In 2017, Kenya had its sixth election since the reintroduction of the multi-party system, and a decade after 2007/2008 in which the local media were accused of partly fuelling violence. In 2013, the local media were accused of betraying democracy for peace despite expectations that they would strive to improve their reputation after learning from past mistakes. This article demonstrates how, in 2017, the fractious state-media relations, more so over the withdrawal of government advertising and harsh laws, pushed the local media to report for democracy in the period before the elections. Yet, owing to fresh government censorship, the local media abandoned the democracy project when the tallying process began and instead switched to the peace reporting of 2013. It therefore appears that the local media in neo-patrimonial settings are more inclined to report for democracy when they are independent of, or have a tussle with, the state than when they are even just flirting, thus creating the picture that the local media simply report for democracy at their convenience rather than as a set agenda. And noting that the media are aware of their obligation to report for democracy, this article recommends that the local media must tactfully weave through the neo-patrimonial influences, as a constant reality, and set reporting for democracy, even if imperfectly, as an obligation.