THE 2008 POST ELCETION CRISIS IN THE EYES OF THE KENYAN MEDIA

By: Steve Owuor ABSTARCT The main purpose of this article is to critic the role the Kenyan media played in addressing peace journalism during the pre and post election violence of 2007- 2008. We shall be addressing issues such as media effects on a given public using Malcolm McCombs and Donald Shaws agenda setting theory to critically understand what content the Kenyan media reported on and how it affected the public before and after the 2007 elections. We shall also apply Johan Galtungs (1997) alternate route: the 'high road' of peace journalism, in order to analyze what the Kenyan media can do to promote practicing peace journalism. INTRODUCTION This paper argues the positions the Kenyan Media took in the 2008 post election crisis in the context of peace journalism. How the protagonists parties, Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) and Party of National Unity (PNU) influenced journalistic reporting during the 2007 and the outcome of the post election crisis in 2008. We shall also try to understand by referring to various newspaper articles what kind of measures can be undertaken to avert reporting that would lead to conflict or escalation of an existing socio-political crisis. In order to do this we shall discuss the impact that journalism has in news today. We shall also critic the manner in which news is reported and the key players involved in packaging this newsworthy material for the public to digest. By doing so we shall try to understand the kind of tactics a government applies to manipulate the way news is to be reported. We shall apply two main theories, namely magic bullet theory and agenda setting theory and ultimately try to argue how this brings out conflict and how, through the definition of peace journalism a news reporter can apply objective reporting without creating a winnerlooser situation. Media Effects In Stuart Halls article the Rediscovery of Ideology: Return of the Repressed in Media Studies, Stuart argues that media studies has undergone radical metamorphosis since its inception as a specialist area of scientific inquiry and research. During the 1940s up to the 1960s researchers have been debating the

issues of media effects in terms of the changes which the media are said to have effected in the behavior of individuals exposed to their influence. A good number of theories have emerged during that particular period of time, key among them the magic bullet theory and the agenda setting theory. However despite the ongoing debates on the validity of these theories one thing is absolutely clear, media has an impact on the mass. For this reason media researchers have been analyzing the kind of impact journalism has in news reporting. To a further extent, news reporting has been considered to be a mere reflection and sometimes a fabrication of events unfolding with the intention of persuading the mass of how things are. According to Annabel Mcgoldrick and Jake Lynch (2006), people know how to create and tailor facts for journalists to report. In essence this clearly means that governments and politicians think and plan their actions and statements as part of a media strategy or spin tactics to manipulate public opinion. This is where the two media theories, namely magic bullet and agenda setting come into play. This notion would explain how a reporter gathers predetermined information from governments and prominent personalities without the slightest idea that the information has been repackaged and built into facts that when reported as news would bolster the sources own image and attack their opponents. Media owners also play a major role in this strategy owing to their affiliation to particular prominent politicians, and therefore emphasis on highlighting or pursuing the agenda of these politicians or government elite. They therefore impose on reporters to adopt media house styles that reflect their views and opinions. Let us examine how the media addresses issues of political concern especially during parliamentary and presidential campaigns. The question in mind would be how do politicians exploit the use of such issue raised in journalistic reporting to further their own gains. Denis McQuail and Steven Windahl (1993), quote Malcolm McCombs and Donald Shaw (1972, 1976) the proponents of the agenda setting theory by saying Audiences not only learn about public issues and other matters through the media, they also learn how much importance to attach to an issue or topic from emphasis the mass media places upon it, for example, in reflecting what candidates are saying during a campaign. The ability to affect cognitive change among individuals is one of the most important aspects of the power of mass communication. Denis McQuail and Steven Windahl (1993) further explain that most agenda setting research has concerned itself with election campaigns. In the typical modern campaign it has become a common strategy to establish the image of a given candidate by association

