The Bishop’s coronavirus infection and how journalists get their info

How did the reporter know that Archbishop Anthony Muheria was infected with the coronavirus “while presiding over” a religious ceremony? This is the apt question Strathmore School Chaplain Fr Francis Rimbau asks after reading the Daily Nation story headlined “Bishop got Covid during event to ordain a priest.”

The story was published as the lead story on Page 10 of the Nation of November 18. It was promoted on the front page with an even more sensational headline: “How Catholic fete became a Covid-19 spreader event. Bishop, priests ill.” The headline stood out because it was set against a bluish background with Archbishop Muheria’s face staring at the reader.

Let me hasten to add that the story was corrected two days later. A correction published on Page 2 of the Nation of November 20 says: “A story in the Wednesday November 18, 2020 edition of this newspaper claimed incorrectly that Nyeri Catholic Archbishop Anthony Muheria could have contracted Covid-19 at the ordination ceremony of Fr Peter Mburu at Kiakabei Catholic Parish in Mathira on November 8. While it is true the ceremony took place, Archbishop Muheria was not in attendance. We apologise to Archbishop Muheria and Fr Mburu for any embarrassment the story could have caused.”

The correction is only about the fact of attendance. But, clearly, if Archbishop Muheria didn’t attend the ceremony, then the issue of infection need not arise. Notwithstanding, Fr. Rimbau’s question is still valid. The principle behind his question applies to all news stories, even when the basic facts are right: What methods do reporters use to know what they know? This is a critical question in deciding the accuracy, fairness and credibility of a news story.

No infection story

Readers are, indeed, entitled to know how a reporter knows what he knows. In this case, Fr Rimbau says he doesn’t trust what the reporter says he knows. “Not even a scientist can be so exact as to point out a specific instance when one gets that disease,” he points out. “Perhaps he (Stephen Munyiri) has some sophisticated ways of finding out? Could he please share with the public? It would be of great interest. Did other people get infected on that day? The article does not mention a single other case.”

He concludes the front page and inside-page headlines of the story about the Archbishop’s coronavirus infection are misleading and the reporter is liable. But let me also hasten to put the record right. The editor, not reporter, writes the headlines.

And to be fair, Stephen Munyiri said in his story, Archbishop Muheria “could have” been infected at the Catholic fete. But his greatest failing was how he sourced that information. His source, or sources, were not reliable.

Credibility

Whether a reader believes a news story or not depends on the source of the information. We call it attribution, which tells readers how the reporter acquired his information. Strictly speaking, reporters don’t know anything unless they get it from a source (a person or document) — excepting information that is common knowledge or the reporter has experienced or observed.

Attribution is thus a key element in the credibility of a new story. Stephen Munyiri didn’t attribute his story to any specific source. He merely said “the Nation has learned” that Archbishop Muheria could have contracted Covid-19 while presiding over the ordination ceremony of Fr Peter Mburu. From whom did he learn?

If he had selected his sources well he would have found out that Archbishop Muheria didn’t attend the ceremony and therefore there was no infection story.

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.