18 Feb 2007 |
|
Between Nigeria and CNN What the Federal Government has done is to question the integrity of the CNN and that of its reports, reporters and editors. It has taken the additional step of blackmailing CNN by asking state governments in Nigeria to withdraw adverts from the station. This is not a good strategy of media relations. On February 12, CNN gave the Minister of Information, Frank Nweke Jnr., an opportunity to respond to the Jeff Koinange report. The Minister used the opportunity to lash out at the CNN and Jeff Koinange. It accused the correspondent of bribing Niger Delta militants to get a story. He accused Koinange of stage-managing a story that was borne out of malice and designed to malign the Nigerian state, present an untrue picture of the Niger Delta, and destroy the country's image. His words: "we have evidence that some of the people were actually paid on what to do." He finds this "distasteful and unethical" and "to make a show out of it is simply unacceptable". Nweke then advised the CNN to come along on a tour of the Niger Delta to see the wonderful things that the Nigerian government has been doing instead of the picture of madness, neglect, insurgency which Koinange and a group of gun-totting, bazooka wielding, government-hating, hostage-taking band of militants presented to the world. Nweke was obviously doing his job. He needed to defend Nigeria, by saying something in pursuit of the right of reply. And the CNN graciously granted him that right of reply. But now he has spoilt it all by writing a meaningless letter cancelling what he calls "a contract with CNN". The CNN management must be laughing at us: they must be saying "these black Africans have come again." What Nweke has done is to provide further illustration that African governments are unreasonable. Did the Nigerian government actually sign a contract with CNN to broadcast adverts on the Heart of Africa project? Is it not the case that governments and others place adverts in the media through agencies? And let us even assume that there was a contract, or a case of direct advert placement, what percentage is Nigeria's patronage in relation to the volume of adverts received by the CNN? CNN is perhaps the most influential news medium in the world today. Nigeria needs that platform not the other way round. If the Obasanjo government withdraws its adverts, CNN is not likely to feel the impact. So why adopt a tactic that is ineffectual? The Minister of Information has asked the CNN to come on a tour of the Niger Delta. The CNN is certainly not interested in such a guided tour. It is interested in the truth, not propaganda. By making such an offer, the Minister had in fact conveyed the impression that the Nigerian government is more interested in propaganda; thus he unwittingly destroyed his own case. He has also helped the correspondent's career. And will CNN send its reporters on a tour of the Niger Delta under the auspices of the Federal Government? That would be a risky thing to do. I can bet that the Niger Delta militants would be glad to kidnap anyone who embarks on such a trip! Nweke should have left the matter at the level of his response on February 12. Even that response has its limitations. It smacks of self-indictment. Nweke says Jeff Koinange had been making moves to bribe the militants to stage a show for him, before finally succeeding. He also got a spokesman of the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) one Jomo Gombo to confirm this. What we are actually being told is that the Nigerian Government is inefficient. How on earth would a foreign correspondent enter Nigeria, go about offering money for an anti-Nigeria media show, to be recorded on Nigerian soil, and the government would come later to tell the world that it was aware that this was happening, and did nothing? If the Federal Government actually had such information, it could have made it impossible for the CNN documentary to take place, by arresting the bribe givers and takers on the grounds of national security? Not so? The Federal Government's protest is at best an afterthought. It means nothing. And no reasonable person will believe the allegation that the Niger Delta militants who appeared in the CNN documentary were bribed. Those militants are not looking for honoraria. They collect their ransoms in thousands of millions. It was also in their interest to appear on CNN, to tell the world about the situation in the Niger Delta. They got free advertisement for their cause. They didn't need to be bribed for them to realise the importance of CNN coverage. Jeff Koinange is not very popular with Nigerian government information offficers. He has done quite a number of controversial reports on Nigeria, including a 2002 report which alleged the possibility of a religious war in the country. But those who criticise him do so for emotional reasons. They think he is an Uncle Tom, a black man trying to please his white bosses by putting down his own people and pretending to be more white than the white; they believe that as an African he should be more sympathetic to the African interest. But this is beside the point. In evaluating a media report, the questions to be asked are: is it fair? Is it the truth? Is it accurate? Is it balanced? In all the reactions to the Koinange report on the Niger Delta, no one, not even the Federal Minister of Information and Communications, has been able to say, that there is no crisis in the Niger Delta. When Nweke was asked the question on CNN whether the militants in the documentary were real or not, his curt response was: "I may not be able to answer that question". For anyone