I have generally kept off the news about David Kato’s death, followed by a sham investigation, BS analysis and the fact that his murder is being used in a myriad of ways and to achieve wide ranging selfish gains. The analysis around David’s killing has kept off assessing activism in East Africa and has largely been about eulogizing him to what end, I don’t know. The patterns on anything ‘queer’ or ‘homophobic’ Uganda are the same: blaming the US evangelical right, Ssempa and giving undeserved power to the likes of Giles Muhame while incessantly complaining that the ‘west’ should do more. Quickly after that is some potent form of disillusionment that leads commentators – largely comfortable and/or inhabiting western(ized) spaces to conclude on the concept of ‘African homophobia’ and wait for the next installment of the African queer drama. Perhaps what has changed is the fervor that used to be attached to such reporting. Even though the news of Kato’s death reverberated above the din of the unrest in Egypt, the news was faced with a sadness that impeded reason – sadly. Condemnation abounded and now, as blogs and tweets and some kind of ‘analysis’ suggest – the preferred route in remembering David is anecdotes on his personal life.
What infuriates me more than what is going on now is what the Daily Nation, Kenya and the Monitor in Uganda – both sister newspapers to each other – have done to Kato’s legacy with their (to put it strongly) bullshit feature on him which I read on the DN2 on Monday. The two page article in the DN2 was based totally on anecdotes from a homophobe who accepted his money, an ex-lover who was ‘relieved’ on hearing the news of his death, an ex gay man who was ‘recruited’ by Kato and a ‘doctor’ who doesn’t respect doctor-patient confidentiality with excerpts from Val Kalende’s blogpost as the only truthful account in the whole thing (and probably added to ‘balance’ it and make it sound somewhat true). Uppity asshole – that is what came out of a two page article depicting an LGBTI activist who most readers did not know and who, after that article, will never realize the magnitude of his work or the influence of his activism in Uganda and elsewhere.
The article follows a line of shallow reporting on LGBTI topics in East Africa that just aim to attract a huge readership but nothing else after. Just like the Richard Muaysa intersex plea at the High Court last year, the paper has done its best to keep anything close to objectivity off the press and, in the end, opened the floodgates for all manner of hateful justification for his condition.
The journalists working on this piece stopped at nothing to make it sound as ‘balanced’ as possible even going as far as quoting a non existent blogpost by GayUganda where he outed Kato as being HIV positive. GayUganda has since come out with a very much needed commentary on the whole issue and even going on to point out other inconsistencies (ahem, lies) in the article and exposing it as a sham feature out on a smear campaign against the deceased activist.
I am particularly puzzled as to why the Daily Nation published the article, given that David was not that much known in Kenya and also because, in the past – though along other clearly prejudiced articles – it has come out in support of dialogue (if not anything else) on LGBTI equality. Why this all of a sudden? This was a good opportunity to open a discussion on activism and its dynamisms – no matter its end – in East Africa, or call for a much more sober articulation on the treatment of sexual minorities in the region (issues which would have come out on their own if the article was objective). What saddens me even more is how Kato’s legacy is being perceived in the ‘hetero mainstream’. He was a hero in my books but to DN, he was just a good opportunity to justify and engage in Giles Muhame like tabloid reporting. Comments on the article followed the same line of vitriolic rhetoric and bizarre justification for his death with social conservatives and religious zealots alike using it as an I-told-you-so moment for all liberals out there. It also reveals a more sinister plot to either discredit activism or just use it for comic relief after readers, and here am citing Kenyan readers, have had a good dose of political conspiracy theories going around the same topics of ‘Grand Coalition Constitutional Impunity Crisis’.
It’s about time queers started consciously nurturing their stories and those of their own so as not to be robbed of our dignity and integrity by the press, out to ‘tabloidize’ anything not directly related to politics. It’s a big challenge for a small community with few resources that can’t match such a huge journalistic enterprise as the DN but we must not watch as the well is poisoned.
It’s not just the Kenyan and Ugandan media that are irresponsible , shallow and using David Kato for their own interests – the whole damn online media, blogs, magazines etc are doing the same. Its sickening.
What ‘can’ be done? Pointing out prejudices and inaccuracies shouldn’t be enough. not now, not with all that’s at stake
thanks for commenting, it’s leaving me to approach the disease not the symptoms
Daily Nation and Monitor need to be called out on sloppy, opinionated reporting. Well done!
Pingback: Africa: Reporting LGBTI news in East Africa · Global Voices
Pingback: Africa: Reporting LGBTI news in East Africa @ Current Affairs
I did not see either fo the articles but I saw Onyango Obbo’s op/ed yesterday.
He did raise pertinent issues there and I could not help and wonder- what if Kato’s death really was a lovers tiff gone wrong? Arent we queers then guilty of using his life( or death) to aid our activism?
I dont thinks the papers are justified in vilifying the murder but am not suprised they wrote that way. Queer reporting in Africa is slanted for the homophobes
the whole article (Onyango-Obbo’s) was clearly prejudiced with a statement suggesting that many queers and allies don’t believe that David death was caused by a lover’s tiff because they don’t think a same sex relationship is that passionate. it has been generally been agreed that David’s death shouldn’t be used to base/aid activism in Africa and yet the opposite is being done (the basis of future work on both mainstream, anti and pro queer news agencies worldwide, regionally and locally).
i’m totally against using that op/ed to think what is happen after David Kato simply because it is unbalanced and engenders this notion that real debate on sexual minorities must involve a huge input by parties outside this minority.
i hope i’ve come out as clear as hoped for on that
I agree with GNM in his analysis about the reporting done by the two papers concerning David Kato’s debacle – don’t know what else to call it – however much I read homophobic and biased sentiments in their reporting, I can’t help but wonder about what’s true about the same.
It’s an open secret that a number of gay guys use the resources available to them to lure others into having sex with them. In doing this they disorient so many who in turn do crazy things and blame it on the same. I don’t know whether I make any sense but that’s just my thoughts afterall;
“Give the devil his dues”
as much as that may be true, nothing like that can be said about Kato without conceding to prejudice against queer activism and David in person. the articles around Kato, especially those after he passed on shouldn’t hold water in our debates around his legacy simply because they are false, prejudiced and out to debate queer on their terms.
even in an op/ed by such a respected journalist in East Africa, unethical standards rear their ugly heads.
we must not drink from the poisoned well