‘The Beast of Forest Road’ headline
Boda boda operator, Zachariah Nyaora Obadia (right), when he appeared at the Milimani Law Courts on March 15, 2022 for allegedly masterminding the sexual assault of a female motorist in Nairobi.
What you need to know:
- Calling the suspect a “beast” when the law clearly states you are innocent till proved guilty was public lynching.
- Courts judges are learned and will not worry about the Nation using the word “beast”.
I refer to “‘Beast of Forest Road’ epithet is bad for the presumption of innocence’” (Daily Nation, March 18, 2022).
The former Forest Road is now Professor Wangari Maathai Road but the headline deliberately used “Forest Road” to create some rhyme and drama. Beasts are likely to live in the forest. Calling a father of two a “beast” when the law clearly states you are innocent till proved guilty was public lynching.
And why is this suspect’s name all over the media while the victim’s name is withheld?
Let’s spin our heads a bit; what if the victim was a man harassed by women?
— Prof X. N. Iraki
***
I think the Press should be given latitude to also show their annoyance at times. They used the word “beast” after Obadia was said to have been identified by his wife as per the DCI reports.
Courts judges are learned and will not worry about the Nation using the word “beast”.
— Githuku Mungai
***
How ‘gaffes’ ruined a good tenders story
This refers to the wonderful work of journalism that appeared on the Nation website on March 15, 2022, under the headline “How gaffes cost leading Turkish firm mouth-watering JKIA lounge tender”.
I wish to commend the Nation for its incisive and investigative journalism. However, the use of the word “gaffe” in the headline was unfortunate. It was subjective, an interpretation by the writer of the headline. Perusing the entire story, I failed to find an obvious gaffe (which implies a glaring and, obviously,, noticeable blunder or oversight).
The use of the terms “gaffes” (within the story), “horrific blunders”, referring to the parent company as a “stranger” in the process and describing the company’s position at an appeals hearing as “tried to claim” reek of an attempt at influencing the reader in a particular direction.
In a story that has as its gist the inadequacies of the Turkish company’s bid, it would only seem right for us to be told how the winners satisfied the conditions that the losers failed to.
Had such information been provided, it would have rounded off the story very nicely to the reader’s satisfaction.
— Hafiz A Maje
