What do Media Censorship and Manipulation, Gates, the BBC and Circumcision Have in Common?

Internews describes itself as an "international non-profit organization whose mission is to empower local media worldwide to give people the news and information they need, the ability to connect and the means to make their voices heard". But one of their much trumpeted programs claims to train journalists about the 'science' behind mass male circumcision programs in Kenya and creating demand for the procedure. There's quite a difference between training journalists on the 'science' of circumcision and creating demand, and the latter generally has little to do with empowerment.

The fact that the BBC's Media Action portal, Creating Demand for Voluntary Male Medical Circumcision, which is backed by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has named the work of Internews as an example of best practice also says a lot more about the three institutions' shared biases than about empowerment. Even the URL bluntly states the bias.

A press release gushes: "Internews’ training approach illustrates the benefits of training journalists to report accurately and impartially on culturally sensitive topics, such as VMMC. The training resulted in some 100 news stories focused on this high impact HIV prevention procedure that were published or broadcast. What was notable was that the media did not carry any negative news stories about the topic during the period that Kenya was rolling out the medical procedure in Nyanza Province." Oddly, another version of this press release uses the term "falsely negative news stories"; I wonder which is correct? Or is any negative news story 'falsely negative'?

So where is the impartiality in creating demand for mass male circumcision? If people have reservations about circumcision perhaps they have good reasons to. But if the procedure is as wonderful as proponents claim it is, why should such aggressive demand creation be necessary? It is claimed that Internews training "does not prescribe to journalists what to cover" but that their main concern is accuracy. Yet their country director Ida Jooste, perhaps inadvertently, flatly contradicts this claim.

She says that a "critical article was published in Uganda about VMMC quoting a poor-quality study which attacked the credibility" of the often cited Randomised Controlled Trials that took place in Kenya, Uganda and South Africa. Without citing that 'poor-quality' study, she goes on: "Rather than wait for the Kenyan media to pick up and run the story, Internews proactively convened a round-table with journalists and VMMC experts from the National AIDS and STI Control Program, and other organizations to analyze the story and examine its scientific arguments. As a result, not a single media outlet in Kenya chose to pick up or run the sensational story."

I don't think I'd use the word 'impartial' there. Ensuring that only positive coverage is aired and that negative coverage is quashed is media censorship and control, pure and simple. This is all paid for by the US taxpayer, though it seems the UK may now have something to do with it too.

Internews also 'worked with' (should that be 'worked on'?) civil society and health agencies working in the field of mass male circumcision. When they ran a conference focusing on women's 'involvement' in mass male circumcision, "to their delight" this resulted in 25 news and feature stories. This is pure manipulation, but those involved seem to express no shame, apology or even justification for it. Joost is even cited as saying "We believe that the impact of positive media coverage, or at the very least, the absence of negative coverage, complements and reinforces traditional public campaigns aimed at creating demand and behaviour change".

The above illustrates a concerted effort by a donor (Gates), an international media outlet (the BBC, via its corporate social responsibility wing) and a well-funded US non-profit, to control the Kenyan media. These parties then openly report their successful manipulation and censorship of the media, which has resulted in completely biased coverage of a public health program that is opposed by many of those who have taken the time to inform themselves about it.

What kind of foreign donor funded public health program, only carried out on certain African populations, is so important that it is necessary to manipulate the press so that they only report positive stories and that they don't report negative stories about it? If Kenyan people had any objections to this kind of neo-imperialism, would their press even report it? If the US wanted to impose a mass male circumcision program in the UK, would the BBC also collude with Gates, PEPFAR, CDC, UNAIDS and other parties to make sure objections were not heard? This must be what is meant by 'informed consent'.

Open Letter to the United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights

[Crossposted from Blogtivist; the link provided to the UN report was to a different report and the correct link has now been provided, apologies for any confusion this may have caused]

Dear High Commissioner Navanethem Pillay

This open letter to you is about one of your recent reports, entitled 'Persons with albinism' (A/HRC/24/57), dated 12 September 2013. Your summary gets to the point: "In some communities, erroneous beliefs and myths influenced by superstition put the security and life of persons with albinism at risk." You also refer to 'ritual' killings and attacks to which many persons with albinism have been subjected over the last six or seven years, particularly in Tanzania. You remark that "[t]he information on the various cases collected by OHCHR came from multiple sources, but the level of verification varies in each case.

