|
|
Post by kamalet on Dec 30, 2013 11:00:23 GMT 3
Has the relationship between the Jubilee government and the media reached the point where the Nixon people called the media "nattering nabobs of negativism"?
My little brother was annoyed at the headlines in the Sunday Nation about the 'secret extension of Gen. Karangi's tenure'. He reckoned that the headline was showing the negative aspect of 'secrecy in extension' . The situation was made worse when the Defence Secretary clarified that there was no secret or extension of tenure and that the media had got it all wrong!
It is correct to say that there is no love lost between the media and the jubilee government and the recent tiff on legislation as well as the digital migration has brought out in my view the worst in the media. But the media has stood its ground and lied through the saga claiming constitutional rights guaranteed by the media. Forget about the fact that they continue to misread the constitution!
The media has a very important role in society and must remain a watchdog of government and not its lapdog.The media needs to speak for people and there are very many things it can do. But the Kenyan media unfortunately seems to prefer pandering to the politician than dealing with real life challenges people meet. For instance, the biggest topic people are talking about is the ban on night-time bus driving and the inconvenience it has wrought on people travelling to and from their homes during the festive holidays. This is a real issue the media should be dealing with and headlining to bring it to the attention of the authorities...but what is deemed important? Muthaura's appointment and the ensuing noise from the politicians and the silly topic on General Karangi's alleged extension of contract.
But it is said that a government that loses media support has a short life span. That statement holds very true where the media is honest and tells the truth to its audience. Unlike government, trusting the media is very important due to its revered role in society. The Kenyan media has done itself little justice more so for lying to its audience first on the legislation they repeatedly called 'gagging the media' to the digital migration lies they told us! The good thing is that their audience seems to have seen through the lies and the twitter messages after the switch-off are sufficiently telling - see #someonetellmediaowners. For some reason the media has lost the trust of a section of its audience and the Jubilee government seems to have realised this. For instance the comment about people using newspapers for meat wrapping by both Uhuru and Ruto went down very badly with the media honchos with some claiming that it was disrespectful of the media. But seriously, what does you local butcher use to wrap meat??
It would appear that in the current war between government and media, the former is currently ahead by a nose and you can actually blame it on the stupidity of the media owners. But the media can turn it round by doing very simple things. Get the Keters, Raila's etc from their headlines and tackle issues facing Kenyans - insecurity, corruption and poverty! Tell us the good news and prepare us for the bad news....we shall trust you a lot more than we do today!
|
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Dec 30, 2013 20:26:44 GMT 3
Kamale You have tied together several issues about the media with a view to attacking them which should not go unchallenged. I think we should start from the most pertinent issue at the moment, and that is the digital migration. John Walubengo in the Nation has written a succinct article titled, "Here’s the real issue behind Kenya’s digital TV migration war". www.nation.co.ke/oped/blogs/dot9/Kenya-Digital-Migration-NTV-KTN-Citizen/-/1959700/2129020/-/b4vjx2/-/index.htmlIn it he says, What say you and how do you respond? Despite having time in my hand, I am in a place where internet is tricky, but I promise to respond as soon as you post. |
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Dec 30, 2013 23:04:26 GMT 3
Kamale You have tied together several issues about the media with a view to attacking them which should not go unchallenged. I think we should start from the most pertinent issue at the moment, and that is the digital migration. John Walubengo in the Nation has written a succinct article titled, "Here’s the real issue behind Kenya’s digital TV migration war". www.nation.co.ke/oped/blogs/dot9/Kenya-Digital-Migration-NTV-KTN-Citizen/-/1959700/2129020/-/b4vjx2/-/index.htmlIn it he says, What say you and how do you respond? Despite having time in my hand, I am in a place where internet is tricky, but I promise to respond as soon as you post. Sadik What Walubengo writes is exactly how the digital terrestrial broadcasting works. It means you have a digital content distributor and the media houses. Not sure then what you wanted me to say on the migration that I have not said on the Digital TV thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Dec 31, 2013 0:11:40 GMT 3
Forgive me as I have not read the other thread in full. I expected a lengthier respond, noting you interest in this matter. But, cutting the chase, the concept of digital contend distributor is in my my view an affront to Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides,
That is because in essence the govt by that concept will be determining what is put out for the consumption of the masses by using selected outlets. By by licensing only favourable outlets, I fear the govt can and have restricted media output. In my view the govt has a responsibility to propagate not to limit the provision of Human rights, contrary to what they propose to do in the digital migration. They have not business determining what is out there. For the masses to enjoy Human Rights, the govt must facilitator the distribution of information without control it, hence the objection raised by the Media Houses.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Dec 31, 2013 0:39:46 GMT 3
Forgive me as I have not read the other thread in full. I expected a lengthier respond, noting you interest in this matter. But, cutting the chase, the concept of digital contend distributor is in my my view an affront to Universal Declaration of Human Rights which provides, That is because in essence the govt by that concept will be determining what is put out for the consumption of the masses by using selected outlets. By by licensing only favourable outlets, I fear the govt can and have restricted media output. In my view the govt has a responsibility to propagate not to limit the provision of Human rights, contrary to what they propose to do in the digital migration. They have not business determining what is out there. For the masses to enjoy Human Rights, the govt must facilitator the distribution of information without control it, hence the objection raised by the Media Houses. Sadik As you are resident in the UK, perhaps you can check how the migration was managed there with the final switch off in Northern Ireland in 2012. The concept is exactly the same world over which is why you should have more than the good old 4 terrestrial channels but actually have a lot more channels now in the UK. |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Dec 31, 2013 1:10:40 GMT 3
Kamalet
Wikipedia gives this helpful information on the UK.
