The media has become a critical player in political processes worldwide.
In the discharge of their core mandate of informing, leaders of the media industry influence the public perception of key social issues.
Many a time this influence comes by deliberate efforts or by default.
The media owners and their editorial managers have become highly sought-after opinion influencers.
Business enterprises always pay for the advertisement of their products with a view to dominating the market.
The launch of new products is normally accompanied with hyped media communication to targeted customers.
A lot of market research usually precedes the introduction of new products into the market.
Similar research is routinely conducted to determine the performance of products in the market as well.
At the initial and early stages of development, the media was more of an information outlet for social events and business promotion for goods and services in business enterprises.
However, it grew to delve into political and social processes as a key and interested participant. In this, it has come to play a critical role in directing political activities.
It also shapes the issues for voter consideration as well as determining which political players are dominant in the field.
This is done mainly through policy research and opinion poll analysis. Political campaigns today are not the same as they were decades ago.
In the early 1900s, the only kind of media that could influence politics was newspapers.
In the mid-1900s, that was updated to the influence of radio media on politics.
Later, television media began to influence politics in society, and now social media influences us. Social media plays a major role in influencing not just political campaigns and elections, but also the general political mindset of society.
As individuals, people decide what they believe, what values they find important and what their opinions are. An opinion is a statement that expresses a belief or idea that is not objectively provable.
It is mostly based on emotions and intuition. Opinions are subjective and their veracity depends on the person’s own perception, rather than the objective truth.
Opinions are normally never proved but viciously defended. Strong individuals usually convince others to buy into their beliefs, even if there is no evidence to prove their veracity.
On the other hand, a fact is a statement that can be proven beyond any doubt.
Facts are objective, meaning their veracity is independent of anyone’s perception or beliefs.
They can be verified and supported with indisputable evidence. Facts often rely on denotative language, or language with a specific, explicit, or direct meaning.
The statement “water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit” uses denotative language and doesn’t rely on any implications or grey areas.
That doesn’t mean that it can’t be argued against, however.
At higher altitudes, water boils at lower temperatures, so this could be disputed. However, that doesn’t make it an opinion because it was still proven with evidence.
Facts can, therefore be proven beyond any doubt through verifiable evidence, such as measurements, statistics, or observations.
Opinions cannot be proven and are instead a reflection of one’s own experiences, ideas, beliefs, or feelings about the topic of the statement in question.
As key players in human social life and development, the media deploys facts strategically to push their opinion among populations.
This strength of the media was identified and deployed effectively during the US presidential campaigns of 1960.
Opinion was divided on whether the candidates won or lost on their individual account or by the way the media projected their images.
For all of the prestige that TV garnered from the broadcasts of the Kennedy-Nixon debates, however, controversy quickly surrounded them as well.
Many argued that television was changing the political process and that how one looked and presented oneself on TV was more important than what one said.
This seemed to be the case during the first debate.
Appearances seemed to work better on television screens, yet oratory remained powerful on radio airwaves.
Younger, tanned and dressed in a dark suit, Kennedy appeared to overshadow the more haggard, grey-suited Nixon, whose hastily applied makeup job scarcely covered his late-in-the-day stubble of facial hair.
Informal surveys taken after the debate indicated that audiences who listened on the radio tended to think Nixon had won, while those who watched on TV claimed victory for Kennedy.
Many also believed that Kennedy won the election because he won the first debate and that he won the first debate because he looked better on TV than his opponent.
It must be remembered, however, that the un-telegenic Nixon would go on to win two presidential elections.
Arguments about the impact of television on politics, of course, continue to be central to the political process to this day.
Programmes such as CBS Reports would become progressively less rare on television and “Harvest of Shame” would be among the last of Edward Murrow’s assignments for CBS.
Social media has increasingly become an indispensable tool in the world and Kenya’s political spaces.
Its wide reach has rendered it an asset to political leaders who use it to spread information, to campaign and to mobilise supporters during election cycles.
However, the use of social media has presented a dilemma for conflict prevention and peacebuilding.
It was used to incite hatred and violence during the 2007 election in which hateful and incendiary messages were circulated through popular social media platforms, leading to calls for regulation to stem the spread of hate speech.
The same trend is being recorded as the country prepares for 2027 election.
On the other hand, it is also used to provide counter-messaging and promote peace messages.
Social media and digital technologies are widely used by Kenyan citizens and leaders, thus posing a threat to stability but also presenting opportunities for peacebuilding.
While traditional media remains relevant, African political elites have embraced social media for political communication and citizens increasingly rely on these platforms for political engagement and opinion formation.
The most noteworthy threat is the upsurge of disinformation and misinformation by political actors as they advance their agendas.
This is occasioned by the limited capacity to fact-check, regulate and prosecute the adversities of social media disinformation and misinformation.
From the foregoing, it is imperative to note that the media is central in the political process of the nation.
However, this central role would be detrimental if the leadership of the communication channels does not exercise impartiality.
In the run up to 2022, the mainstream media appeared to have been divided in the middle in their political support.
However, soon after the impeachment of Deputy President Rigathi Gachagua, the media turned uncharacteristically hostile to the government and President William Ruto.
Prominent attention is given to the mistakes and failings of the government.
Prime time on radio and television, as well as conspicuous newspaper pages, are dedicated to the unfulfilled promises of the Kenya Kwanza coalition campaigns.
Little mention is made of the government’s many achievements.
Most of the time, the positive reports are made in passing and as a by the way. While it is appreciated that the media must remain vigilant and support the vigilance of the people, overt and frequent vilification of the President may be counterproductive.
The President and government mandarins may decide to be reactionary to the media affront. This would have an antagonistic effect, creating a hostile and confrontational engagement.
It would lead to a highly polarised political environment that is volatile and susceptible to capture and manipulation by political buccaneers.
The media should, therefore find its traditional footing of impartiality and strategically engage the President and government in positive criticism
