BY SEGUN AYOBOLU
It could not have been more tersely phrased. Section 22 of the Second Chapter of the 1999 Nigerian Constitution (as amended) on the ‘Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy’ states unambiguously that “The press, radio, television and other agencies of the mass media shall at all times be free to uphold the fundamental objectives contained in this chapter and uphold the responsibility and accountability of the Government to the people”. This obligation places on the shoulders of the press the responsibility to ensure transparency and adherence to the highest ethical standards in government with the aim of promoting the utilitarian goal of attaining the greatest good of the greatest number of people in a given polity. Implicit in this degree of faith in the media by the drafters of the constitution is considerable trust in the latter’s sense of professional responsibility, ethical standards and moral integrity.
This column has often argued that there can and will not be a final national conference that will bring to a definitive conclusion, once and for all, troubling issues of our national co-existence often referred to as the National Question with the emergence of a perfect constitutional document that will usher in a political Eldorado of our dreams. A nation is a project continuously in progress and national dialogue a never ending process taking place ceaselessly in market places, beer parlours, company boardrooms, university lecture theatres and seminar rooms, clerical pulpits in churches and mosques, meetings of professional and associational groups and most importantly in newspaper editorials, opinion pages, letters to the Editor and columns, radio and television talk shows as well as the now ubiquitous social media. The concern of this piece is understandably with communications through the various agencies of the mass media, which are the most critical and dominant mediums for ventilating and maintaining the requisite quality of public discourse.
Do the Nigerian media today have the trust and confidence of members of the public that they can serve as reliable, professional and believable umpires in the arena of public discourse? Do we adhere to the highest standards of professionalism in the discharge of our constitutionally prescribed duties? Those in the orthodox, traditional media complain of the excesses of the social media. Have we necessarily risen to a higher level of professional practice? Of course, it is often impossible for a media organization not to have an ideological disposition and also an often partisan orientation not only in Nigeria but across the globe, including in advanced democracies. But facts must always be sacred while opinions must not only be free but civil.
News must always be differentiated from opinionating or editorializing. Abuse and labeling must never replace constructive social analysis. No serious and self-respecting news medium should pin labels of criminality on persons without the imprimatur of the judgment of a court of law. That many mediums and individual journalists routinely do this and are completely ignored by those they recklessly libel is an indication of the utter indifference and dismissiveness with which both the socio-economic and political elite as well as the public at large treat the media – social and orthodox.
Political talk shows on radio and television as well as newspaper political columnists have, perhaps because we are into another season of electioneering towards the 2023 polls, become the toast of the moment for many politically-minded viewers and readers. It is only a short-sighted and foolish media organization, however, that will sacrifice high professional standards on the altar of crass partisanship because the fervently partisan segment of the population is a veritable minority. Those who have subordinated professional ethics and decency to crassly pursuing the often ignoble and nefarious agenda of their publishers and proprietors are mostly the ones who find it difficult to pay their staff salaries as and when due, are notorious in the business for treating staff with utter contempt and lack of humaneness and resort to blackmail and assorted forms of unprofessional gangsterism to portray a façade of a thriving business. They are attractively whited sepulchers with rotten and dried bones within.
One of the anchors of a morning talk show on Arise Television recently challenged the presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to feature on an interview on the programme because some other presidential aspirants had done so. But this is most ludicrous. It is part of the democratic right of a candidate for any office to decide on which medium to feature and in which form he wishes to do so. It is unlikely that most Democratic candidates in America, for instance, will feel compelled to appear on Fox Television or that a Donald Trump should he choose to contest the 2024 elections as it appears increasingly likely, will condescend to be interviewed by CNN. The media has largely descended into the political arena in America as part of the gladiators and has been sucked into the poverty of trust and debilitating divisiveness that so dangerously imperils the durability of American democracy.
Arise Television has all too often sunk into the political arena and assumed an openly partisan role. This is of course no crime if its programme anchors adhere to elevated professional standards to mitigate its partisanship. In any case, should a news medium go about seeking to blackmail guests to appear on its platform? Shouldn’t its professional acumen and ethical integrity be its selling point with esteemed guests doing all they can to feature on its shows?
The anchor who made the challenge on Tinubu to appear for an interview on his pogramme is no doubt one of the brightest and best columnists of his generation. As spokesman to a former President elected on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), he performed his duties in a capable and accomplished manner for the most part. But the story does not end there. He later became a card-carrying member of the PDP and indeed contested as the Deputy-Governorship candidate of same party in Ogun State (his running-mate being the controversial, but now late Senator Buruji Kashamu) in 2019.
