I was moved to write this piece because of a recent report by Al Jazeera, “Surveillance in Kenya.” Over the years, Al Jazeera has done very important journalism, not least its eye-opening reporting on Israeli mass atrocities in Gaza. It’s the first media house in the Middle East to significantly influence global consciousness on the region.
That said, Al Jazeera requires scrutiny itself. As they say, those who live in glass houses must be self-reflective when they throw stones. Preaching water and then openly gulping wine is problematic to say the least. Al Jazeera is owned by the state of Qatar. This isn’t unique. Even the Voice of America is owned by the US government while the BBC is indirectly controlled by the British government through the Royal Charter.
My point is that there are various media ownership and control models. In the United States, Fox is owned by Australian-American media mogul Rupert Murdoch and CNN’s parent company is Warner Bros Discovery Inc, the dominant corporate entertainment conglomerate (a takeover deal with Paramount is ongoing). In my view, these ownership models render nugatory the concept of a “free press.” The idea of a free press is an oxymoron.
No media is free anywhere. Free of the owner’s bias, or free of the influences of the state of its domiciliary.
Media generally projects the values and interests of its ownership and the state under whose umbrella it lives. In fact, most media tend to be patriotic to the state of their nationality. That’s because media are national even if they dub themselves “international.”
That’s why “objective reporting” is not really a thing. It doesn’t exist. This lack of objectivity starts with how stories are selected, and which ones are reported, or killed. How journalists are hired, and where they were trained. Who is selected to report on which stories, and what their biases are. It’s not uncommon for some to share sensitive information in their possession with the state if that information has dire implications for national security or has the potential to compromise sources and methods, or strategies and tactics, during war with another country. Such information may be shared with government, but concealed from the public. In some instances, journalists also embed with fighting forces of one country and are limited in what they can report.
This brings me to Al Jazeera’s reporting, especially on Kenya, and the ethics of the profession. In its report, “Surveillance in Kenya,” it’s important to note that the purpose of any state is to keep its people and their property safe. That’s the central commitment and raison d'etre of any state. Any administration that fails this basic test loses its rationale for existence. Governance is a bargain between the state and the people who are the ultimate sovereign – I donate to you the privilege to rule but on condition that you don’t betray that trust. That’s why security agencies and the armed forces of a country are the pillar of its protection. Surveillance is not criminal per se. It’s the foundation of intelligence for national security.
So, when Al Jazeera attacks Kenya for working to keep the people safe, it should look in the mirror. Its owner, the Qatari state, is not a democracy. Kenya is. In fact, Qatar is an autocratic monarchy. Kenya is a constitutional democracy, with one of the most progressive charters in the world. Kenya has a robust and largely independent press. Independent of the state. Qatar doesn’t. Kenya has an independent judiciary. Qatar doesn’t. Kenya has a robust and elected legislature. Qatar doesn’t. Kenya hosts scores of foreign journalists who work freely. Where Al Jazeera has recruited retired Western journalists, Kenyan media relies almost exclusively on local talent. Perhaps Al Jazeera should address the log in its eye.
The reporting also took swipes at Kenya’s foreign policy. That was very rich given Qatar’s long arm in pursuing its interests abroad. As Al Jazeera, and surely the Qatari government knows, foreign policy is a dictate of a nation’s interests. It’s not Pollyanna. It’s a difficult business in which many competing choices have to be made. In this, no state is a saint, although many are a villain.
However, each must weigh what’s best for its interests at a given moment. Take, for example, the proposed Ebola treatment facility which the Americans will stand up in Nanyuki. I would think that will give Kenya capacity to be part of a global health ecosystem to protect Kenyans and the world. It’s not the calamity that some would make us believe.
Finally, Kenyans elect their own leaders and hold them to account, however imperfectly. It’s a democracy in the making. Criticism is fine, but self-righteousness is not, especially if the critiquer lives in the belly of a dictatorship. Next time we should be told how Qatar is governed and how it treats its migrant workers, many of whom are African.
Makau Mutua is SUNY Distinguished Professor and Margaret W. Wong Professor at Buffalo Law School, The State University of New York. @makaumutua
