. Tawana Kupe will take this ‘reality’ with a pinch of salt. This is due to the fact that, it would seem, psychological factors do not influence news content in a mutually exclusive manner nor do they exist in a vacuum. Therefore, they cannot be solely used to exhaustively explain the character of any journalist as an object of analysis.

To draw from the ancient Russian dramatist Denis Fonvisin, who was responsible for the construction of the Russian nationality in the 17th century Russia, we see relationships that can be comparable to South Africa and many African nations that realized nationalism much later in the 20th century given my arguments in this article. Like Peter the great, Fonvisin was keen about the realization of the Russian identity and nationality. Unlike Peter the great, who celebrated the idea of “the civil” or civilization from the West, especially the United Kingdom (the first nation on the planet), Fonvisin embodied the envy among Russians of the West. This was out of the realization that to be like them, then Russia has to match and probably even surpass them - as envisioned by Peter the great or Peter 1 (1682-1725).

There was influx of Western ideas and accompanied technology in Russia which Peter admired although he was not interested in cultural questions. When his vision to match and even surpass the West was not forthcoming and realizing that Russia could actually not match the West, resentiment was born beyond his control captured well by Fonvisin. However, this brought about cultural renaissance during the reigns of his successors.

The point I am making in this article is that one of the reasons why Fonvisin and many Russians were resented was the fact that the model conceived by the West was, according to him, not the best model for Russia to adopt. For when he personally visited France and after striving to be objective about his object of analysis (France), Fonvisin could not help but conclude that he saw more bad things happening in France than good ones, he saw many bad people than good ones. He further concluded that the same applies to everywhere in the world and neither the West nor Russia was an exception.

After observing the French, Fonvisin concluded that “a French man will never forgive himself if he misses an opportunity to cheat,” “his God was money”, that “what was considered a virtue in France was actually a vice in Britain” and that the French are good in nothing but the arts and culture (fashion). Having seen France, Fonvisin saw no reason to adopt the Western model but surely envied it. Nevertheless, the crisis of the forced noble identity created an identity gap and insecurity among the aritrocracy in Russia and the search for national identity became a state of emergency.

The search begun by, first and foremost, constructing the West as an object of ridicule especially in relation to the idea of civilization which Fonvisin, the dramatist, satirized so well. He satirized the cultural pretensions and privileged coarseness of the nobility which made him one of his nation’s foremost 18th-century dramatists. His wit and his knowledge of French and German classics made him a favourite in the enlightened circles of the court of Catherine the great. Such cultural satires became mortar for the construction of Russian nationalism.
In rejecting the West, reflected in works such as “Letters from abroad,” Fonvisin was not rejecting the idea of human reason but the force behind the faculties of reason.

Greenfeld, a Prof of nationalism at the Institute for the Advancement of Social Sciences (IASS), writes that the rejection of reason implied the reinterpretation of its corollaries in political culture: liberty and equality. While Russian nationalists agreed that the concepts denoted great moral virtues (for these values were so central to the canon that their very names acquired a magical character), they refused to see their true embodiment in Western institutions. Western liberty and equality were not real liberty and equality. These were something else. It was not entirely clear what they were, but the pivot of the reinterpretation is easily established. Individual freedom was the source of all bondage: It stifled and constrained the inner forces of spirit; and every expression of this limiting rationality in economic or political institutions only exacerbated it deleterious effects. Real freedom preceded into the soul and became the inner freedom; and political equality lost all meaning.

Fonvinsi was among the first to point to the critical difference between the real and the apparent. In his letters to Panin (1778), he wrote “Observing the conditions of the French nation, I learn to discern liberty by law and real liberty. Our people do not have the first, but enjoy the latter in many ways. In contrast, the French, having the right of liberty, live in veritable slavery,” but it was the Derzhavin who unselfconsciously, gave Russian liberty and equality a concise, but articulate poetic definition. He said in The Grandee “Blessed is the people which like the Russian people, sees happiness – in unity/equality – in equity/and liberty – in the ability to control ones passion.” However, the matrix of such a conceptualization which was the Russian nationalism was based on cultural re-evaluation. Russia did not have liberty and equality; and so it revolted against rationality, rejecting both the thinking individual and the faculty that define his nature.

Greenfeld points out that reason as a faculty of the human mind referred to articulation, precision, delimitation, and reserve. They oppose to it life so full of feeling that one could choke on it – the inexpressible, the immeasurable. By their very nature these qualities were vague, undefined. It was much clearer what they were not, than what they were. These qualities of the Russian soul arrived at through the mental exercise of posing antithesis to the Western virtue in which Russia was particularly deficient. Greenfield further points out that the possession of such a soul was so sweet, and its inventors and discoverers wanted so much to believe in it, that this initially intangible entity materialized and, embodied in the national character, became the most formidable and immutable component of the culture emerging around it.

Fonvisin argued that reason cannot be equated to the mind because the mind often cuts through the veil given that it’s a product of the surrounding environment, unless it is a product of a sacred and pure heavenly Island divorced from environmental variables, ‘reality’ and beyond human reach. Fonvisin argued that reason and thought is about fashion. Reason, and by extension the mind, can be out of fashion but not the soul. He argued that a body, which is just a vessel, without a soul is a monster and the soul is what brings about the pure consciousness of humanity and is the reason for its very existence. It was this foundation that the Russians wanted to construct their nationalism as distinct from the West. If we go by this analogy, we are tempted to assume that the Russian nationalism was constructed by men and women who had great ability to reason but guided by the soul. However, such an assumption may leave a lot to be desired.

Thanks to technology today. There are many Fonvisins and Peter the greats in the society in the name of politicians, academics and business people due to their positions of power and explosion of technology like facebook and twitter. But those who enjoy a relatively privileged position in the distribution of culture are journalists and citizens as journalists. Journalist report what happens by virtue of having witnessed the event unfolding, so do citizens. To what extent are journalists responsible, just like Fonvisin and Peter the great for the construction of a better South African nation and African nations today? Because journalists are people and there are more bad people than good ones in every nation, as Fonvisin observed, how can evil/bad journalists escape this psychological trait that is part and parcel of their human reason?

Given that psychological factors still play an important role, how can good journalists strive to counterbalance the imbalance? Do journalists have to be evil/bad to celebrate the fact that “good news is bad news?” Do they really celebrate bad news? If so, does it mean that this is because they are bad/evil journalists? Or is it because, like the French in Fonvisin’s analogy, their God is money and they simply sensationalize to sell stories? And how can they escape such criticisms and accept self critique of what is inherently psychological? Do journalists in South Africa and Africa view reality with Western fashioned lenses which marvel them but blind them of cultural issues in Africa like Peter the great?

The media has now replaced the early nationalists in Africa that had to "decolonize" the African mindset as well as overthrow colonial rule. The media should continue with the nationalist task of "reeducating" Africans and the promotion of black pride through African foods, music, dress, architecture, and religion as equal to, if not better than, their European counterparts. While these steps may seem minor they are the best ways that the media can adopt to build a better South African nation and African nations through their news content and programming. Yes we have e-TV, SABC, SABC-Africa and other news outlets in South Africa but a journalist is either good or evil. The good ones embody the soul/spirit and pride of Africa and are constantly constructing our unique nationalism.