It is this level of verification that especially interests me. Earlier in the report you stated that "[t]he collection and verification of cases of ritual attacks is a challenge due to the secret nature of witchcraft rituals, the inability and/or fear of victims’ relatives to report such incidents...[etc]." I would suggest that, from the earliest killing reported in the international media, widely believed to emanate from the BBC, all witchdoctors and other people reputed to be engaged in witchcraft, or related activities (very different sorts of activity among which the BBC makes no useful distinction), have been thus implicated in the attacks.

I hardly need to remind you what that means. Many people, in Tanzania and other countries, have been persecuted by mobs, even lynched, because of the belief that they were engaged in witchcraft or something similar. Indeed, what may have been the first 'ritual' killing of a person with albinism, reported in the Legal and Human Rights Center in their 2006 report, is a brief mention of two men who were lynched by a mob; the brief mention is, essentially, about the killers themselves, not their victim. Your report does not mention the Tanzanian Witchcraft Ordinance of 1928, which proscribes public accusations of witchcraft without providing evidence that the accused actually practiced witchcraft or claimed to possess witchcraft powers, etc, but I’m sure you are acutely aware of the risks that those merely suspected of witchcraft, and even those investigating attacks on persons with albinism, face.

I needn't labor the point; witchdoctors have very good reason to be secretive, especially when everyone points the finger at them following the (rether frequent) occasions on which the media sees fit to implicate them. I'm sure you haven't forgotten earlier stories about the 'skin trade' in Tanzania, 'devil worship' in Kenya and various other phenomena more notable for the vast number of column inches dedicated to them that to the substantive content of the various reports that came to be written about them.

Your report notes that victims, their relatives and fellow community members are afraid to report killings. But it's only natural to fear those who are thought to have magical powers, and worse, to be so ruthless that they would attack people with machetes to maim and/or kill them, or even to instigate such a killing. However, could people actually be more afraid of the absolute demons they read about in the press than anything they have ever experienced? Could they be afraid of something they have never seen, but which they are assured by everyone who has read these reports, exists among them and wields a terrible power over them?

As you say, levels of verification are important. The vast quantity of media coverage may one day yield up something that constitutes evidence of such devotion to superstitions that it leads to maimings and killings; the small handful of sources of information on which the media depends, and on which your preliminary report now depends, may have some checkable, some verifiable source of information that lies, however hidden, behind it. Perhaps this could be used to carry out an investigation into some of the killings, at least the ones for which there is even a minimum level of documentation.

But I would suggest that the media itself has often been secretive, a bit ritualistic, even a bit fetishistic, at times. They constantly refer to things as if they have evidence, words like 'official' are used (although few journalists, if any, seem to view the police, or any other commonly used informants in such cases, as a possible source of anything except further unsubstantiated information, ridicule, stories about corruption, predictable stuff), they write as if the very dogs on the streets know that all these attacks were carried out by witchdoctors who paid 'middlemen' to 'obtain' body parts of people with albinism, for which 'rich and powerful' people pay large amounts of money to ensure that they become more rich and powerful.

It's a very credible story, in a sense, given the many other incredible stories we are told about Africans or, in this case, Tanzanians; a story of superstition, poverty, bullying by rich people, incompetence by 'officials'. But it's a story for which the media provide little or no evidence. Tanzanian people may well have been convinced that witchdoctors are rich and powerful, and that they themselves could become rich and powerful by working for them, or for their rich and powerful clients. But, aside from the plentiful supply of gossip, where is the evidence? Or should I ask what constitutes evidence in these cases? If the sheer number of media reports constituted evidence, all Tanzanian witchdoctors (and those thought to be witchdoctors) would be locked up, perhaps even condemned to death. But none, as far as I know, have been executed (unless some have been killed by mobs). Few have even been through the courts.