with certain positions on the perennial problems of a society and with certain special issues of the candidates choice. The theory is that if voters can be convinced that an issue is important, they will vote for the candidate or party which has been projected as most competent to deal with it. Through this understanding one would beg the question does the press take sides? Are journalists compelled to report positively on issues raised by politicians whom their media owners are affiliated to and choose to black out or report negatively on issues raised by the opponents of these politicians? In the 2007 Presidential and Parliamentary campaigns, Politicians from the Orange Democratic Movement and Party of National Unity each had predetermined supporters. The application of the Magic bullet theory comes into play at this point. The theory views that the mass media has a direct impact on a passive mass audience. It also suggests that the media could influence a very large group of people directly and uniformly by shooting or injecting them with appropriate messages designed to trigger a desired response. The magic bullet theory is closely associated with propaganda as a tool of deception influence and control. This does not mean that the Kenyan population was passive, however it clearly defines the stand each member of the public took towards their party of choice and the advantage the politicians took by using the media to reinforce their manifestoes up to the point that their supporters believed them as true ideologies that would deliver them or save them from their perceived economic, political and social turmoil while at the same time develope a feeling of animosity against their opponents. The ODM party had supporters largely from the Western, North Eastern and Coastal regions including major urban Centers of the country, while PNU had supporters from Cenrtal, Eastern and pockets of the western region. During the campaigns PNU stood for continuity, stability sustained economic recovery and rehabilitation of infrastructure. While ODM Party on the other hand stood for the following key issues delivering a new constitution within six months, fight against corruption, eradication of poverty and unemployment, equitable distribution of resources and advocating for majimbo, a quasi federalist arrangement that would devolve political and financial powers to regional administration. Among these political issues raised during campaigns three main issues stood out Economic recovery Political reforms Ethnicity

The choice of supporting either of the two major parties largely lied between these three major issues and the Journalist played a major role in reporting these issues which clearly defined the divide that set the agenda for a bruising battle between the two main parties, ODM and PNU. Some of the underlying reasons that led to the post election violence 2008 included the above issues. According to the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights report on Kenyas Post 2007 election violence (2008) the violence that swept through Kenya following the disputed December 2007 elections was a consequence of both the mismanaged tallying process as well as underlying issues predating the 2007 elections. The report further states that while the management of the elections and other events surrounding the process were the triggers for the violence, years and even decades of wrong policies and failed policy implementation had already prepared the ground for the post-election violence. As Nic Cheeseman has noted, the media hyperboles of violence aside, the events of the December 2007 elections and the post-election violence have many continuities with Kenyas recent past. It is important to note that it is the media that serves as a mouth piece across the divide in addressing all the pertinent issues that affect a society. The question in mind is did the Kenyan media have the capacity to mid-wife the election process.? Did it make any omissions or commissions during the post election violence? What kind of approach was used when reporting about events, opinion and facts from their sources? And did these approaches create conflict? In order to tackle these questions and get a better understanding, it would be significant to define conflict and peace journalism. Conflict is commonly termed as the struggle for the sharing and distribution of resources as human beings seek to adopt and survive in their social environment. It is also coined as the fear of the unknown through fear of a strange subject or object that is seen to disrupt the normal manner in which things operate in a society. THE KENYAN CASE In the case of Kenyas Post Election Violence in the year 2008 the local media was mentioned by a majority of analysts as being biased, that is inclining to either side of the two protagonists. Post election violence erupted due to the dispute emerging after the 2007 general elections as to who among the tow main contenders Kibaki and Raila won the elections. The latter felt that the election process was flawed and claimed that his victory was stolen by Kibaki.

Prior to the elections the local media was commended as doing a good job in covering the campaigns. Dr. Fred Ogenga (2008) cites that the media did a tremendous job prior to the elections through covering the campaigns of each candidate and providing airtime and space for candidates to reach the masses. He also points out that the media equally to some extent, did well in releasing opinion polls that largely predicted parliamentary election outcomes which came to materialize. He however points out the fact that the media failed to appreciate the importance of the dispute after the eruption of the post election violence. The main issue that arises at this point is: What was the difference between the way in which the media covered the 2007 election campaigns, and the way they covered the post election violence. One thing that stands out in the manner in which the mainstream media, in particular the Nation Media Group and Standard Group covered the run up to 2007 elections is that the subjects and topics covered were fairly objective. For instance the articles published by both papers on 12th December 2007 were well balanced; none of the three major contenders for the presidency (Raila, Kibaki and Kalonzo) were blacked out. The two mainstream media had similar content that was published in a manner that did not seem to favour a particular political party. Each presidential contender got an equal platform on the front page headlines of both the Nation and Standard newspapers. The Nation published a headline story titled Election victory talk this headline was accompanied with photos of Kibaki and Raila on the front page of the paper. The Standard on the other hand ran a headline titled; The final plea.. (With a photo of Kibaki) The final assault (with a photo of Raila and Kalonozo respectively). Both stories were similar in content since they both highlighted on the

candidates campaign manifestoes. In addition to this the mainstream media undertook training of their reporters through the joint Election Assistance Programe that had the objective of building the capacity of the media to support efforts towards a free and fair election in 2007. In fact one major contribution the media gave during the elections was to bring to public attention the tallying anomalies of presidential votes that led to the current political crisis in Kenya. After the tallying anomalies which occurred on December 29th upto December 30th, Kibaki was declared the winner amid serious protests from the ODM wing in particular the Party Leader Raila Odinga. He called for mass action among his supporters. The government followed by slapping a ban on live coverage.

