HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 216374,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/216374/?format=api",
"text_counter": 186,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muite",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 235,
"legal_name": "Paul Kibugi Muite",
"slug": "paul-muite"
},
"content": "Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill is dealing with a matter that, obviously, excites a lot of passion, particularly because each one of us - Members of Parliament - at one time or the other, have had to endure unfavourable publicity by the media. When you read an article that is not favourable to you or to what you said, you feel strongly against the media. But my appeal to honourable colleagues is that we must not allow our emotions to take the better of us, when we are debating a matter so important! We have to debate the contents and objectives of this Bill by distancing ourselves from any unpleasant personal experiences, which we may have undergone. Let us not allow our anger about bad media coverage, to which we have all been victims, to be the dominant consideration when we 2178 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES July 3, 2007 are debating the Media Bill. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, no one disputes that there should be a statute, or an Act of Parliament, to provide the legal statutory framework to enable the media to self-regulate. This is the core value of this Bill. The objective of the Bill should be to provide for a statutory framework to enable the media to self-regulate. It is not a law that will enable you and I, another body or even the Government to regulate the media. It is to enable the media to self-regulate. If that principle is accepted; that, that is the objective of the Bill, then we truly must bite the bullet and allow the media to self-regulate. The content of the statute should be to permit the media to self- regulate and not to permit you and I, the Government or some other bodies, to regulate the media. You and I are not the best judges of what should be covered. If the principle is accepted, then the best way of going about this Bill is, obviously, for the Government of the day to consult widely, particularly, with the media fraternity on how best the media can self-regulate on the contents of the code of conduct. It is not for you and I to dictate that, and impose it on the media. That is not a statute that will assist the media to self-regulate. That is a statute that will enable a person outside the media, the Ministry or other institution, to dictate the content of media coverage. By doing that, even if you are to call it regulation, you are giving a wrong name to what is actually \"control\". It does not become regulation because you call it \"regulation\". What you call it is neither here nor there. It is the effect of what you are doing. As long as you are seeking to regulate the content of an article and the headline--- I agree that quite often the headlines are misleading. However, as long as you are seeking to tell the media what the headlines are going to be; to regulate the content, then that is abuse of the English language by saying that you are regulating. You are not regulating! You are controlling! It does not become regulation because you are calling it so. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the principle has to be accepted from the beginning then everything else follows. If you look at the current Bill, I am aware that amendments have been proposed. However, if you look at the Bill in its present formatting and content, it is not a Bill that is intended to allow the media to self-regulate. This is a Bill that is intended to allow the Ministry to regulate the media, including the content. You will see that from Clause 7 where even the chairperson will be appointed by the Minister. You will see that from the long body of institutions that have nothing to do with the media, which will be doing the appointing to the Media Council. I would say this: If we accept that all we are doing is to come up with a statute that will enable the media to self-regulate, so that every media house and journalist will come under the authority of this statute and the authority of the Media Council, then we must be extremely circumspect on the institutions that are going to appoint members to the Media Council. We must be extremely circumspect and carry out consultations with the media fraternity, so that those institutions that have nothing to do with the media; that are being given the opportunity to nominate, for example, the Law Society of Kenya (LSK), can be agreed upon between the media fraternity and the Government. It is not for us to dictate to the media the institutions that have nothing to do with the media and that will be appointing people to the Media Council. The design of the Media Council needs a lot of consultation if, indeed, self-regulation is the objective of this Bill. I am aware, as I said, that there are amendments which are proposed. When they come here we shall debate them, but the issue is whether those amendments go far enough towards realising the declared objective of permitting the media to self-regulate. I agree about some of the coverage about dead bodies and that sort of thing, that are unhealthy. However, these are issues that can be covered through a code of conduct rather us, you and I, or other bodies, including the Ministry, being the one to dictate the content of what the television is going to cover or what it is not going to cover. If you look at the entire design of this Bill, including the Advisory Board, you will find that, undoubtedly, in the absence of those amendments that might be coming, the design of this Bill was, clearly, intended for control of the media. There can be no doubt about that! If you wanted a statute July 3, 2007 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2179 that will help the media to self-regulate, the way to go about it is not for the Ministry to say they have carried out consultations, then come and dictate the content of the Bill. It is to bring a Bill that enjoys the widest possible support. I heard the Minister saying that it enjoys a lot of support. However, that is not the factual position! This Bill is still attracting a lot of contention. The Government may succeed in having the Bill enacted into law, because the numbers are present but a Bill that becomes law without enjoying consensus, particularly from the entire media fraternity--- When I talk about the media fraternity, I talk about the journalists. There are many journalists who are not members of the Kenya Union of Journalists (KUJ). Their voice needs to be heard. The voice of the KUJ also needs to be heard. The voice of the media owners needs to be heard. Outside this House, I want to be on record by stating that the Bill does not enjoy wide consensus and support from the media fraternity. It enjoys support from certain sections of the media fraternity, but not from the entire or the majority of the media fraternity. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, when you are talking about the objective, you look at the surrounding circumstantial evidence from which you can infer the objective of the Ministry. When you look at the published Bill, the amendments that the Minister is seeking to bring to the Communications Commission of Kenya (CCK) Act, to prohibit even cross-ownership and very far- reaching changes, including cancelling of licences, you can see that the objective is to control the media in this country. It is not to permit the media to self-regulate. I urge caution! I urge that we proceed on this matter very---"
}