I truly hope any evidence that exists that sheds light on these attacks on people with albinism is going to be handed over to you by those who have generated so many media reports based on what seems to them to be so certain. Your preliminary report suggests that little new evidence, with a reasonable level of verification, has yet been made available to you. It is to be hoped that all will be revealed in the final report, after a thorough investigation, one that looks critically at the assumptions we have been making for around seven years without putting a stop to the attacks, apprehending the attackers, or protecting the victims and those around them.

As things stand right now, perhaps there is something wrong with our assumptions? The practice of 'witchcraft' was banned without that preventing further attacks. Over 170 people were allegedly arrested, and let go (at least, I hope they were let go). Apparently over 70 of them said they had been told by witchdoctors to bring them albino body parts. Could this be an important lead? Or could it suggest that everyone reads what has been written in all the papers for months, or talks to someone who does? None of these people were convicted. That could be because there was no evidence, aside from the fact that they were witchdoctors, suspected of being witchdoctors, associated with witchdoctors, etc.

Or maybe they were not involved, or not even completely aware of what was going on, aside from what they read in newspapers or heard from people who read them, or claimed to? The media calculated and recalculated the figures for victims and deaths: there were 4 in December 2007 but 20 by January 2008, without any media report that I could find accounting for any of these new attacks by providing basic details; who were all these victims? Generally we don’t even know their names, sometimes not even their gender. Was their body discovered somewhere, or was there even a body? You may think these are silly questions, because the media eventually agreed by some time around 2012 that there were over 70 deaths. But how starkly all this contrasts with reporting on murders in Western countries, where some of them become household names; at least we get the basic details.

At first, it was claimed there were 71 deaths if you included 17 from Burundi, seven from Kenya and three from Swaziland, but it is asserted that there were 71 deaths in Tanzania by the end of 2012, without that qualification, and by 2013 the BBC raised that to 72 deaths in Tanzania. I suggest that the running tally of deaths has become a bit confused and that various reports are mixing up important details. Perhaps all I am lacking is access to ‘official’ sources, to which some refer, but if there are official sources I believe they should be named, or at least described. Otherwise we don’t know if this is an instance of secrecy, sloppiness or exaggeration.

According to the media accounts that I have looked at there were well over 30 deaths that attracted enough media interest for something about the incident to be recorded, the age, location or some circumstance, such as 'skinning' of the victim. There were well over 70 documented attacks. Not over 70 killings, as the media eventually agreed, but as I said, they could be keeping their cards close to their chest. But attacks continue. Media coverage has waned considerably since 2008 and 2009, but I have tried to account for documented victims in the linked table and I would welcome additions to it.

You will, no doubt, have read a lot already, possibly coming across odd recurrences and even more odd contradictions, even convenient, but unsubstantiated juxtapositions. You will probably even notice that predictions, such as the fear that lots of persons with albinism would be maimed and killed before the 2010 Tanzanian elections turned out to be unfounded? It doesn't say that in the mainstream media, as far as I know, but nor could I find any articles about a noticeable uptick in attacks. Documented victims peaked in 2008, but again in 2011. There was a big dip in 2009 (without a corresponding dip in media coverage), with a further dip in 2010, by which time media coverage began an exponential decline that has continued for several years. I quite accept, of course, that my data is limited to what is available, free of charge, online; the media may have access to other information to which I am not privy, but to which, I hope, you are privy.

To conclude: you mention 'erroneous beliefs and myths, heavily influenced by superstition' in your analysis of attacks on persons with albinism. I would add to that a set of erroneous beliefs and myths that are heavily influenced, even promoted, by the media. If people believe in the great power of witchdoctors, and believe that they can get paid a lot of money to carry out a maiming or a murder, they are quite wrong, and it behooves the media to make that completely clear, now. But why would ordinary Tanzanians even believe such a thing? Perhaps they deserve to be condemned for being stupid enough to commit a terrible crime on the stuff of rumor and gossip. But ordinary Tanzanians themselves are not the source of all rumor and gossip, nor are they the sole spreaders of rumor and gossip.

