|
Post by mank on Jul 16, 2014 22:33:24 GMT 3
I don't believe the government has the power to block the media from an event that is worth the media's course. What would be the prize for compliance on the part of the media? What really was missed by the media? Anything? I don't think so. If I am right, then the event was adequately covered.
|
|
|
Post by stranger1in3 on Jul 17, 2014 21:13:54 GMT 3
I don't believe the government has the power to block the media from an event that is worth the media's course. What would be the prize for compliance on the part of the media? What really was missed by the media? Anything? I don't think so. If I am right, then the event was adequately covered. Agreed.Kenyans got to know what transpired @ the rally.so the issue of media censorship does not even arise.Had the organizers of the rally wanted it fully covered,they would have bought airtime from the media houses.
|
|
|
Post by Onyango Oloo on Jul 18, 2014 7:44:30 GMT 3
I am reading some INTRIGUING posts on this very thread by folks who try to delude-mostly themselves-Jukwaa readers that apparently after all, there was "NO censorship on Saba Saba day." Ever since I launched Jukwaa in August 2005, I have ALWAYS assumed that the people on this forum are serious individuals of ABOVE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE.
That is why I have endeavoured not to insult Jukwaaists by peddling and regurgitating the most outlandish spin doctoring by pro-establishment propagandists.I notice, HOWEVER, that there are a couple of members-one of them a fairly recent arrival, who believe that there is an urgent need to repeat Ole Lenku type of lies on Jukwaa. Recall the TITLE of this thread: "The Ugly Face of Media's Self-CENSORSHIP".Remember also this excerpt that I posted EARLIER:
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jul 19, 2014 0:45:12 GMT 3
I am reading some INTRIGUING posts on this very thread by folks who try to delude-mostly themselves-Jukwaa readers that apparently after all, there was "NO censorship on Saba Saba day." Ever since I launched Jukwaa in August 2005, I have ALWAYS assumed that the people on this forum are serious individuals of ABOVE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE.
That is why I have endeavoured not to insult Jukwaaists by peddling and regurgitating the most outlandish spin doctoring by pro-establishment propagandists.I notice, HOWEVER, that there are a couple of members-one of them a fairly recent arrival, who believe that there is an urgent need to repeat Ole Lenku type of lies on Jukwaa. Recall the TITLE of this thread: "The Ugly Face of Media's Self-CENSORSHIP".Remember also this excerpt that I posted EARLIER: OO, Scrolling through the thread I sense a high likelihood that I am the more entrenched Jukwaa member that has disappointed your expectation that "...the people on this forum are serious individuals of ABOVE AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE." You only expect us to just exceed "average" intelligence and yet some of us fall below that? Ouch!!! I would apologize, but I think there is a problem with your determination of what is (or is not) intelligent. But lets get back to the topic - While you titled the thread "The Ugly Face of Media’s Cowardly Self-Censorship", you proceeded to post within the thread this (which you seem to have edited but not necessarily withdrawn the insinuation): Look at the bold blue font excerpt. My comment about government's ability to censor the media was attending to that kind of insinuation, whether by you or others. But even if we attend to the thread per its title, I would disagree that media's decision not to cover what is being called the saba saba event is necessarily cowardly. I find nothing big that you presume the media had need to cover, but from which it stayed away due to cowardice. The 1990/7 Saba Saba meetings were a big big deal! We can't seriously expect (leave alone require) the same excitement with an event that seeks to exploit (with very questionable credibility) the nostalgia of those events. So the media did not find it as exciting as you imagine it ought to have done, and I (or whoever you had in mind as the other person besides Stranger1in3 who you find to be either not serious or to be of below average intelligence) and Stranger1in3 happen to think that they were reasonable in doing so. The lineup of this year's saba saba day "heroes" attracts only ridicule from me (only with apologies to Raila - although he should know better) - not a surprise that the media found nothing worth their day in the sun. Getting back to your standards on intelligence, please let's not call others names as a way of addressing our disagreements. Your view is smart to you just because it is yours - of course you would not be attempting to convince us on anything you know to be unintelligent, so the fact that you try to convince us of your opinion suggests that you think that opinion is intelligent. You should leave it to others to validate your judgement, from your material arguments, rather than assume that your own assessment of it is sufficient and hence a reasonable basis for charting others on an intelligence scale.
