Media should be scientific in reporting ‘scientific elections’

The media – print, broadcast and online – has been awash with the word “scientific” after President Museveni recently popularised it during one of his Covid-19 addresses to the nation. We have thus been entertained to stories and headlines about “scientific weddings”, “scientific funerals”, “scientific meetings”, blah, blah, blah!

The latest “scientific” nomenclature – thanks to Electoral Commission chairperson Simon Byabakama – is the envisaged “scientific campaigns” in a “scientific election” that will logically culminate in “scientific voting”, “scientific tallying of results”, “scientific declaration of the winners” and finally announcement of a “scientific president, “scientific MPs” and “scientific district councils” come February 2021.

Many readers – and Ugandans in general – will find the above “scientific” narrative quite dizzying and for some, mesmerising! The greater part of the media perhaps belongs to the latter group – at least going by the reporting so far! Why?

The media has largely failed to break down the “scientific” word to help the public understand what it means, what it entails, what it is hoped to achieve or fail, how different it is from previous practices, what is its place in the electoral laws and Constitution, who can (or should) declare it so, etc.

A simple dictionary definition of “scientific” is as follows: ‘1: of, relating to, or exhibiting the methods or principles of science. 2: conducted in the manner of science or according to results of investigation by science: Practicing or using thorough or systematic methods.”

While the above definition may not say what is scientific in our context, at least it tells us that the word scientific cannot fudge the things that we know about our elections, funerals, weddings, etc, and that in writing stories, we should address ourselves to those things rather than be carried away with an amorphous term.

For example, campaigning through radio, television and newspapers is not scientific; it is communication (we can argue whether it is an art or a science), and the media is simply a platform. Casting a ballot paper is not scientific; it is choice. Tallying votes is not scientific; it is mathematics as we know it every day. The role of media is to explain, to ask questions, to educate, to hold power to account, to guard public interest, and so on.

So rather than simply repeat statements or words pronounced by public officials, journalists need to break them down and put them against the provisions of the Constitution, common decency, and challenge those saying them if need be.

Otherwise, by simply parroting them as legitimate pronouncements, the media runs the risk of validating things in the eyes of the public that has been taught to believe that science is some big animal that cannot be questioned. Hopefully in the coming days, we shall see some questions being asked.

Daily Monitor’s June 17 editorial is a good starting point. The other things the media should strive to bring out are the existing audience mappings; radio, television and mobile phone penetration; number of broadcast stations; their spread and ownership; broadcast language; newspapers reach; etc.

This information exists in different volumes at Uganda Communications Commission (UCC) or with various research institutions. Reporting on “scientific” pronouncements requires more than just recording and reproducing what has been said or called “science”, it requires a scientific inquiry to help the public appreciate whether this is about science or it is something else clothed as scientific!

*****
Kenedy Musekura: The editor(s) did not exercise oversight in the Daily Monitor of May 29, page 37, where they published jobs whose application deadline had expired. For example: Office Assistants Crown Beverage Ltd, its deadline was May 8.

Laboratory Assistants, its deadline was May 16 and UNDP volunteers opportunities in Uganda whose deadline was May 10. Secondly, your recent column was about the importance of writing in simple language as opposed to using big words or hard vocabulary.

I believe by letting people to express themselves in strong vocabularies, readers will be pushed to find out what those words mean and the context in which they are used. Spoon-feeding readers with simple English is good but can generate laziness among editors and readers. Public Editor: The first issue was a gross error.

This feedback has been shared with the advertising department where part of the responsibility falls. Second, the choice of words must ultimately be to communicate with ease. Gauge your audience and choose the words that best deliver the message. Verbosity puts of audiences.

Send your feedback/complaints to
[email protected] or
call/text on +256 776 500725.