If it is the case that not all witchdoctors are so powerful and so ruthless, that not all 'middlemen' (and what ordinary Tanzanian could not, going by media descriptions, fill that role?) are so greedy or so gullible, even that most ordinary Tanzanians living in rural communities (and we are frequently told about levels of superstition in rural areas) are not so cowardly or so despicable as to turn a blind eye, or to conspire with other parties, as to maim and kill members of their own community or their own family 'because of their superstition', or worse, because of lust for money, then the entire investigation of the attacks needs to begin again.

Why? Because the received view of these attacks needs to be called into question. We simply don’t know much for sure about witchcraft, a ‘trade’ in body parts, or a ‘rich elite’ that is willing to pay large sums of money for goods and services provided by witchdoctors; we don't know who we are looking for, what they are like, how many they are, aside from the suggestions provided by the media.

I believe  it is vital for us to understand the root causes of attacks and discrimination, and your report refers  to these among your recommendations. However, the distinction between the causes of the attacks and the causes of the discrimination is just as vital. The attacks are a relatively new phenomenon, even various media cited sources agree on that. But the discrimination goes back decades, perhaps centuries, and affects the millions of disabled people living just in Tanzania alone (an estimated 2% of the population), to this day, not just the tens of thousands of persons with albinism (or hundreds of thousands, depending on which article you read).

Media reports, and other reports depending on media reports, do not constitute a solid foundation on which to base further investigations. I am sure you are aware of that, but what I have read so far, in the media and in other reports, is highly questionable. Yet I see virtually the same material in your preliminary report. It is not my intention to advise you, only to urge you that the current body of data on attacks on people with albinism may not yet be very reliable.

I look forward to a report that results in the protection of persons with albinism, brings perpetrators of violence to justice and ensures that these attacks never happen again. Following the publication of the report, persons with albinism, those associated with them, those associated with attacks on them, and all other innocent people, will enjoy those human rights that have, up to now, been denied them.

In addition to compiling a web page of documented attacks, to which I have provided a link, I have various other data that I have collected. If I can be of any assistance to you or your officers, please do not hesitate to get in touch with me.

Respectfully

Simon Collery

The Ever-Widening Rift Between the Media and Reality in Africa

[Cross-posted from Blogtivist]

There has been little agreement about how many albino people in Tanzania have been killed, apparently for their body parts, between 2006 and 2013. But since the middle of 2010, around 70 deaths has been a common estimate, and one which did not increase much over the following three years. The number of articles identified about these events comes to 71 in total, reaching a peak of 23 in 2009. The number of documented victims, of both deadly and non-deadly attacks, is also about 71 (some may not be albinos, some may not be Tanzanian and some may or may not have been injured or killed), peaking at 17 in 2008 and again at 15 in 2011. But only 24 of these documented incidents are reported deaths; of these deaths, only 10 are named by any of the various online sources I have examined.

[Click on image for larger version]

A list of all the sources used for collecting various data is available, which includes a timeline of events, at least as they were reported by the media. It’s not an exact timeline, with some dates referring to publication rather than the occurrence of the events, which may not even be made clear; the list of sources and other sets of data are, of course, a work-in-progress (which may never be completed).

The timeline starts about 9 years before the first report of an albino killing, in1997, when the New York Times runs an article about albinos in Zimbabwe and their struggle for equality; there are even mentions of witchcraft and superstition. Other articles during this period report similar issues, in various African countries, but there is no mention of killings or maimings. Even a peer-reviewed article in August 2006 in BioMed Central makes no mention of such events, though it notes that “People with albinism also face social discrimination as a result of their difference in appearance”.

In April 2007, the Tanzanian Human Rights Report (for 2006) lists public executions that they have recorded for 2006. One particular incident, which occurred in April, stands out: “Two brothers, Benedict and William David (29) were believed to have murdered and taken the organs of Alex Aaron, an albino. When the brothers were arrested, the villagers began hurtling stones at them until they died.” No further comment has been found about this incident, even in subsequent reports. However, a later Human Rights Report (for 2007) says that there were 20 albino people killed in 2007.

