Why media framing is critical in graft fight
Two weeks ago, the World Democracy week was celebrated globally. There were many activities organised by different civil society groups which focused on graft and the media.
Research has shown that in strong and robust democracies, the three arms of government are independent in their mandates in the fight against corruption and interdependent in guaranteeing efficiency in the fight for the greater good of the public.
However, besides the Executive, the Legislature and an independent Judiciary, these countries also have strong and self-regenerating civil society and a free and independent media.
The watchdog role of the media is sacrosanct, but both Parliament and the Judiciary also oversight the media through legislation and enforcement of the enacted legislation.
Well, the media in Kenya is probably one of the most vibrant and dynamic South of Sahara.
In fact, unbeknown to many, last week conviction of former Sports Cabinet Secretary Hassan Wario and Olympics Committee chief Stephen Soi, would not have happened had it not been for some great piece of journalism, that created a robust pathway for investigation.
The media’s role in a democracy is to watch over those in power and alert the public when things seem not to be right.
This is a role that allows the public to make the right decisions in giving power to the right leaders.
The conviction last week is a great triumph, not just the multi-agency approach in the fight against corruption, but also of the good work some of our journalists are doing in holding those in power accountable.
We need not forget the celebration of these triumphs and the constructive criticism within the bigger picture.
One, we need to celebrate the little triumph of an exposé by a curious journalist who found himself in a list that was misusing public funds.
A journalist who said no to around Sh1 million and decided to dig deep in the interest of a public.
Triumphs of a criminal justice system that pounced on the leads created by the exposé and triumphs of a political system that allowed the prosecution to take its natural course.
We have had so many corruption cases and sometimes before conviction or acquittal, we end up framing corruption in a manner that glorifies the vice.
Picture a situation where the Auditor General report flags gaps in use of public funds and the media runs away with it as though the institutions involved are corrupt.
An audit report raises audit exceptions and what Kenyans need to know is that, even though corruption investigations need to start from these reports, exceptions in themselves do not suggest culpability.
They are certainly instances that more explanations backed by source documents need to be made clear to explain expenditure of public funds.
The same kind of inadvertent framing manifest itself when public and State officers are summoned by the agencies fighting corruption and they appear flanked by political leaders, coming in to support.
The coverage of such unwarranted support simply frames corruption as something it is not.
Simply put, if political leaders looking for power to lead this country go supporting another leader accused of alleged stealing of public funds, and the media covers the unfolding event, a good number of the public will be convinced that graft is not bad after all.
The media should adopt framing strategies that do not give the alleged corrupt suspects the luxury of giving sound bites. The framing should not make suspects appear taller than life.
To mute glorification, get pictures off the frames because the people around them will muddy the meaning.
In doing this, the media does not have to abdicate its role, it simply needs to dig deep and go beyond what key players say. —[email protected]
