‘Our media portray Nigeria in the worst possible light’

Being excerpts of a presentation by Mr. Kingsley Osadolor, on behalf of Information Minister Labaran Maku, at the 9th Daily Trust Annual Dialogue held on Thursday, January 26 at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel, Abuja. Osadolor, an aide to the minister, spoke on the theme of the dialogue, ‘Media and Politics in Africa.’

The starting point for me is to acknowledge the significant role that the media have always played in politics in Africa, whether during the colonial era, at independence, under the military and even now as one of the facilitators of the advent of democracy in our country and Africa. The media continue to play this role and it is a laudable effort.

One of the key things the media have done is not just in facilitating the advent of democracy but also in public enlightenment and providing a platform for civic engagements and, more importantly, the issue of good governance through accountability of public office holders.

The media have played this role and they will continue to play this role because for us in Nigeria, this is their constitutional responsibility and the government has given a fillip to this. We have today the Freedom of Information Act and that act only came into existence after 12-year tortuous journey through the National Assembly, and the Information Minister Labaran Maku was indeed one of the latter advocates who opted to push that through the National Assembly. That is a clear expression of government’s intention to provide anchored role for the media to perform their roles unhindered. It is also the clearest indication of the government to be open about what it does because it believes in accountability. This is the role that we also expect and demand of the media and do hope that the media will continue to perform these roles.

Having said that, there are number of pertinent issues that we must bear in mind and some of these issues include the social responsibility as enshrined in the Theories of the Press. I will focus on social responsibility and ask what the media will consider to be their ultimate objectives while they publish or broadcast. If banner headlines on the pages of newspapers, incendiary commentaries are being written, enlightened and in some cases subjective commentaries are on the pages, what is the intended effect? The answer may be the desire is to hold government to account. Fair enough. In holding government to account what then is the interest of the media?  Do we seek to weaken, to damage or to destroy the very fabric of our nation or the entity to which we all relate? Is there a national interest factor that journalists or journalism and the media should align with?  In seeking to define that national interest, we must also ask ourselves that in the process of getting government officials to account, what exactly we are looking at in terms of accountability. And who are we looking at in terms of accountability? This, to my mind, calls for better understanding of the dynamics of our democracy.

More often than not, the media take on the Federal Government and the representations of the Federal Government namely, the President. And yet we have constituent states and local governments.  I think if equal attention were paid to the other tiers of government, we would have a much better environment. But because the media as it were is focused or fixated on one tier of government essentially, we lose sight of what is happening in the 774 local governments and 36 states plus the Federal Capital Territory.

If you are holding the government to account, you should run through the entire tiers of governments. We saw that recently during the protest and debates over the subsidy removal. It was as if it was only the Federal Government that was going to be the beneficiary of the savings of the subsidy. Why is it so?

What is also the role and focus of the media in dealing with our electoral processes?  Last year, the focus was on zoning.  What was the agenda that we set for those who were seeking for political offices? What scrutiny did the media make of the recruitment process for persons who were seeking to contest elections?

Sometimes we all quarrel or grumble about the calibre of persons who represent us because at the time they are being chosen, the media is absent.

It is also imperative for the media in terms of its agenda setting function to focus on the whole hog on the democratic process.

Elections are one thing and being in government is another.  Running a government is still another. In terms of agenda setting and in terms of the validation of the media as the fourth estate of the realm, it is significant that the media should pay attention to those hidden facts, to those hidden experiences so that such experiences are brought out into the open and government, which may not have access to such facts, can then act on those facts. I am here speaking of investigative journalism.

It is becoming increasingly difficult and almost impossible to find our media awash with truly investigative stories. We have reduced ourselves to publishers and reporters of press statements. What indeed are those stories that we ought to focus on? And how do we focus on those stories bearing in mind the national interest factor as one of the cardinal points in social responsibility?

In addition, when we say under Section 22 of the 1999 Constitution that indeed there is a provision for the media to hold the government accountable, we do know that government alone is not the sole actor in the polity.  There are also non-state actors. What is the attitude of the media to non-state actors in terms of seeking to hold non-state actors to account? We are all affected one way or the other by the activities of non-state actors and therefore, there has to be an extension of the frontiers of accountability and the media have to drive this.

A typical example of non-state actors will be those who operate in the business environment.  Recently, there were cases of corporate misgovernance in the banking sector and such acts of corporate misgovernance have tremendous impact on the management of political economy. The media largely were absent in seeking to redress the ugly occurrences that built up to the corporate misgovernance until the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) began to intervene. Where were our reporters?

We keep hearing of the cabal, but the question is who are the cabal or who are members of the mafia?  How do they operate? Journalism is not a tea party.  It can also be a dangerous business. But where are the stories?

The media have often times tended to be playing double standards. The media will not be embarrassing the government if they do their job. In fact, they will contribute to good governance which is also the desire of the government. The interrogation of the activities of non-state actors is one area the media ought its searchlight in the polity.

It is also important for the media to look inwards. The imperative for looking inward derives from the fact that if indeed the media represent the fourth estate of the realm, and is holding the first estate (executive), the second estate (legislature) and the third estate (judiciary) then the fourth estate, which is the media, should also be held to account. I know that for the media practitioners, this is a touchy issue. Touchy because you are dealing with the proper mechanism for holding journalists to account. And the reason why it is a touchy issue for us in Nigeria and on the African continent is because of our history which takes us to the path of independence.  Because of our history and experience under the colonial administration and the military, we resist any attempt by the government to seek to control the media.

Control may just be one of the mechanisms to holding journalists to account.  But exactly how do we do it? That is why I say the media itself has to look inwards.  There are instances of opportunism and lack of professionalism in the media. We unleash on the public matters that don’t suppose to get to the public domain. But the question is who hold the media to account. If the media hold the other three tiers of government to account, then the question is who holds the media to account?

The former military Head of State, General Ibrahim Babangida, in 1988 tried to come up with the Nigeria Media Council Decree but it was resisted. But he later came up with the Nigerian Press Council Act in 1992, the same year broadcasting was deregulated. But the operations of the Nigerian Press Council has been problematic.

We cannot also ignore the social media because it has become a distinct valuable category. The social media has also taken away the younger generation who are now travelling on a different highway from the other generation who are attuned to the traditional media. But what we must ask ourselves is, what is the content of the social media?

The social media is accommodating of all sources without gate keepers intervening to sieve information. That is why you find in the social media rumours, fabrications, lies and truth; everything is travelling on that information superhighway. There must be concerns amongst the custodians of the ethics of the profession as to what exactly we need to do or how we need to respond to it. It seems to me clearly, therefore, that much as we are having an increased presence of the social media as part of our communication metrics, there has to be a proviso, namely caveat emptor. So, how do we exercise that caution so that we will not fall into the trap of being branded a rumour monger or one who seek to foment trouble considering our present circumstances?

Another crucial aspect to both the social media and the traditional media is how we tend to portray ourselves in the worst possible light to outsiders. What is our national interest? We have some of the best brains in the world, yet the media write that the educational system in Nigeria has collapsed. But it is rising and we are not paying attention to how it is rising.

These are all crucial issues that we have to pay attention to.

Culled from Daily Trust newspaper