MCK should protect, not kill, press freedom

The Media Council of Kenya has taken a public position condemning news publications in the country as serial betrayers of public interest and accusing their editors of violating the Code of Conduct for the Practice of Journalism.

MCK proffers that it has done a study and found a pattern of screaming headlines without corresponding and appropriate content, multiple repetitions of headlines over a short period of time, as well as partisan and skewed coverage and presentation of news and current affairs.

Needless to say, these are very serious charges indeed. Especially so as they are coming from the body mandated by law to regulate the media industry. However, the manner in which MCK has handled the matter raises critical questions of public interest.

First, being a public institution, MCK owes Kenyans a comprehensive review of any matter brought to its attention before pronouncing itself on it. Kenyans expect that such pronouncements be accompanied by evidence of due process, identifying the aggrieved party or parties, aggressors and any laws or rules breached.

Transparency is a cherished national value and our democracy requires that public servants embrace this virtue.

Second, rules of natural justice demand that nobody is condemned unheard. MCK has a dispute resolution arm, the Complaints Commission, established in anticipation of conflict arising from the media’s work.

So far, and to the best of our knowledge, no individual has publicly and transparently presented complaints or petitions to the commission in regard to those stories or headlines the council referred to.

Which begets the question: On whose interest is MCK complaining? How does a regulator become a complainant? Since Kenya is a civilised society, it is only fair that this commission is facilitated and empowered to discharge its mandate without undue influence or hijacking of its role.

The media-aggrieved should be encouraged to approach this tribunal publicly and transparently as none other than President Uhuru Kenyatta and others have done previously.

Third, it is counterproductive of the council to paint the entire media with one broad brush. Even if its accusations were factual, it is unfathomable that the entire media would be simultaneously guilty of the same offence.

It undermines the cause of justice and the media’s public service role to opt for a generalised claim.

Fourth, Kenya adopted a media regulation mechanism that deliberately involves the State and industry. Co-regulation is a measure to protect media freedom in service to the public.

Our history books are replete with instances when the powerful have moved to clamp on independent journalism and sought to influence the editorial space and direction. We expect that MCK is fully apprised of this and should be steadfast in defending it.

Indeed, it is paradoxical that MCK, a creation of the media industry after years of painful agitation and lobbying, is becoming the very instrument to demolish and impede the work of its creators.

For avoidance of doubt, MCK has 15 functions enshrined in its enabling statute, Media Council Act 2013. Five are pertinent here: Promotion of press freedom and independence; protection of rights of journalists and media practitioners; setting ethical standards and enforcing compliance; regulating ethical standards; and resolving disputes amongst media institutions, governments and news sources. Literal and deep interpretation of these functions cannot justify what MCK is purporting to do.

Opinions are varied but never was it envisioned that MCK would control content and headlines and direct media organisations on how to do their work.

That is the province of professional journalists and editors. Media houses have internal editorial policies and style guides that direct their operations. For the record, the ethical standards and professional guidelines operated by MCK were drawn from what existed within media houses years before its formation.

MCK cannot arrogate to itself the high moral ground on ethics or purport to domicile professional skills and competencies, hence prime itself as a prefect for media houses.

The council’s latest statement does not inspire confidence that it is a willing defender of editorial independence and press freedom. Stakeholders must rally to get MCK back on the rails. The media will continue to do their duty responsibly, diligently, professionally and meticulously.

And whenever we goof, we will humbly seek pardon, as we often do in deserving cases. But we expect MCK to discharge its duty fastidiously while deftly recognising the issues outlined above. Its pronouncements should never be seen as skewed in favour of some invisible interests.