Good press practice is ability to engage with complainants

The Leveson Inquiry, named after Lord Justice Leveson, makes an interesting observation about “good press practice”. 

Leveson was tasked to look into the culture, practices and ethics of the Press in Britain. In his 2012 report, he states that it is not inconsistent with the recognition that most of press practice is “good” that journalists and editors will sometimes make mistakes, including errors of fact and judgment.

Sources, even multiple sources, may simply be wrong in a particular case, he says. Journalists might be misled by apparently reliable sources or incorrect data and information and errors may be made “in the heat of the moment” and editorial judgments may be incorrect in a specific instance notwithstanding that they may usually be entirely sound.

“Mistakes of this sort are made in every walk of life and are part and parcel of the human condition: depending on all relevant factors, they may be entirely consistent with good press practice. But whether or not they exemplify good or bad practice at the end of the day will depend on matters such as systems for checking information and sources, and the press response when the error is pointed out, including press willingness to engage with the complainant and sort things out as quickly as possible,” he concludes.

NASA DEMOS

I have found those words stand up well as I engaged in a conversation with Prof Caxton Muune who complains about NMG’s handling of the Nasa demonstrations. 

He accuses NMG of being partisan and selective in its coverage, arguing that it “has been captured by Nasa in the coverage of the destructive mass action”.

I asked him to cite specific stories. He then cited the October 13 Daily Nation editorial, “The leaders must help to avoid chaos”.  He said the editorial accuses the government of “‘bad faith and curtailing rights and ruling by decree’ in strongly worded condemnation to protect the violent demos and shield the violators from accountability and punishment by shifting the blame to the police.”

A reading of the editorial, however, shows Prof Muune is cherry-picking the sentence: “It is a show of bad faith by a government intent on curtailing rights and ruling by decree.” He ignores the rest of the editorial including this sentence: “We have repeatedly called for an end to mass protests organised by the National Super Alliance to push for electoral reforms as they have led to violence, deaths, loss of property and disruption of business.”

STOP THE KILLINGS

Prof Muune also cites three news stories and one NTV 9 o’clock news broadcast. I cannot, however, discuss all in detail in this limited space.

But I will mention one because it comes nearest to supporting his claim. It is the story “Stop the killings or face the music, warns Nasa” on page 6 of the October 15 the Sunday Nation. The story could have been more balanced by including the views of the police and the authorities, not just two perfunctory paragraphs that suggest police “have struggled to explain the rationale for the killings”.

Prof Muune also suggests that I task my assistant with more research! I found no evidence to support his claim that NMG is “partisan and selective in its coverage of the demonstrations” and “has been captured by Nasa in the coverage of the destructive mass action,” or that NMG news is “intoned with emotional content to portray the police and government as malicious and inhumane with accusations of indiscriminate target killings in some specific geographic and demographic telescopic matrix pitting a section of the population against the State with the support of the dreaded ‘Mungiki’.”

This is not to say journalists have not made mistakes, including errors of fact and of judgment, in covering the political crisis, but there is no evidence of Prof Muune’s contention that NMG “has been captured by Nasa in the coverage of the destructive mass action”.

Send your complaints to [email protected]. Text or call 0721 989 264.