HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 215223,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/215223/?format=api",
"text_counter": 154,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Prof. Anyang'-Nyong'o",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 193,
"legal_name": "Peter Anyang' Nyong'o",
"slug": "peter-nyongo"
},
"content": "It states as follows:- \"(a) The fundamental objective of a journalist is to write a fair, accurate and an unbiased story on matters of public interest. All sides of the story shall be reported, wherever possible. Comments should be obtained from anyone who is mentioned in unfavourable context.\" This is the kind of issue that you do not put into law, because its interpretation can be very subjective. Who, for God's sake, is going to sit in a higher pedestal, as a Government officer, and July 5, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2317 say, \"This story that I read today has these qualities?\" That is absolutely subjective! It is something that we should not put into law. We should leave it to the self-regulation of the people practising that profession. Let me give you an example. Supposing we had a law here with reference to doctors, which would say that a good heart surgery is one which will begin at 2.00 p.m. and end at 3.00 p.m. and the doctor should make sure that the heart begins beating at 3.02 p.m. How would this be determined? This kind of law-making is extremely dangerous. It is better if we erred on the side of being a good Government rather than erred on the side of being an intrusive Government. I would like to make another principle which I will illustrate by reading Clause (b). The principle I would like to advance to the Minister says; it is better to err on the side of caution than to err on the side of speed that may lead us to atrocities of burying our democratic gains. Let me read part (b), to illustrate what I am saying. It says:- \"Whenever it is recognised that an inaccurate, misleading, or distorted story has been published or broadcast, it should be corrected promptly. Corrections should present the correct information and should not restate the error except when clarity demands.\" Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, I will give you a very good example of this. We, as politicians - and we really suffer from this - give a written Press conference, questions are asked and we reply. My dear friend, hon. Michuki, has quite often spoken about this. I have seen him on television getting very, very annoyed about this. We all suffer from this. We give a written Press conference and then we answer questions, but the following day when we read the story - by the way, you are trying to correct an earlier story - the story will begin; \"On Thursday, the Minister for- --\" However, on Friday, they repeat the story before they bring the corrections that you made yesterday. Even in those corrections, there is a high likelihood that there may be a mistake. Supposing we tried to apply this law, do you realise that we would have many cases invading whichever board is doing this and they be will permanently engaged in dealing with this particular law? I know that we suffer, but we have to pay a price for democracy. If, indeed, we are going to put this law in our law books, let me admit that whether it is a council, a special court or whatever, will be permanently sitting with politicians, Ministers, Assistant Ministers, and whoever goes before it, they will quote from the law books, \"whenever it is recognised---\" By the way, we have not said who is recognising. \"It is recognising,\" this is very general. They will quote: \"Whenever it is recognised that an inaccurate, misleading or distorted story has been published or broadcast, it should be corrected promptly. Corrections should present the correct information and should not restate the error except when clarity demands.\" Let me give another example, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir. On Monday and Tuesday this week, I was driving from home coming to work and I was listening to Kiss FM. There is a young man called Ken Ouko and Caroline Mutoko, who were talking on the Talk Show on the Kiss FM. Both on Monday and Tuesday, I heard things, which, quite honestly, should not be aired on our FM stations because they create some of the prejudices that stop us from building our nation. The discussion between these two people was about the presidential candidates in the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). In the two mornings running, they were talking about hon. Raila Odinga. Let me give you an example of one of the conversations from Ken Ouko. He asked Caroline Mutoko: \"Supposing hon. Raila Odinga is elected as the President of Kenya, and then Senator Obama is elected in the USA as the President, will Luos let us live in this country? Or shall we come to town in three-piece suits?\" These are the kind of ethnic prejudices and slurs which are extremely dangerous to broadcast on national stations. Another time, Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, in a similar talk show, I heard, again, people say; \"I will admit to you that the only good Kikuyu is a dead Kikuyu. In order to find out whether the Kikuyu is dead, drop a shilling and see if he will wake up to pick the shilling.\" 2318 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 5, 2007 Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, it may be good to talk about these things in bars in low tones, but when we raise them to the level of talk shows in FM stations, they really destroy our nation. The answer, however, does not lie in over-regulation. The answer lies in a culture of civility that can only be promoted through a good political culture and education but not in legislation. What should have happened on that day is that I should have gone to court and read to the court this section; \"whenever it is recognised - and it was recognised by Prof. Anyang'-Nyong'o, - that an inaccurate, misleading or distorted story had been published or broadcast, it should be corrected promptly.\" In other words, I should have taken up the phone, called Caroline Mutoko and Ken Ouko, and asked them to correct what they had said because it is not true. This is not practical. I am just talking about the practicality of trying to legislate against freedom of expression and the price we have to pay for freedom of expression. The cure does not lie in lawmaking. The cure lies in our political culture, a culture of civility, which is something that will take us time to do in this country, but we have to do it because as democrats, we must invest in a democratic political culture in our nation. I would like to appeal to the Minister that, let us not rush because we have vitriol in our stomachs because of irresponsible journalism and legislate drastic measures that will curtail democracy. Let us invest, perhaps, in a much more pain-free and difficult process of building a good political culture and a democracy that will make journalists civil! They have to be civil to be good democrats and good citizens. Let us not think that law will cure this process or this problem. Law will not cure this problem. Development, democracy, a good political culture, men and women of civility will cure the problem. And I do submit to this House that our responsibility is not to err on the side of speed but to err on the side of caution. We will be cautious and we will think that we are making a mistake, but it is better to err on the side of caution than to err on the side of speed that will, in fact, drive us to a precipice of burying the democratic gains that we have so far painfully brought to this country. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, hon. Wamwere knows, because I have read his book, how much pain it took some of us to bring democracy in this country. Personal pain, family pain, the pain of communities to bring democracy in this country. We will be the last in this House to sit here and pass a law that will kill democracy---"
}