DHQ vs Nigerian Media

The recent allegation by the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) that news media houses in the country publish false and unsubstantiated reports on its activities has once again re-opened an old debate: The social responsibility of the press and need for public institutions to always carry the people, who are the primary reason for the institutions’ existence, along.

The military high command was reacting to recent news reports that 35 people – 29 soldiers and six militants – were killed during a shootout between the Joint Task Force (JTF) and Niger Delta militants. Defence Spokesman, Brig. Gen, M. D. Yusuf debunked the claims of any shootout between the JTF and militants on the reported date. He said the report was “a mere fabrication of lies concocted in the deep recesses of the evil minds of the militants to cause confusion”, and threatened to seek legal redress against any media organisation that publishes false or unsubstantiated reports on its activities or operations.

We are persuaded that no responsible media house would take delight in publishing falsehood, especially in matters that border on national security. This is not to say there are no bad eggs in the industry. They are in every industry. But we also know that the ability of responsible media houses to report stories fairly and on time depends on the readiness of all respondents in a story to supply required information in a timely manner.

Journalism is driven by deadlines. The relationship between the journalists and the military high command, which is supposed to be mutually beneficial for national progress, has sometimes been mutually antagonistic, especially in recent past. The two appeared to have unnecessarily worked at cross-purposes, especially under military rule. For, while journalists expect unhindered access to information, the military, being traditionally secretive, would do everything to conceal vital information. But one would have expected that this practice had gone with military rule. A vital ingredient of democracy is freedom of the press, which includes unhindered access to information.

We notice that the militants appear to be winning the propaganda war because of their management of information. Curiously, they serve notice of some of their attacks, and confirm they have attacked their target after the exercise. Some of the militants also run efficient websites. While the militant groups, especially the publicity conscious Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), are ever ready to part with information, the military, by tradition, is circumspect about sharing information.

Herein lies the predicament of the journalist as he is torn between two extremes – a source that is ever open to inquiry and another that often is reticent. But neither can do without the other. We therefore see the need for mutual understanding and cooperation between the media and the military in the interest of national security. Towards this end, we call for closer collaboration between the military and the media. And one way of achieving this is through regular engagement such as workshops and seminars, and even press briefings. For example, a weekly press briefing by the JTF will not be out of place. So much goes on in the Niger Delta in a day. The engagement will make for better appreciation of each other’s challenges. We however call on our colleagues not to lose sight of the fact that our rights to disseminate information, although sacrosanct and non-negotiable, are not without regulation. Some measure of self-restraint is necessary for the sake of societal well being and national security.

Thus, we owe it a patriotic duty to exercise some caution in reporting the activities of the militants in the Niger Delta creeks. For, it is now public knowledge that the genuine struggle of the Niger Delta people for justice appears to have been hijacked by felons.Journalists should be wary of dishing out unconfirmed information with which they are daily bombarded by these militant groups, as most of them “are mere fabrication of lies”, as rightly observed by the Defence spokesman. However, the stated option by the DHQ to seek legal redress against “errant” media outfits as against the old resort to law of the jungle whereby journalists were brutalized for reports considered offensive by military men, is commendable. At least, it has shown that the democratic tradition is catching on, as even the military now appears to repose some confidence in the law courts as the only avenue to redress perceived wrongs.

(This Day)