There seems to be a deliberate attempt to gag the media in Uganda, from both sides of our sharply divided political aisle. What is beyond dispute is the media’s influence — its power to inform the public and shape perception — and that is precisely why every political player is fighting for its attention.
It has now become apparent that specific journalists and media houses are being deliberately targeted. It is time the media stood up to this bullying and manipulation, which are clearly deliberate, well-orchestrated, and choreographed.
When I entered the media industry years ago, I was told that as a journalist I had to remain neutral and avoid “activism.” I asked my editors at New Vision what exactly they meant by activism, but they could not give a clear answer. Yet they insisted that I knew what they meant. I was honest: my understanding of activism and theirs needed to align.
To me, the notion of media neutrality has always been puzzling. What does it mean to be neutral about issues that clearly harm the public? Take road accidents, for instance. Does neutrality mean we neither oppose nor support them? That would be absurd.
Of course, the media must take a stand against road accidents. We must campaign for safer roads, better driver behaviour, and stronger enforcement. That is not bias — it is responsibility.
The same applies to social evils like defilement and rape. Should the media remain “neutral” in such cases too? Does it have no moral position?
The argument for neutrality only seems to surface when the media reports on governance and politics. Why is that? Is it because the media supposedly lacks the capacity to distinguish between good and bad leadership?
Of course not. In fact, the media fails the public when it does not help citizens identify who demonstrates integrity, competence, and vision — and who does not.
The media’s role is to inform and educate. If citizens go to the polls and elect a terrible leader because the media failed to guide them with facts and context, then the media must bear part of the blame. Journalism is not a popularity contest; it is not the media’s duty to be loved.
It is the media’s duty to provide truthful, factual, and context-rich information — even when those being exposed dislike it.
Some candidates in our political landscape know their weaknesses and seek to hide them by attacking the press, claiming bias whenever the truth is told. The media must not be cowed by such tactics.
Journalists live in the same country as their audiences. When bad governance takes root, they suffer too. That reality makes it vital for the media — for its own survival — to take an informed stand for truth and competence.
If journalists were somehow insulated from the consequences of failed leadership, perhaps they could afford to sit back and remain “neutral.” But they are not. Therefore, it is my considered opinion that Uganda’s media should stop pretending to be neutral, because it is not.
The media must take a side — the side of facts, the side of truth, and the side that helps citizens make informed choices at the ballot.
Candidates are making promises they cannot fulfill, and the media watches in silence for fear of being labeled biased. That is unacceptable.
I will leave it here before this turns into a full-blown rant.