Why advertising should never be used as bait for favourable coverage

Mr Duale claims the story misrepresents facts. In his words: “Yesterday, we launched the most progressive biometric on our healthcare system. Something very new… if a doctor is in Tana River, we know he’s doing a surgery. Then the Nation says SHA has failed, we have gone back to NHIF biometric.”

However, the Ministry’s own website carries a statement titled “Ministry of Health launches biometric health identification, advances digital health transformation”, which offers only a broad overview of the system. It states that the Biometric Health Identification enables patients to access care securely using fingerprint verification to reduce fraud, eliminate paperwork and cut waiting times.

The problem is not with the biometric system itself, but with the attempt to stifle legitimate scrutiny.

Mr Duale appears angered by the suggestion that the new biometric system resembles the one scrapped when the Social Health Authority (SHA) replaced it with the One-Time Password (OTP) model. If the new system is substantively different, the burden of clarity lies with the Ministry, not with journalists.

Public office comes with an inherent demand for transparency and accountability. Leaders must understand that scrutiny is not optional, it’s the cost of holding power in a democracy. If they are unwilling to tolerate investigation, criticism or questions, they are free to leave public service.

The media does not exist to cheerlead those in power or scandalise them. It exists to inform the public, question authority and uphold public interest.

One of journalism’s most important functions is not simply to report what has happened, but to contextualise events and investigate their implications – especially when they involve taxpayer-funded policies, digital systems or healthcare access. That’s what the Nation did.

The journalist connected the dots, posed reasonable questions and quoted a hospital administrator who rightly observed: “The return to biometrics, enhanced with better oversight through the Practice 360 app, suggests the solution to fraud may not be abandoning working systems, but improving their security safeguards.”

Instead of threatening the press, the Ministry should be asking why its communication strategy failed to pre-empt misinterpretation. A well-executed launch should include a clear, robust media engagement plan: a detailed media kit, expert spokespeople on standby and a proactive approach to explain any policy shifts – especially in areas as sensitive as healthcare.

Moreover, if the CS or the Ministry feels aggrieved by the reporting, there are structured channels of redress. The first would be to immediately point out the misrepresentation or misreporting to the “Nation” editor and seek a correction or clarification.

They can also address the matter through the Public Editor, who would launch an investigation to establish the facts and resolve the matter. The aggrieved parties are also at liberty to present their case to the Media Council of Kenya’s Complaints Commission. The last resort is to take the issue to court.

What is not acceptable is using advertising as leverage to silence or intimidate the press. Unfortunately, this is not the first time a government official has attempted it. As CS, Mr Moses Kuria issued similar threats. And it is not limited to government.

Large corporations have taken to using their advertising muscle to stifle scrutiny and silence critical reporting.

This undermines press freedom and compromises the right of the public to know. When state and private actors start holding media houses hostage with ad budgets, we risk losing independent journalism altogether.

Media platforms are not billboards for public relations spin. They are vital democratic institutions, mandated to hold power to account, ask uncomfortable questions and amplify voices that those in power would rather ignore. Advertising should be driven by audience reach and impact, not by an expectation of favourable coverage.

Advertising should never be used as bait for favourable coverage. Media outlets that uphold professional ethics must draw a clear line between editorial integrity and commercial interests. Entities should advertise because a platform offers access to their desired audiences – not because they expect glowing headlines in return.

Independent media must resist intimidation. They must draw a firm line between editorial integrity and commercial interests. Citizens must defend their right to journalism that is courageous, critical and unbought.

The role of the media is not to serve those in power. It is to serve the public. That means asking tough questions – even when the answers make the powerful squirm. More worryingly, threats to withdraw advertising as punishment for coverage signal a deeper intolerance for criticism – an impulse that undermines democratic norms and accountability. This is a tactic straight from the bully-rule playbook: a method autocrats often deploy to silence scrutiny, erode institutional independence and chill dissent. It has no place in a democracy.

Contact the Public Editor to raise ethical concerns or request a review of published material. Reach out: Email: [email protected]. Mobile Number: 0741978786. Twitter and linkedin: PublicEditorNMG