In December 2007 there were two reports of attacks on albinos, and a later report by Under the Same Sun (UTSS) names three people who were attacked, but not killed. The first mention by the BBC found relating to attacks on Tanzanian albino people was another early source of information. From this time onward, all articles mention witchcraft (or something similar) and the bestowal of wealth or some other such objective. Vicky Ntetema of the BBC (later to join UTSS) says that this is the “first time that albinos have been targeted in ritual killings” although this turns out to be incorrect according to sources that were not available at the time (such as the 2007 Human Rights Report, noted above).

Only a few months after the issue of attacks on albinos first attracts the attention of the media, the President of Tanzania orders a “crackdown on witchdoctors who use body parts from albinos in magic potions to bring people good luck or fortune”. The certainty with which witchdoctors (also miners and fishermen) are targeted, and equal certainty about magic potions which bring good luck or fortune, suggests that there may be a lot of information about these attacks that is not so easily available online; unless press reports themselves are considered to be reliable. But this is only a preliminary study. There are likely to be many parts of the puzzle that are either unavailable online or difficult to locate. (In early 2009, the government launched another initiative: “citizens will be invited to write down on slips of paper the names of those they suspect of involvement”, dubbed ‘witch naming‘ by the BBC and a ‘secret vote‘ by Reuters.)

By this time, early 2008, it is common currency (in the media) that demand for magic potions comes from people engaged in mining and fishing (for example, in the article citing the president, linked to in the previous paragraph). The number of albino people murdered is now put at 19 or more in the last year. Reference is made to a ‘growing trade in body parts’ in several articles and hints have been made about large sums of money; exact sums of money have not yet been mentioned. The BBC names a victim for the first time in late July 2008 and in the same month refers to an undercover investigation by one of their own journalists which reveals that and albino body part costs about $2,000. This figure and similar amounts crop up frequently in future articles, but it is often unclear whether it is what the ‘client’ pays, what the ‘witchdoctor’ pays those procuring the body part, etc.

Several commentators note that these vicious attacks on albinos started fairly recently (contrary to the claims of UTSS and others that they have been going on “since time beyond memory“). An article in September 2008 says the phenomenon arose some time in the last 10 years. There are several reports ofsimilar attacks in Burundi but it is claimed that the bodies/body parts are destined for Tanzania. Peter Ash, founder of UTSS, told the Vancouver Sun newspaper in a recent interview that the practice of killing albinos had only begun in the last decade, and “the killing of albinos and trafficking in body parts appears to be centered … in and around the city of Mwanza.” This statement is made in an article about the killing of two albino children in Swaziland, and claims that the attacks are ‘spreading’.

There are two reports of people trying to ‘sell’ an albino. One man is said to have tried to sell his wife for $3,000 to ‘businessmen’ from DRC. Another attemptedto ‘sell’ his friend for $250,000, but it turned out to be a sting operation by the police and he was arrested and imprisoned for human trafficking. Over the years there have also been mentions of shoes made of the skin of albino people, thedrinking of the blood of albino people (referred to as ‘cannibalism’) and the belief that having sexual intercourse with an albino woman will cure AIDS.

The exact phrase ‘luck in love, life and business’ crops up at least nine times in the literature; it is just one of many instances of the use of copy and paste journalism. One might wonder with some of the stories if we are looking at copycat incidents, copycat journalism, or a combination?

Several commentators make the prediction that numbers of attacks on albino people will increase in the run up to the elections (in 2010) because superstitious politicians will be consulting witchdoctors for potions to improve their chances of winning a seat. This prediction appears to have been incorrect, unless those making it were too modest to note their prescience after the elections.

Perhaps there were already signs that the media was tiring of attacks on albino people in Tanzania as early as mid-2010, when their rough (very rough) count of deaths had reached 71 and never really went any higher, despite there being 8 documented victims in that year and 11 the year before. The number of articles halved in 2010 and would halve again in 2011 (and again in 2012), even though the number of documented victims rose to 11 in 2011. Two out of the three articles in 2012 were about albino models and there have only been four in 2013.

There have been 9 documented attacks on albino people in Tanzania this year, including at least 2 killings (although one of those killed may not have been an albino person). So maybe the media will renew its (obsessive, bordering on pathological) interest in these attacks? Or maybe they will not; after all, the mere fact that someone has been killed under bizarre circumstances is not always enough for the media to take an interest; just as, perhaps, the appearance of a bizarre incident in the media may not be an indication that the incident ever occurred, or that its description bears any resemblance to anything that ever occurred, anywhere?

