Things have simply changed Nothing seems to be the same anymore. Nothing at all. Not the way we communicate, not the way we relate and most definitely, not the way we collect or even consume news. I always wish that people would first take a step back and think before questioning the ethics and integrity of today’s media industry. Every profession seems to have evolved and moved with the times but there is always that finger that points at journalists, accusing them of losing focus of what is important. The good old way news used to break and be reported is something of the past. This is not something that comes as a surprise and honestly, this is not anyone’s fault. There have been so many transitions that the industry has had to contend with but no one knew how challenging it would be, especially with the birth of social media. The competition between main stream media and real-time, unedited social media posts is appalling. Things have changed, that’s for sure but no one thought that the changes would be so many and so fast that the future of things like print media would be hanging by a mere thread. A journalist used to be someone revered. Journalism was a profession that used to be admired. Today, anyone with a smart phone or a computer can write and post anything. The general population has been caught in a confusing web of journalists and bloggers. With these challenges, mainstream media has the challenge of unfortunately competing with all this if they are to keep up on the fresh news front and also still manage to sell. When Cecil the Lion died a few weeks ago, many people were overjoyed with how the media reported the unfortunate news; after all, the issue of poaching was at long last taking centre stage, worldwide. On the other hand, there were people who were happy and annoyed at the same time. These people felt that though poaching was getting the coverage it deserved, why have issues that have claimed lives for the longest time never received that kind of attention? There are issues of war, famine, AIDS, cancer etc that, if the world was to stand up as one, the way they did for Cecil the Lion, would be History today. I agree. The disappointment is understandable but placing the blame on the media is naïve and the reason is simple. I am willing to bet that the popularity of Cecil for example, was not raised by how many newspapers or TV stations repeatedly reported the story. The story was made popular by bloggers and social media die-hards. The flow of information from various sources has created confusion and that’s why if you were to conduct a survey using Cecil the Lion as an example, you would realise that the media reported about it but social media made it popular or even sensationalized it. The focus on this dead lion was not over-reported by the media. In fact, if you ask a random ten people where they first heard of Cecil, I can bet that nine of them will tell you on Facebook or Twitter. People who are blaming the media for being sucked in by the social media circus or accusing it of losing focus of what is important are either ignoring facts the way they are or they are simply ignorant. The mainstream media today has so many odds against it, all it is trying to do is keep up. I don’t think that it has lost focus, what I believe is that it is evolving like any other industry is.editorial@newtimes.co.rw The media needs to get their priorities right The past few weeks have not been short of interesting material for journalists both within the region and on the international media scene. Neighbouring Kenya in July became the first Sub-Saharan country to host the Global Entrepreneurship Summit that was attended by US President Barack Obama among other guests, Burundi further descended into chaos, Zimbabwe’s Cecil the lion became celebrity after poachers gunned him down and Tanzania’s Azam team were crowned the overall winners of the CECAFA Kagame tournament among other events that may or may not have made it to the headlines. As expected, the media covered these stories with unique angles, insightful analysis, catchy headlines and images to tell a thousand words. However, most noticeable were not the stories journalists told but rather what they left out and what did not make it to the headlines. For instance, during the Global Entrepreneurship Summit, focus by most media outlets was more on the American president, his entourage, his motorcade and itinerary, all at the expense of the core event. At the end of the three day event, Obama the man had received more coverage compared to the event that saw the region receive over a USD 1 Billion worth of investments. The informative sessions on small and medium scale entrepreneurship did not make it past the conference halls as ‘analysts’ had more important stuff to feature; like Obama’s transit to and from a helicopter to his jet in. This was evident through the live coverage by television stations in Kenya and news features in dailies. The question on priorities emerged again following the death of Cecil the lion. The 13-year-old cat who died by the (licensed) hunter’s bullet, was featured by newsmen all over the world at the expense of Burundi’s woes, South Sudan’s rebel power struggles among other incidences. Not that lions are not important and deserve to be shot at will but one is left to wonder if focus shouldn’t be more on situations that involve loss of human lives and fall of nations. The purpose of news coverage seems to be shifting from informing and influencing change to entertainment. There seems to be more emphasis on ‘bar talk’. See, if a troubling issue is on headlines regularly, covered from multiple angles something is likely to be done about it. The more we talk about the security situation in Burundi, talk about the loss of life andproperty; tell stories about refugees, the higher the chances that those concerned will do something about it. But how can there be impact if the story has to compete with 13-year-old lion and Obama’s beast? The most prominent excuse for the trend is capitalism; that papers need to be sold, that bills and salaries need to be paid and that shareholders are expecting their dividends. I cannot sit here and point fingers. I am part of those who bang words to sell the papers rather than have social impact. As a practitioner of the profession, I am partly to blame; in fact, I feel like I am part of the problem. What I intend to do to make a difference is another story for another day. Only time will tell. editorial@newtimes.co.rw