This lead to media houses undertaking other measures such as extensively relying on international media such as BBC, CNN and Aljazeera to report on the violence taking place. They also relied on their print media (Nation and Standard Newspapers) to give detailed reporting on the violence incidences that were taking place such as killings taking place, destruction of property and infrastructure, displacement of people and use of live ammunition by the police force in mass protests. This was the first trigger that led to further escalation of the violence since readers, viewers and listeners saw and heard of their kinsmen, tribes men undergoing violent ordeals simply because of their ethnic origin and political affiliation. This lead to some of them planning retaliatory attacks. Mbeke (2009) wrote that Generally, there was an absence of professional conduct in most media prior to and during the post-election violence (Howard, 2008). Most reports were initially not accurate, balanced and fair. Initially, various media got wrong the exact locations of post election violence, the number of people affected and the true picture of what was really going on the ground. Verification of facts was poor and victims of conflict were treated merely as statistics without identities (InterNews Network, 2008).

Initially, the media failed to provide background information to the emerging conflict. Analysis of the conflict and the protagonists was poor and this caused a lot of anxiety and confusion among Kenyans. The media failed to identify the underlying issues and interests citing the sensitivity of the situation then. This is illustrated in the two daily issues of the Nation and Standard newspapers dated January 14th 2008. Each paper ran the same stories but packaged them differently. For instance the headline story was the election of the speaker of the national assembly. The Nation ran the headline as follows, Showdown looms over Speakers job by Bernerd Namunane. This is what appeared on the front page, while on the briefs section ran s title, Michuki asks ODM to go to court over election. The Standard on the other hand chose a different way to report on the speakers elections. Its headlines on the front page ran as follows. A week of hard options by Peter Murigi, and below that read as follows, which way Kenya this title had highlights of the messages the European Union and the United States of America had for Kenya. Within the story were quotes of Mr. John Michuki a PNU hardliner telling ODM to go to court over the disputed election results. Three main areas of focus arise at this point what was going on, how was it being reported and why was the media reporting it in that particular manner. Answering these questions will also help us establish the differences in the way the media reported before and after.

As mentioned in the previous paragraphs, media owners play a major role in the strategy or spin tactics to manipulate public opinion owing to their affiliation to particular politicians or political ideology.This was the height of post election violence, with politicians from both sides hardening their positions. The 10th Parliamentary session was opening and the battle for the speakers job was looming amid the post election crisis. With the two main political parties, ODM and PNU strategizing as to how they would win that position. Another critical issue that arose was the position of the international community towards the manner in which the election process was handled. The international community was not pleased with the election results citing them flawed and was pushing for dialogue process to take center stage and bring lasting peace in the country. In their reporting, the Daily Nation, 14th January, 2008 dedicated its first five pages to the above crisis. They however chose to black out the story of the European Union supporting the US in their stand that unless dialogue took centre stage between the two protagonists it would not be business as usual for the parties in Kenya. Instead they ran a brief on the front page titled, Michuki asks ODM to go to court over elections. They go even further by giving the above article full prominence on page 6 and the reporter, Waikwa Maina and Stephen Mburu address Michuki as the Roads and Public Works Minister yet the main matter in contention by ODM and at large its supporters was the legitimacy of the government who they acuse of rigging their way into power. Referring to these articles a reader would not be mistaken to conclude that these reporters ran the above stories in the eyes of PNU and its supporters. The Standard newspaper dated 14th January, 2008 on the other hand, with its headline running as follows, A week of hard options highlighted on the US and EUs warning to Kenya concerning the hand lining of the post election crisis. They state that all political parties should compromise and engage in dialogue. When reading this article the reader will discover two main things that standard do that is different for how nation ran the story on election of the speaker. The first thing is introduce the jetting in of former UN boss kofi Annan to lead in the mediation process, a move that was welcomed by ODM and rejected by PNU. Secondly introduce Michukis comments in between the main story therefore not giving it prominence like what the nation did and secondly creating his comments to sound has a hard lined response to the international community. The standard further bring in a new twist, the reporter, Peter Murigi does not address michuki as Roads Minister, despite the fact that Kibaki went ahead and appointed a half cabinet, instead he addresses him as a PNU hardliner. The standard also dedicates its 5 pages to the post election crisis. It is again very simple for a reader to easily notice that the articles highlighted in these 5 pages have been done in a manner that seems favourable to the ODM wing. So why was the media reporting the same kind of stories in a different manner?

