I was diagnosed with colon cancer in August 2025 & I've been in treatment. We've seen a 70% reduction of the tumour.
We still have a ways to remission. If you see this & you're able to, please help me regain my health &beat this. Nothing is too small. TIA https://t.co/NdJc0Xaru5
For those who don’t understand French, no problem.😂Just listen to ODM leaders explain how they allegedly have to pay people to fill their rallies.
At this rate,ODM is confirming daily that Raila didn’t just leave a party behind..he left a party struggling to find the crowd. 😭😂
Edwin Watenya Sifuna ako na JESHI kali sana. Huyu dem amefagilia Ruto sympathisers led by Mwakideu, Yy Comedian, Obinna, and all the rest. She has just told them to f**k off.
#SisiNdioSifuna
Compare the wording.
Inside the story we repeatedly encounter:
“he alleged…”
“according to Philip…”
“the source claimed…”
“Kaluma denied…”
“Wanga denied…”
But on the front page:
“A Standard investigation reveals…”
Those are two completely different journalistic evidentiary standards.
One says witnesses have made allegations. The other tells the country that the newspaper has established what happened. Which is it?
And there is another issue.
The Standard Media had previously published highly loaded headlines shortly after the violence, including one declaring “Shame as Gladys Wanga and Kaluma unleash violence against freedom.”
If a media house had already reached such a categorical editorial conclusion immediately after the incident, is it not fair to ask whether today's investigation was undertaken with an open mind, or whether reporters were gathering material to confirm a narrative the newspaper had already adopted?