|
|
|
Post by ebarasi on Jul 19, 2014 6:30:58 GMT 3
I don't believe the government has the power to block the media from an event that is worth the media's course. What would be the prize for compliance on the part of the media? What really was missed by the media? Anything? I don't think so. If I am right, then the event was adequately covered. Mank, It is not about what you believe or don't believe. He/She who control the instruments of intelligence and lethal force can silence or gain hidden favors from anyone excepting warriors of principle. Our own Kenyatta, Moi, Amin among other world despots have proven it.The prize for compliance can be as simple as a guarantee of a certain private indiscretion not coming to light, more government advertisements, a chance for the resolution of an individual legal or private problem etc. The reasons are as many as there are human beings. Governments and media always work to further certain perceptions. It is never about the truth. It is about perceptions and self preservation. There you have it, the relationship between the media and authorities. Seek no further.
|
|
|
Post by mank on Jul 19, 2014 6:55:24 GMT 3
I don't believe the government has the power to block the media from an event that is worth the media's course. What would be the prize for compliance on the part of the media? What really was missed by the media? Anything? I don't think so. If I am right, then the event was adequately covered. Mank, It is not about what you believe or don't believe. He/She who control the instruments of intelligence and lethal force can silence or gain hidden favors from anyone excepting warriors of principle. Our own Kenyatta, Moi, Amin among other world despots have proven it.The prize for compliance can be as simple as a guarantee of a certain private indiscretion not coming to light, more government advertisements, a chance for the resolution of an individual legal or private problem etc. The reasons are as many as there are human beings. Governments and media always work to further certain perceptions. It is never about the truth. It is about perceptions and self preservation. There you have it, the relationship between the media and authorities. Seek no further. Ebarasi, We live in a very different political state from the one Jomo Kenyatta, Moi or Amin ruled. But even in the political states of those 3, certain opposition events attracted more media coverage than the CORD's 2014 7/7 event. We live in a much freer Kenya for the media than the one of 1991 and 1997. It would be interesting to compare and contrast the media coverage of the Saba Saba events of those two years with that of this year, and then to do a similar comparison on what the fight was as about those years as opposed to today. If we are honest to ourselves I believe we can go straight to the conclusion - those two years are from an age when government held a string with a noose on what was the media then, as opposed to today, when there is a more expanded legal livelihood of the media, but the material of the Saba Saba events was like war; if you were in the media you wanted to tell the people about it. In contrast, for CORD's event, some people think the media had the obligation to cover the event for some reason that is not apparent in the agenda of the meeting, and they overlook everything else about the legal environment of today in claiming that the media was barred from covering the event. It seems that regardless of all the winnings in stripping government of certain powers we are not ready to believe that government is not at the center of every decision. I trust a day will come when there will be something worthy the coverage, against government's wish, when you will agree with the me that the media is not a pet for the government when there are real issues to cover. And, if a politician begs the media not to cover some event and the media complies, you cannot call that "gagging." It must be that the media finds the coverage not worth more than what the politician's request is worth. If you view that calculation against the one media had to make in covering events that were in direct conflict with Moi, you will then, by default, agree with me that there was nothing much for media coverage in CORD's saba saba event.
|
|
|
Post by stranger1in3 on Jul 20, 2014 6:28:28 GMT 3
I am dismayed by OO snide remarks.By insinuating that my comments were of BELOW AVERAGE INTELLIGENCE,he wishes to elevate his opinion to a higher pedestal.Thats very smart of him,but well it just remains an OPINION of what constitutes media censorship.Over 40 media outlets relaying HOURLY UPDATES on what was going on at the rally hardly constitute CENSORSHIP in my understanding.It is quite ironical that on a thread to advocate freedom of the media,some would wish us to have a uniform opinion like a choir or SELF CENSOR from expressing divergent opinion!
|
|
|
Post by merkeju on Jul 26, 2014 7:11:11 GMT 3
This is how the media should behave, ask tough questions
|
|