Listen to the locals
By Lindsay Ross When violence erupted in Kenya post the late-December 2007 elections, the world was shocked because it had hitherto regarded Kenya as primarily a peaceful tourist destination for westerners. However, those of us who have known Kenya for years were always aware there was a propensity for extreme violence lurking beneath the surface. It had just been kept in check by firm leadership - whether we liked them, previous Kenyan leaders wouldn't have sat in State House doing nothing while the country imploded. Although the scale of the violence in December initially caught the local media on the hop, it wasn't long before they got to grips with the story, reporting, recording and analysing events with some flair and imagination. The local newspapers carried the most informed assessment of what was happening across the country and the region, as events had serious knock-on effects on other countries in East Africa. Later in this magazine, some of the commentators speak for themselves about the issues they faced; they should be commended for proving indigenous newspapers are capable of, and excel at, explaining complex and highly emotive issues in a balanced way beyond the reach of outsiders. As the story developed, the international media descended on Kenya like a plague of locusts. It was a serious case of overkill. Initially the correspondents in Nairobi handled the breaking story alone. Gradually, one, then two and then a flood of reporters supplemented them, scattering around various trouble spots looking for an angle. As the situation worsened, control, familiar faces started to appear - the "big guns" had been wheeled in, as though their presence lent gravitas to the situation. But - and this is a big but - as more and more international journalists were 'parachuted' in, the intelligence and integrity of the news reports started to suffer. What became increasingly apparent was that it's almost impossible for any outsider, however well briefed or well-intentioned, to grasp the underlying complexities of a country like Kenya - unless they've been raised or have lived there for significant periods and have fully integrated with Kenyans. In the hands of the 'parachute' journalist, long-standing and deeply complex issues in Kenya were reduced to simplistic platitudes about "tribalism" or inappropriate and inaccurate comparisons to the "Rwandan genocide". This achieves nothing other than reducing countries to unattractive stereotypes: if it's Africa, it must be howling mobs waving machetes and burning things. Familiar headlines started to appear, generally around the hackneyed theme of a "paradise" lost or a flawed African "Eden". To many ordinary Kenyans their country is neither. Kenya has longstanding unresolved issues relating to land ownership, poverty, social injustice and class. These were all contributory factors in the violence. To compare what happened in Kenya in 2007 to what happened in Rwanda in 1994 was inappropriate and meaningless. Both events were horrifying but to imply similarity in cause or consequence is just not correct. To label the Kenyan violence simply an "ethnic" issue grossly oversimplified a convoluted and extremely complex situation. You cannot blame these incomers for a lack of factual knowledge or understanding. Arriving cold in-country with a breaking story, they cannot have all the facts to hand but they could and should work with the local media wherever possible and they so often don't. This is frequently the case when a major international story breaks. It was so disheartening during the 2004 tsunami when it became obvious the only opinions being sought or aired were those of foreign tourists or aid workers. Neither could contextualise the disaster - after all, 99 per cent of them were there on a brief holiday or had just arrived with the development set. In neither Sri Lanka nor The Maldives did we see members of the local media being interviewed or asked for their assessments. Today even the largest news organisations simply don't have the resources any longer to maintain bureaux in country staffed with long-established journalists who have worked on the ground for a number of years and thus built a substantial contact base. But surely common sense would indicate the first people you should contact when you land in a foreign country are your peers in the local media. Otherwise, the facts suffer.
By Lindsay Ross When violence erupted in Kenya post the late-December 2007 elections, the world was shocked because it had hitherto regarded Kenya as primarily a peaceful tourist destination for westerners. However, those of us who have known Kenya for years were always aware there was a propensity for extreme violence lurking beneath the surface. It had just been kept in check by firm leadership - whether we liked them, previous Kenyan leaders wouldn't have sat in State House doing nothing while the country imploded. Although the scale of the violence in December initially caught the local media on the hop, it wasn't long before they got to grips with the story, reporting, recording and analysing events with some flair and imagination. The local newspapers carried the most informed assessment of what was happening across the country and the region, as events had serious knock-on effects on other countries in East Africa. Later in this magazine, some of the commentators speak for themselves about the issues they faced; they should be commended for proving indigenous newspapers are capable of, and excel at, explaining complex and highly emotive issues in a balanced way beyond the reach of outsiders. As the story developed, the international media descended on Kenya like a plague of locusts. It was a serious case of overkill. Initially the correspondents in Nairobi handled the breaking story alone. Gradually, one, then two and then a flood of reporters supplemented them, scattering around various trouble spots looking for an angle. As the situation worsened, control, familiar faces started to appear - the "big guns" had been wheeled in, as though their presence lent gravitas to the situation. But - and this is a big but - as more and more international journalists were 'parachuted' in, the intelligence and integrity of the news reports started to suffer. What became increasingly apparent was that it's almost impossible for any outsider, however well briefed or well-intentioned, to grasp the underlying complexities of a country like Kenya - unless they've been raised or have lived there for significant periods and have fully integrated with Kenyans. In the hands of the 'parachute' journalist, long-standing and deeply complex issues in Kenya were reduced to simplistic platitudes about "tribalism" or inappropriate and inaccurate comparisons to the "Rwandan genocide". This achieves nothing other than reducing countries to unattractive stereotypes: if it's Africa, it must be howling mobs waving machetes and burning things. Familiar headlines started to appear, generally around the hackneyed theme of a "paradise" lost or a flawed African "Eden". To many ordinary Kenyans their country is neither. Kenya has longstanding unresolved issues relating to land ownership, poverty, social injustice and class. These were all contributory factors in the violence. To compare what happened in Kenya in 2007 to what happened in Rwanda in 1994 was inappropriate and meaningless. Both events were horrifying but to imply similarity in cause or consequence is just not correct. To label the Kenyan violence simply an "ethnic" issue grossly oversimplified a convoluted and extremely complex situation. You cannot blame these incomers for a lack of factual knowledge or understanding. Arriving cold in-country with a breaking story, they cannot have all the facts to hand but they could and should work with the local media wherever possible and they so often don't. This is frequently the case when a major international story breaks. It was so disheartening during the 2004 tsunami when it became obvious the only opinions being sought or aired were those of foreign tourists or aid workers. Neither could contextualise the disaster - after all, 99 per cent of them were there on a brief holiday or had just arrived with the development set. In neither Sri Lanka nor The Maldives did we see members of the local media being interviewed or asked for their assessments. Today even the largest news organisations simply don't have the resources any longer to maintain bureaux in country staffed with long-established journalists who have worked on the ground for a number of years and thus built a substantial contact base. But surely common sense would indicate the first people you should contact when you land in a foreign country are your peers in the local media. Otherwise, the facts suffer.
