To say Channels Television is one of Nigeria’s foremost TV stations will be an understatement. It is no surprise that the station has racked up several awards for excellent coverage of news and current affairs. Needless to say this has endeared the station to many Nigerians. This is why I don’t understand exactly what Seun Okinbaloye set out to achieve by interviewing an official of a proscribed organisation on live TV.
As a trained journalist, I am personally against any law that will gag or will be seen to be muscling press freedom. But even as I say this, I am reminded of the primary objective of the media which is to promote all that society hold’s dear. There’s a reason Journalists are taught the so called normative theories of the press in school. This is so that they will understand the implication(s) each theory had on the era it was used and the contents, spirit and letters of the theory that inspired the codification of relevant Press freedom sections of the constitutions currently in force in their countries of practice.
Of all the normative theories of the press, there’s a reason why the Social Responsibility theory has come to be accepted as the most practicable to today’s media practice. Whereas the Authoritarian theory of the press placed ownership of the press in the hands of government, keeping the media completely tethered to the whims and caprices of those in power, the unrestrained, absolute press freedom guaranteed under the Libertarian theory was also found to be quite defective, hence the need for a new approach where the Social Responsibility theory practically developed out of necessity. For some reasons, I will not talk about the Communist Prescriptive model.
Although, the Social Responsibility theory started in Europe, it was in the United States that it truly came to life. The crux of the theory was aptly captured by Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm thus “Freedom of expression under the social responsibility theory is not an absolute right, as under pure libertarian theory. One’s right to free expression must be balanced against the private rights of others and against vital society interest. For those who don’t know, it was the trio of Siebert, Peterson, and Schramm that formally codified the Social Responsibility theory in their 1953 book titled “Four Theories of the Press”.
Besides external control of the press, the Social Responsibility theory makes it clear that a journalists is responsible for whatever s/he publishes. To put it quite simply, the theory sought to protect the journalist from himself and the nation’s interest from the journalist who must therefore always pander to the greater good no matter how overwhelming his/her personal interest is/are on any matter. It is instructive to mention here that the spirit and letters of the relevant sections of the Nigerian Constitution where press freedom was guaranteed were balanced on the plank of Social Responsibility theory. This, in effect, is where Channels television erred. Because, in hosting Emma Powerful, so called secretary of the proscribed IPOB, it allowed it’s interest for higher ratings, but most importantly, the interest of a rogue organisation to override that of the nation where that becomes a problem.
A tweet shared by an anonymous user captured Channels’ situation perfectly. The user, rather cheekily asked if an American media outlet will be allowed to feature Osama Bin Laden, the late leader of Al-qaeda in exercise of its freedom of expression. To say that can never happen will be an understatement. Even names of leaders who America viewed as despotic were surreptitiously barred from being celebrated by it’s media houses except in instances where they are to be condemned.
No nation will allow it’s media outlets to constitute themselves into platforms for the promotion of unguarded and threatening comments, no less on live TV by officials of criminal groups. Channels’ true crime therefore, is not just that it violated Nigeria’s broadcast code, but that it transgressed on the very foundation of modern journalism which is to consider public interest first before attempting to use its freedom of expression! If Nigeria’s security circle was to believe that Seun Okinbaloye is privy to some information following his interview of Emma Powerful, it could have him subpoena-ed and if he refuses to divulge the required information under oath, be held in contempt of court.
Unknown to many Nigerians, the nation’s security outlets are not only engaged in physical warfare (lethal and soft approaches), but also asymmetric warfare as they attempt to beat insurgents and other criminal element’s use of the media to curry sympathy or attempt to downplay the successes it has recorded albeit with a great deal of sacrifice. In the case of Ikonso, Nigeria’s security outfits had set out to milk the killing of the ESN/IPOB commander for all it’s media value first, to demoralise the ESN, and secondly, to increase the morale of troops, many of whom have had wavering confidence due to Ikonso’s widely celebrated invincibility thanks to charms and amulets.
There’s a reason why Ikonso’s bullet ridden corpse was displayed with the full complement of his traditional shrine issued bulletproof vest. Without making it too obvious, this was an attempt to demystify the ESN and to strip them of any cloak of invincibility with which they have been spreading fear, while also showing security officials as well as Nigerians that the man and his radicalised followers are frauds who die from bullets just like everybody else.
Unfortunately, Channels made itself into a platform for asymmetric counterattack where IPOB’s Emma powerful did not only downplay the killing of Ikonso, but also declared that the nation’s security are not as powerful as they claim and can never reach ESN’s HQ. In one fell swoop, Channels reversed whatever gains our security recorded against ESN/IPOB with the neutralisation of Ikonso. And as far as mistakes go, I don’t believe for one second that Seun and his station were ignorant of the ramifications of that interview. I believe it was a deliberate attack on our nationhood.
Now, to NBC. I can agree indeed that the regulating body is guilty of double standards in several instances and I am particularly against its penchant to issue threats whenever it feels like it. However, I don’t believe it erred by putting Channels on notice for goofing as it did.
I am very surprised that the President of the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE) Mustapha Isah and it’s secretary Mary Atolagbe in their statement condemning NBC’s clampdown on Channels sought to compare the station’s interview with an operative of a banned organisation where he was allowed to issue threat to national security on live TV, with Sheikh Gumi’s ill advised and greatly condemnable romance with bandits. Perhaps the NGE officials do not understand the difference between Gumi’s individual insanity which featured faceless bandits and was broadcasted by backwater stations, and; Channels’ organisational rascality with which it attempted to leverage on to show solidarity with a known and outlawed criminal organisation. Instead of using Gumi’s escapades as a template for comparison, one wonders what stopped these top gatekeepers from insisting at the time, that Sheikh Gumi be subpoena-ed and compelled under oath to divulge information about the whereabouts of the bandits he went to counsel.
One would have thought our earlier rookie Conflict reportage and the world of good it did Boko Haram would have thought us a lesson, but with mammoth stations like Channels giving in to the temptations to score cheap ratings at the detriment of Nigeria, I am afraid we still have a long way to go. I won’t be surprised if AIT or any other stations decides to air the recently released video of kidnapped students of College of Horticulture Kaduna for a whole 24 hours. Why not, since we are here, we may as well give criminals all the coverage they need to spread fear..
