Coverage of Kenya's 1992 Parliamentary Election Petitions By Daily Nation and Kenya Times: A Study of Bias in News Reporting

Abstract

This study looked at the coverage of the filing and outcomes of the 1992 parlia- mentary election petitions as well as at the direction of coverage of petitioners to determine whether Daily Nation and Kenya Times were biased in their reporting. Bias was defined as the systematic differential treatment of KANU and Opposi- tion candidates and supporters with regard to the extent, prominance and direc- tion of coverage. A comparative analysis of the dailies was done to determine if they differed in their coverage. Content analysis method was used. All news sto- ries published between 1993 and 1995 about the filing and outcomes of the peti- tions were included in the analysis. The units of analysis were the story, the head- line and the sentence. The study found that the dailies are more likely to be biased when covering the events where petitioners are parlimentary candidates than when covering those where petitioners are the electorate. Barring the direction of sentences where Daily Nation treated KANU and Opposition candidates similarly, the daily was biased in favour of Oppositon candidates as far as selection of filing, withdrawal and dismissal of petitions as well as display of stories and slant of headlines were concerned. It was only in the slant of sentences that the privately-owned daily was biased in favour of Opposition supporters. Meanwhile, Kenya Times treated KANU and Oppostion candidates similarly in headlines. The daily was, however, biased in favor of KANU candidates as far as selection of dismissal and striking out of petitions were concerned. It was also biased in favour of KANU candidates with regard to the display of stories about filing of petitions and the slant of sentences. The government-owned daily was found to be biased in favor of KANU supporters only with regard to selection of petition withdrawal and the display of stories about filing of petitions. The findings reveal that many of the allegations of biased reporting that have been leveled against the two newspapers are indeed valid, at least as far as cover- age of election petitions is involved.