Reader’s guide to judging Prof Mutua’s polemics against DP Ruto
Deputy President William Ruto during a meeting with politicians allied to United Democratic Alliance at his Karen residence on August 5, 2021.
What you need to know:
- Has Prof Makau breached NMG editorial policy by opposing the Ruto election bid?
- Are his series of “stinging columns” informed debate and rigorous analysis that will help voters to make intelligent decisions on the basis of knowledge?
Prof Makau Mutua writes bold, fearless, eloquent and entertaining prose that has endeared him to readers. However, there are many readers who are fed up with his endless polemics against Deputy President William Ruto.
Their main complaint is that he repeats tirades with few or no verifiable facts, or fresh information, to back up his opinions.
Githuku Mungai wonders if Prof Matua, when he comes “with his guns blazing”, recognises that Dr Ruto has any rights. Githua Kihara says journalism tenets the world over require commentaries “to have a high level of objectivity in sharing knowledge on various subjects that experts qualify to write about.”
He wonders whether Prof Mutua should continue commenting in NMG platforms on politics when there is evidence of his political leanings and bias.
Erick ole Agade sarcastically urges the Sunday Nation to “permanently name his space in the newspaper as ‘Why I Hate William Ruto’.
Some of the readers think the man from Kitui should be bundled into a mwatu (Kamba beehive) and rolled down Mumoni Hills in central Kitui. If he survives, he should then be tossed into the nearby Athi River for crocodiles to finish him.
Guilty of hyperbole
Or better still, he should be drowned like a cat in his own Kitui Villa swimming pool. This is the readers’ hyperbolic way of seeking to censor Prof Mutua’s habit of savaging the man from Sugoi, as he calls him, in his Sunday Nation op-eds.
Prof Mutua himself is guilty of hyperbole. In fact, that is one of the main drawbacks of his diatribe against Dr Ruto. Just two examples from his latest op-ed: “The man from Sugoi has the most ungoverned greed for power this side of the Sahara,” and “I personally believe that the man’s record stinks to the high heavens, and that he’s unelectable if it’s exposed to full sunlight” (“William Ruto’s past is prologue” August 1, 2021).
More importantly, many of Prof Mutua’s statements are expressions of his feelings not backed up by facts. Example: “He’s educated in the art of skullduggery. Politically, he has killer instincts, which he has exploited to good effect. In fact, you don’t want to meet Mr Ruto in a dark alley at night” (“Ruto’s Kiambaa victory is pyrrhic”, July 25, 2021).
A fair comment must be based upon concrete facts and supporting evidence. Opinion must be based on facts. Further, a good op-ed should address all sides of the subject to show the writer is fair and even-handed. And as long as the opinion is based on facts, and without malice, it would be acceptable no matter how outlandish it might be.
Has Prof Makau breached NMG editorial policy by opposing the Ruto election bid? Are his series of “stinging columns”, as he calls them, informed debate and rigorous analysis that will help voters to make intelligent decisions on the basis of knowledge? Do these sustained series amount to a campaign against the election of Dr Ruto and, as a corollary, for the election of his rival Raila Odinga?
Dignity of the editorial page
The NMG editorial policy speaks for itself. NMG has “no agenda either favouring or opposing individual, political party, interest group or government. Its news coverage and political content seeks to underscore its position as independent media that contributes to promoting and entrenching a democratic culture through informed debate, intelligent and rigorous analysis”.
The NMG “neither endorses nor supports any candidate or party”. Its role is to provide thought stimulation, explanations and informing voters in order to help voters to “make intelligent decisions on the basis of knowledge”.
There are other issues. Prof Mutua writes op-eds that appear next to the newspaper’s editorial. He should be held to a higher standard of professionalism. His overuse of hyperboles and pure opinion (views not based on facts) chips away at the dignity and sobriety of the editorial page.
Additionally, it does appear to the uninitiated reader that Prof Mutua is seemingly reflecting the views of the newspaper or the newspaper is compliant with his views.
Finally, while it’s accepted that highly opinionated columnists like Prof Mutua should have freedom to express their views, the newspaper has an obligation to readers who are offended by his views.
The Public Editor is an independent news ombudsman who handles readers’ complaints on editorial matters including accuracy and journalistic standards. Email: [email protected]. Call or text 0721989264.