Unlike Kenya, the UK has licensed all media houses which were originally running analog TV to do the digital TV. BBC and part of Channel 4 are run by public funding - from TV Licence. The remaining are commercial companies. It is clear these arrangement allows an independent media to flourish, let the media companies to compete in level playing field.
In contrast, Kenya has refused all the Media Houses licences while giving the same to only the state run media KBC and a chinese company which I understand is not even a Media producing company.
Again, I take you back to the human rights associated with press freedom and its facilitation and the restrictions levied on that right.
|
|
|
|
Post by kamalet on Dec 31, 2013 8:10:22 GMT 3
KamaletWikipedia gives this helpful information on the UK. Unlike Kenya, the UK has licensed all media houses which were originally running analog TV to do the digital TV. BBC and part of Channel 4 are run by public funding - from TV Licence. The remaining are commercial companies. It is clear these arrangement allows an independent media to flourish, let the media companies to compete in level playing field. In contrast, Kenya has refused all the Media Houses licences while giving the same to only the state run media KBC and a chinese company which I understand is not even a Media producing company. Again, I take you back to the human rights associated with press freedom and its facilitation and the restrictions levied on that right. Which is why am suggesting you read what we have on the digital thread. In Kenya and by agreement, only the state broadcaster was to get a free pass on the distribution licence. The caveat was that it had to create a subsidiary company to ensure that no distributor was also a content provider. This ensured that the distributor would never compete with other broadcasters (content providers) on the signal spectrum allocated. That is the difference with the UK model where a signal distributor was also a content provider. The reason for this in Kenya was that there are many terrestrial broadcasters already licenced unlike in the Uk where only 4 companies existed nationally. That is the reason Nation Media and Royal Media in a consortium formed a company that also bid for the distribution licence that was won by PANG. You seem to have a very narrow view of human rights and press freedom, and that is not really the issue the media has. If you look at it more closely the issues are more commercial than anything else. First the signal distributor is not allowed to change or delete any content without the permission of the content provider so where is press freedom affected? If you look at it closely, Kenya is managing the process a lot better than many, but the problem seems only to be with the dominant media houses whilst the smaller ones do not have a problem! I suggest you seek out the commercial reasons of the media giants as opposed to their media freedom rights! |
|
|
|
Post by Daktari wa makazi on Dec 31, 2013 10:47:53 GMT 3
KamaletWikipedia gives this helpful information on the UK. Unlike Kenya, the UK has licensed all media houses which were originally running analog TV to do the digital TV. BBC and part of Channel 4 are run by public funding - from TV Licence. The remaining are commercial companies. It is clear these arrangement allows an independent media to flourish, let the media companies to compete in level playing field. In contrast, Kenya has refused all the Media Houses licences while giving the same to only the state run media KBC and a chinese company which I understand is not even a Media producing company. Again, I take you back to the human rights associated with press freedom and its facilitation and the restrictions levied on that right. Which is why am suggesting you read what we have on the digital thread. In Kenya and by agreement, only the state broadcaster was to get a free pass on the distribution licence. The caveat was that it had to create a subsidiary company to ensure that no distributor was also a content provider. This ensured that the distributor would never compete with other broadcasters (content providers) on the signal spectrum allocated. That is the difference with the UK model where a signal distributor was also a content provider. The reason for this in Kenya was that there are many terrestrial broadcasters already licenced unlike in the Uk where only 4 companies existed nationally. That is the reason Nation Media and Royal Media in a consortium formed a company that also bid for the distribution licence that was won by PANG. You seem to have a very narrow view of human rights and press freedom, and that is not really the issue the media has. If you look at it more closely the issues are more commercial than anything else. First the signal distributor is not allowed to change or delete any content without the permission of the content provider so where is press freedom affected? If you look at it closely, Kenya is managing the process a lot better than many, but the problem seems only to be with the dominant media houses whilst the smaller ones do not have a problem! I suggest you seek out the commercial reasons of the media giants as opposed to their media freedom rights! The commercial reasons are well known - mainly to do with coverage. The Media Houses who survive on advertisement has expressed concerned about the availability of the top box, and the price attached to them. In their view, which I support, high prices and limited supply will reduce who can have the top box and thus access to TV lowering the catchment area for advertisers. It is the case that most Kenyans will have to buy a top box to watch digital TV. I don't think it add any value to your argument to use the smaller media houses approval as a sign that everything is fine. I doubt if they will be affected as much as the major players in the industry. My concern which may not the one strongly expressed by the media houses is the govt interference with freedom of the press in the supply of TV services to the masses which results in the curtailment of human rights. That is a serious charge - the UK example which you have now sidestepped, illustrates the picture needed of independent media, not bolted to governmental approval. The case is now before the Court of Appeal - we will have to wait for February 2014 to see where we go from here. |
|