On which ground then does he want to interview Tinubu? Is it as a professional journalist or as a partisan politician? Can the objective public be sure that he does not still nurse subterranean grudges that his erstwhile principal was ousted from power in 2015 through the ballot box largely with Tinubu’s substantial input?
Another anchor on the same programme and on the same station has also echoed his colleague’s call on the APC candidate to appear on their show. Clearly the youngest among the trio of anchors, he is easily the most insolent and rude of them all. Some months back, he had a former Minister of the federal Republic from Oyo State on the show that had come to speak in defense of Tinubu’s candidacy. One of his questions to his guest went something like this and I paraphrase: “Is it not shameful and are you and your party not ashamed of yourselves to have opted for a Muslim-Muslim ticket in a country of diverse religions; a decision which has torn the party right down the middle with party members quitting in droves?”.
Of course, his guest could not hide his disgust and exasperation at that line and tone of questioning and gave it back to the anchor in good measure. As the programme degenerated into a shouting match, another of the anchors called for a short break obviously to allow tempers cool.
In the first place, there is no constitutional provision against same faith candidacy. So, what was the anchor’s beef? Secondly, was it right to claim that members were quitting the APC en masse because of the Muslim-Muslim ticket when not up to five prominent and significant members of the party had done so on that ground? Thirdly, if the anchor felt that the APC had jeopardized its electoral chances by picking a Muslim running-mate for Tinubu, how is that his business since he is not a card-carrying member of the party? More significantly, could the anchor not have asked his question in a less insolent, abrasive and hubristic way? But that is how this anchor with a permanent scowl on his face, possibly in demonstration of his passionate love for his country, harasses, hassles and harangues guests on the show that he disagrees with for political or other reasons. Civility is not in his dictionary.
As the religious leader, Gordon B. Hinckley, wrote in the chapter on ‘Our Fading Civility’ in his book ‘Standing for Something’ published in 2000, “In recent years the media have raised boorishness to an art form. The hip heroes of movies today deliver gratuitous put-downs to ridicule and belittle anyone who gets in their way. Bad manners, apparently, make a saleable commodity. Television situation comedies wallow in vulgarity, stand-up- comedians base their acts on insults to their audiences, and talk show hosts become rich and famous by snarling at callers and heckling guests. All of this speaks of anything but refinement. It speaks of anything but courtesy. It speaks of anything but civility and tolerance. Rather, it speaks of rudeness and crudeness and an utter insensitivity to the feelings and rights of others”.
Is it any wonder then that the anchor referred to earlier who so recklessly heckled the former Minister on his show was sometime later caught on camera by vigilant traffic officers violating traffic regulations by driving on the lane reserved for the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) vessels? Did he as a supposed man of honour and a public figure, a social influencer, humbly admit his guilt and take responsibility? Not on your life! Rather, he was caught on camera threatening the traffic officers with the ominous words: ‘I will call the governor! I will call the governor!’.
All the daily self-righteous posturing on TV meant nothing after all. It was not just a case of lack of civility. It was also one of lack of basic honesty and integrity. He eventually tendered a public apology only after a public outrage at such uncivilised conduct.
Referring to the case of Cain killing his innocent brother, Abel, and lying to God to hide his crime, Gordon Hinckley writes, “In our day, dishonesty does not always revolve around such a grievous offense, nor are those found in dishonesty put to death for their misdeeds as in biblical times. But something within them dies. Conscience chokes, character withers, self-respect vanishes, integrity dies”. Can the media today be entrusted not to betray the confidence reposed in them to conduct credible interviews and debates for candidates adhering to the highest standards of professionalism and integrity?
It is debatable. A colleague recently told me of his experience when he was assigned to one of the South-West states to cover the state’s governorship election sometime in 2012. He recalled that the team of journalists who had come to the state to anchor the gubernatorial election debate first paid a courtesy call on the governor who was seeking re-election for a second term, an act considered unethical by some of their colleagues. It eventually turned out from authoritative sources, he reported, that the questions were passed on to the governor in advance, which probably enabled him in performing well above average in the debate. A great responsibility to ensure and facilitate qualitative and informed public discourse rests on the media, particularly in this season of politics. Does it have the sense of honor, decency and integrity to discharge this obligation as expected? That is a million dollar question.
Post a Comment