Media must exercise its power of influence with due diligence

 

“What will anger at sight of gaunt hostages mean for a fragile ceasefire?” a BBC article headline reads. The article is referring to the Israeli hostages who had been released in the past week, and appeared to look as though during their time with Hamas they had been starved.

The sight of these hostages had sparked anger among people across the world, who found it egregious that the hostages were treated unkindly during their time with Hamas.

However, the headline, and the article itself, whilst being entirely accurate, obscure the fact that countless Palestinian hostages had also been released in a state of extreme starvation, a fact that was granted no airtime in the media, implying perhaps that the starvation of the Palestinians is warranted, whilst that of the Israelis is not.

Hence, whilst countless unnamed Palestinian released hostages were not granted the humanity of having their state of health or mind questioned, the Israeli hostages are being utilised as an opportunity not only to humanise their captivity, but to imply that their starvation might in fact be grounds for ending the ceasefire.

In essence, the BBC is egging on the idea that a ceasefire could be ended for grounds as flimsy as the assumed starvation of released hostages.

This begs the question: does the media have an ethical mandate to ensure that the news that they report does not manufacture consent for situations that could have real world ramifications?

Laura Bates, in her book Men Who Hate Women, writes about how the New York Times, in publishing the manifesto of the mass shooter Elliot Rodger, inspired a generation of other mass shooters who referenced the manifesto in explaining the reason behind their actions and criminal intentions.

At the time, the New York Times explained the reasoning behind publishing the manifesto by stating that it was important for them to get the full story out; that in order to understand Elliot Rodger, it was important to understand the reasoning behind his actions in his own words.

This makes sense, but it undermines the real life ramifications that printing the manifesto for the entire world to read  had for those who were murdered by people who had read and been inspired by the manifesto. Did the New York Times have an ethical responsibility to ensure that people were not inspired to commit murder by their work?

Back at home, it appears that consent is being manufactured in the political arena. It is understandable that the media, whilst aiming to present accurate information on the state of the world, also chases those stories that garner public interest and will generate the necessary clicks and views and, subsequently, the necessary revenue.

However, it is jarring to watch the constant highlighting of figures who have no bearing on the current state of the nation, knowing that the reason why these people are being highlighted is because the ground is being set for them to be propped up come 2027.

Whilst taxes continue to increase, unemployment is on the rise, and aid funding is being lost, Kenyans are kept entertained and away from their woes by constant news about former Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, whose every thought, move and idea is documented in meticulous detail.

Gachagua, a figure who was formerly unknown until the 2022 election brought him into the public consciousness, is being propped up by the media to the effect that it is clear that he will play a key role in the 2027 election.

Indeed, Gachagua is not the only person who is being thrust in the faces of Kenyans as a possible contender in 2027. Other figures such as Kalonzo Musyoka and Fred Matiang’i are also being fronted, and as a consequence are all occupying public discourse, with Kenyans constantly debating their viability.

Under these conditions, does the Kenyan public have the opportunity to dream bigger, to dream beyond the same old recycled political leaders?

What does it mean for our political growth to have the media constantly pointing us in the direction of stagnation rather than inspiring us to dream bigger and explore new options?

It is high time that the fifth estate analysed its actions, and worked to positively influence those who turn to it for not only news but also political direction.

The media ought to use its power for good, even whilst balancing its need to generate revenue. With great power comes great responsibility.