The Right to Trivia

On Friday the 9th of January, newspapers announced that the government was warning that up to 3 million people faced starvation because of growing food shortages. That's more than 10% of the population. By the following monday, the number had risen to 10 million, in excess of 25% of the population. There was no analysis of why the figures had changed so profoundly.

Yesterday, Friday the 16th, famine was not to be found, unless you count passing references in articles on unrelated matters. There is mention of millions facing starvation on page 6 of The Nation in an article on senior politicians spending large amounts of public money on a trip to the inauguration of the president of a foreign country. These politicians were not invited so taxpayers (which doesn't include politicians, because they don't pay tax) are going to pay for an expensive trip to watch the event on TV.

Perhaps they don't trust their own media to cover the event adequately. Their own media is far more interested in signs of disagreement in the coalition government. That's front page news today. After all, these signs of disagreement are so hard to discern, right? There is a a small amount of interest in various scandals that involve various politicians and other senior public figures but interest in these is currently waning.

But there is little interest in the matters that affect individual people, especially poor people. For example, why do water supplies only reach wealthier neighbourhoods and where does the water sold to poorer people at such high prices come from? Where did all the recently imported maize, intended to avert famine, go to? What has been happening to fuel that has been distributed to outlets, allegedly, but doesn't seem to have reached them?

One quarter of the country's population facing starvation didn't make the front page today. Nor did the fact that child death rates are up, again. Child death rates have been rising almost constantly since the 1980s, so this is not a recent trend. It's a trend that cannot be blamed on the HIV epidemic, the water, fuel or food crisis, global warming or any other issue. There is a long running crisis in health, education and other social services.

Of course, it's difficult to assess figures like those from the UN 2009 State of the World's Children report, showing that 121 out of every 1000 live births recorded result in death, mostly in the first year of a child's life. Difficult to assess because an estimated 40% of births are not recorded. The figure could higher or lower but it's difficult to know how many births have not been recorded!

It's not that political wranglings are not important or that the coalition shouldn't be urged to settle their differences and start running the country, these are important. But it's because of their failure to run the country that child mortality and maternal mortality figures, to name but a few, are so high. It's because of the government's failures that people are starving, have no water, are dying of preventable diseases.

Behind the shortage of maize, in addition to the cartels that may or may not exist, there are government plans to sell and/or lease land so that foreign countries can grow sugar for biofuels and food crops for their own people. This is land that is currently farmed by Kenyans or, at least, owned by Kenyans. It could be used to grow food.

The government says it is building a port in Lamu with the money they make from the land. This port will take many years to build, as Raila Odinga reminded us when he gave a figure of five years for enhancements to Mombasa Port.

So what's wrong with using the land to grow food that should be available after one season? In five years time, if the port is really built, will Kenya have any money left to import anything through a new port in Lamu?

More importantly, how many people will have died, unnecessarily, by the time this 'vital' port is built? Water and food cannot wait till political wranglings are sorted out. These wranglings, in many cases, date back to the earliest days of the Kenyan Republic. Death from lack of water and food is very fast. Some will already have died by the time the politicians who went, uninvited to party in the US, have returned.

It's not politicians who die in civil unrest, famine or epidemics; politicians children don't die of preventable diseases and their wives don't usually die in childbirth. They are completely divorced from the pain, although they may see it all on TV. That's if the media bothers to cover it. And if they are not watching US TV, in the US.

The press who appealed so recently to the electorate to protect them from government excesses is now little moved by the plight of ordinary Kenyans. Millions of people facing starvation and children dying in large numbers should be front page news, so should reportage covering what the government intends to do about it. And when the government says what they intend to do, their actions need to be followed until they show some result. Why is the press so obsessed with triviality?

Of course, government wranglings can turn to riots and many lives can be lost. But far more people die from malnutrition, starvation, water shortage, preventable disease and various other things than from civil distrubances. When these issues have been resolved there will be time enough to cover the many political farces but meantime, perhaps the press will reconsider its priorities.

