My journalism senior and long-time Editor Kipkoech Tanui penned an interesting article, 'What happened at State House?' (The Standard, Friday, July 8, 2016).
As a journalist, I will respond with a counter question; what really happened in the newsroom?
The story of the alleged disbandment of the PSCU; the firing of senior directors and related short stories was a spectacular failure of the art and craft of journalism.
It was a case of journalism crumbling in the face of power, instead of excelling in the wealth of content and pillars of truth – itself the highest calling of media reportage.
One of my all-time favourite journalism one-liners was sent out by Kenyan news anchor and journalist TerryAnne Chebet when she once tweeted, “ Journalism is observing everything, listening to it all, writing it down and then doubting it (so that you verify)” . The emphasis is mine.
READ MORE
From awareness to action: How e-commerce is transforming media advertising
Social media ban: Should we follow the Aussie example?
The media published and aired a story based on an anonymous source who lied and after the mistake was done, they could not retract or apologise and instead chose to listen to the same anonymous source lie to them that there was what Tanui calls “something of seismic proportions” that had transpired.
Having listened, read and watched the stories, all I heard like every other news consumer was that an anonymous source had confirmed the story.
The source, according to media reports, claimed that a memo and in some media houses, a text had been sent out to PSCU staff to stay away from work until President Uhuru Kenyatta returned from a trip abroad.
Some media houses even tried to answer the journalistic why; it was because of a New York Times statement.
But then why would anyone demand anonymity for a story such as an alleged sacking? Is it not the responsibility of the journalist to demand in the interest of truth the letter of dismissal or at the least, place a call to the Public Service Commission?
Assuming deadline was close and the anonymous source had to be given a benefit of the doubt, was it not mandatory after making claims of reinstatement for the source to supply the alleged letters of dismissal or disbandment? Or did journalism on that one instance become a rubber-stamp to a lie because they were already swimming in it?
The use of anonymous sources in our newsrooms must move from a debate to internal regulation within newsrooms.
Are anonymous sources the new epicentre of deceit, hidden and protected in the greatest privilege a reporter can hand a voice in a story?
The Associated Press style book, also known as the ‘bible of journalism’, has a universal guide on the use of anonymous sources.
“Ask yourself,” reads the stylebook, “if there is a way to get this same information another way, without resorting to anonymity? Perhaps there is another source you can speak to, or a record you can look up.”
That is where the newsrooms failed. There was need to verify the story and employ the cardinal rule of objectivity after the source spoke.
Unfortunately, it became a one-sided story that all of us read and followed in the media as the anonymous source (whoever it is) crafted the movie and made all of us actors with the media as conveyor belts.
Sources are great, I actually hold that they are the heart of investigative journalism, but because they enjoy the highest protection of the craft of journalism, they must bear responsibility to tell the truth.
Sources who lie should not benefit from protection. The relationship is that of give and take. Supply the truth and benefit from the protection as promised.
I say that because this is not the first time anonymous sources have lied to our media.
The Standard, once claimed that Mr Kenyatta had lost hundreds of millions of shillings (in US dollars) at the Jomo Kenyatta International Airport “according to police sources". The newspaper later recanted the story.
Globally, we all know of the infamous case of Janet Cooke who invented sources to concoct her fictitious Pulitzer Prize-winning story about a child heroin addict.
To be fair, however, anonymous sources are sometimes the only key to some great stories, unzipping the locked files of corruption, but as I have shown sometimes, anonymous sources are the road to misinformation.
Newsrooms must always strive to independently verify the information from sources. If there’s no corroborating evidence, that must be declared.
Susan Stith of Jacksonville, Florida, once made an observation that I completely agree with, “It’s understandable that some stories are so explosive that sources are not willing to be quoted by name.
"However -- and this is where the media behaves irresponsibly -- the press must confirm the story... If you can’t, throw it back to your source to find more sources for you. The source obviously wants the story told, otherwise they would not have approached you at all - if they want the story told, they’ll assist you in corroborating it.”
Mr Tanui, just what went wrong in the newsroom?