watching the report, he had in fact answered the question. The same Minister who had insisted that the entire report was contrived should have been able to speak with greater conviction. But he knows as we all do, that there is serious crisis in Nigeria's Niger Delta. The militants are angry. The Niger Delta struggle has graduated from mere newspaper protests, concerned women baring their breasts and demonstrating publicly, to the level of an insurgency. The militants who at the time were still holding 24 Filipinos hostage told CNN: "We are telling all expatriates to leave the Niger Delta, not only the Niger Delta but to leave Nigeria. We will take lives, we will destroy lives, we will crumble the economy." Those hood-wearing boys on CNN mean business. It is the Nigerian government that is joking with danger. The CNN report conveyed an impression of the danger that Nigeria is joking with, and if the truth must be told, Koinange and his crew deserve praise for courage in the face of danger. If the Nigerian government has proof of malfeasance, it should bring it to the public arena. Mere accusation is no proof of guilt. Koinange is facing an occupational hazard: the easiest way to malign a journalist is to attack his or her professional integrity. But it is cheap and foolish when it is done out of pure malice. There are two other issues arising from all of this that must be dealt with. The first is the impression, which has gained much currency that the Western media is only interested in negative and sensational stories from Africa. The issue comes up all the time. It came up in 2002 when CNN reported the ethnic conflict in Idi Araba, Lagos, in 2006 when Nigeria was targeted in a CNN report titled "How to Rob a Bank", in France a week ago when the Ghanaian President, John Kuffour accused the Western media of Afro-pessimism, at all times really, and it is also relevant in the matter under consideration. Three days ago, I addressed this subject on BBC World Report, and I had made the point, which I now restate for emphasis, that whereas the coverage of African issues by the Western media may be queried on the ground of lack of balance, since there are happy stories in Africa as well and progress being made in places, what cannot be denied is the truthfulness of the reports that are complained about. Is there no genocide in Darfur, terrorism in the Niger Delta?, poor governance across the continent, crisis of statehood, corruption and failed leadership? Is it also not true that the media in Africa reports more sad stories about the continent? On any day, the front page of a Nigerian newspaper is about crisis within the system, and the challenges of dispossession at many levels in a transitional state. This should provide African leaders an opportunity for introspection, for deep thinking about how to address the challenges of growth and development in the states under their control. This is what is required not lies and propaganda. The energy and enthusiasm that the Obasanjo government is expending on propaganda could have been more creatively used in addressing the Niger Delta challenge. If the Federal Government does not want negative documentaries about Nigeria, it should show more interest in removing the conditions that make such negative stories possible, and stop acting like a victim. The second issue is the erection of advertisement into a tool of blackmail and the thinking that media houses and journalists can be intimidated. Truly, advertisement revenue is an important factor in media planning, newspapers are businesses first and foremost with an eye on the bottom line, they need to survive; and there are studies about how increasingly the advertisement factor influences editorial decisions in certain media systems. Those who seek to control the media wield advertisement or other forms of patronage as weapons of control are missing the point. In Nigeria, there are state Governors who have had to ask that certain state correspondents be removed by particular media houses because they failed to report positive stories about the administration. Even the Presidency and the National Assembly had tried that option in the recent past. Corporate establishments also threaten to withdraw advert patronage unless they receive good coverage. Private individuals also adopt similar strategies accusing editors and correspondents of all sorts of malfeasance, usually out of malice. What is attacked in such instances is the economic foundation of the media and its vulnerability in the market place. But when advertisers project their power, they fail to realise that their relationship with the media is symbiotic. Besides, advertisement revenue is a function of the strength of the local economy, and so the extent of a medium's dependence on advert revenue is relative. Blackmail by advertisers of any character, is a double-edged sword. Media houses have a duty to insist on their right to tell, on their independence, on their own traditions and editorial choices, and where these are assaulted, a resolve which cannot be touched by cheap blackmail may be activated, resulting in part in unexpected consequences. If the Federal Government considered these issues, it is not reflected in the unwise decision that it has taken in the matter between it and the CNN. Instructively, it is the Federal Government that is unhappy with the CNN, not the Nigerian people.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
# 
Your Comments
Please make The Square an enjoyable experience for everyone by refraining from gratuitous ad-hominem contributions, defamatory comments and off-topic posting. Such posts will be removed.