Rights and Responsibilities

There is little doubt that a free press is vital to democracy, if that free press keeps people informed about what is going on in the country and in the world. If the free press chooses to print only what they deem newsworthy and seldom bothers to investigate anything that comes their way, it's hard to see how they could be so vital.

So I'm assuming that the Kenyan press has done at least some of the things that they should have been doing. Over the past year, there was certainly no shortage of things to report on. The press duly covered the issues and, in addition to covering the post election violence and political manoeuvrings, raised questions about water shortages, food shortages, MPs not paying taxes, fuel shortages and various other excesses.

They even went further than that. They suggested that some of the various shortages in the country were connected with certain politicians. The country needs more of this, and the press is to be congratulated. Perhaps they have improved from the time when coverage of issues concerning the HIV epidemic were sensationalist, moralising, inaccurate and slavishly copied from whatever source happened to be available.

Now, no one could accuse Mwai Kibaki of being inexperienced in politics or in his handling of the press. He held senior positions under Kenyatta and Moi and I assume he learned a lot during that period. He also seems to be putting some of that experience into practice by signing the 2008 Amendment to the Communications Bill of 1998. I wonder was his attitude towards Aids also influenced by that of Moi?

In 1989, it is said that Moi ordered the quarantining of all people found to be HIV positive. Thankfully, those receiving the order quietly failed to act on it. In 1993, he refused to accept that the epidemic had become national in scope. Yet later estimates suggest that nearly one million people were infected by 1993. It was also the year when the rate of new infections peaked and many thousands had already died.

In the mid 90s, the Kenyan government recognised Aids as a critical issue, but major donors were bypassing the government because they were not felt to be reliable when it came to spending the money. In 1997, the year the Kenyan parliament approved a 15 year national Aids policy, Moi, on this election year, gave in to religious leaders and dropped school sex education plans. By 1999 the man was willing to acknowledge that Aids was a national disaster but still felt it improper to encourage the use of condoms in schools and colleges. In 2001, still keeping step with religious leaders, he still spoke out against the use of public money to provide condoms.

By 2002, when the newly elected Kibaki declared total war on Aids, prevalence had already dropped to 6.6%, the lowest it had been since 1993. By the time either he or his predecessor had got around to being the leaders they were elected to be, it was too late for the tens of thousands who had already died and the approximately 1,600,000 who were HIV positive.

Of course, you can't blame Kibaki for that, he had only just been elected; the decline in HIV prevalence from the late 1990s was, to a large extent, due to a high death rate. As death rates declined, prevalence started to rise again. But in the years following Kibaki's presidency, large amounts of donor money continued to be unaccounted for. Eventually, people were found to be siphoning off the money for themselves and some of them have been convicted. But it's hard to detect any big change in HIV policy. Perhaps Kibaki, like Moi, was worried about the effect that the epidemic would have on the Kenyan tourist industry.

The current Kenyan National HIV/Aids Strategic Plan was published in 2005. It is due to run until 2010. However, it is largely based on the previous strategic plan, despite conditions being very different then. These two plans cover the period when HIV declined for a while, only to increase again. The prevention programmes seem to have had little effect. So it is to be hoped that the next plan is being researched at the moment and will be significantly different from the last two.

This gives the media time to do some investigative reporting, rather than waiting till the next strategic plan comes out and then merely noting its highlights. If they are to play a part in keeping people informed about how this government is doing in the fight against HIV, they need to do their research and constantly update people. It's not enough to blast out a few articles around World Aids Day, echo sensationalist rubbish from the international press or cover visits by bloated celebrities who are currently on the HIV bandwagon.

I believe there are some intelligent people working for the Kenyan press. I hope we see more evidence of that when it comes to coverage of issues such as poverty, especially rural poverty, rural neglect and lack of access to social services, inequality, especially gender inequalities, sexual and gender related violence and abuse and labour related practices that compromise human rights. The list is not exhaustive but it's a good start.

Perhaps it is because the government got away with ignoring the plight of some of the most vulnerable people in the country for so long that they thought gagging the press would be relatively easy.