The best way to answer this question is to understand the media relations between these two mainstreams and the government. Since Kibaki came into power he always enjoyed positive coverage from the Nation. He has always had close ties with the Groups CEOs who are perceived to be coming from the same region as he does. On the other hand he has not enjoyed so much of the same positive coverage from the Standard media group, in fact his regime, prior to the Referendum on the Proposed Constitution in 2005, accused the Standard media of sensational reporting and being anti-government. Things got worse when the Kibaki regime lost the referendum to the ODM party. By 2006, a frustrated and unpopular President Kibaki government raided the more assertive Standard Group offices, beat and arrested journalists, destroyed property worth millions of dollars, burnt newspapers, dismantled the printing press, computers, TV masts and shut down the oldest media organization in the country. This is what planted the seeds of discourse between the Standard and the Kibaki regime, in the light of this incident the ODM party came out in large numbers to show their solidarity with the standard Group therefore gaining mileage from reporting done by the Standard Group. It is clearer to see why each of these mainstream media did the kind of reporting we have just analyzed. One of the main reasons in my view as to why the media houses seemed somewhat polarized despite the election crisis grappling the country in 2008, was because the gloves were out and it was up to each media to project the issues highlighted by their affiliate parties in relation to the conflict that had risen. While ODM was accusing PNU of stealing elections and use of violence to disperse their peaceful demonstrations PNU on the other hand accused ODM of using its supporters to disrupt the peace on the society and destruction of Property in the name of mass action. The ODM wing further went ahead by involving the international community in the mediating process and also writing to the International Criminal Court asking action be taken against Kibaki regime for perpetrating atrocities through the hands of the police. It is no wonder that most of the daily reporting by the mainstream media revolved around the above issues which in turn aggravated the post election violence, as supporters of each party turned on the other. So how does a Kenya Journalist apply peace journalism in handling the 2008 post election violence? Before addressing this issue it would be important to define peace journalism. Peace journalism can be defined as measures and activities taken by journalists to minimize the rift between opposed parties by not repeating facts that demonize or set the stage for conflict. Peace Journalism is a broader, fairer and more accurate way of framing stories, drawing on the insights of conflict analysis and transformation. The Peace Journalism approach provides a new road map for tracing the connections between journalists, their

sources, the stories they cover and the consequences of their reporting. It opens up a literacy of nonviolence and creativity as applied to the practical job of everyday reporting. Johan Galtung (1998) states that there seem to be two ways of looking at a conflict: the high road and the low road, depending on whether the focus is on the conflict and its peaceful transformation or on the meta-conflict that comes after the root conflict, created by violence and war, and the question of who wins. Media even confuse the two, talking about 'conflict' when they mean 'violence'. The low road, dominant in the media, sees a conflict as a battle, as a sports arena or gladiator circus. The parties, usually reduced to two, are combatants in a struggle to impose their goals.This is exactly what happened in the Kenya post election crisis, in the eyes of the media the contest was based on the two protagonists PNU and ODM. It is possible for the media to have a positive impact in the societies it informs, only if its role is extended from the traditional perspective of being a mere spectator or a simple carrier of information. Peace Journalism encourages editors and producers to make choices about what stories to report and how to report them without external influence. It is important that media understand that every decision they make in presenting conflict has potential consequences for the conflict itself.The mainstream media in Kenya should have persistently reported on the underlying issues leading to the post election violence instead of only focusing on the two protagonists and their political stand. They should have blacked out comments and statements made by the hardliner members of the two parties in order not to escalate the violence. Galtung furthers states that good reporting on conflict is not a compromise, a little from the left-hand column, a little from the right. Rather, it favours peace journalism and opposes war journalism. Peace journalism tries to depolarize by showing the black and white of all sides, and to de-escalate by highlighting peace and conflict resolution as much as violence. How successful it can be remains to be seen. But changing the discourse within which something is conceived, spoken of and acted upon is a powerful approach. Peace journalism stands for truth as opposed to propaganda and lies, but is not 'investigative journalism' in the sense of uncovering lies only on 'our' side. Truth holds for all sides, just like exploration of the conflict formation and giving voice ('glasnost') to all.

REFERENCES Lynch, Jake and Annabel McGoldrick (2005). Peace Journalism. UK: Howthorn Press, Pg. 6. J. Galtung (1998). High Road, Low Road, Track Two vol. 7 No. 4 www.ccr.uct.ac.za/archive/two/7 4/p07 highroad lowroad.html accessed 4th October 2011. D. McQauil, S. Windahl (1993). Communication Models for the study of mass communication, Longman. R. A. Hackett, (2007). Journalism Verses Peace? Notes on a Problematic Relationship, Global Media Journal- Mediterranean edition: vol. 2, no. 1.
http://globalmedia.emu.edu.tr/spring2007/issues/Hackett%20journalism%20and%20peace5a.pdf