I am a journalist, though one “at large": I especially fancy the freedom that is associated with the profession. But I am also aware that the freedom of the press comes with an obligation to be accurate, fair, balanced and honest, and since journalists have no competition, as it were, the public heavily rely on information we pass out.



Journalists have the responsibility to make basic life decisions for the public by championing the most appropriate way for society to go. According to Nicholas Russell (1996) there are three yardsticks for a journalist to measure the accuracy of his story: “Is my motivation a genuine desire to inform the public?"; “what does this decision do the newsroom’s credibility?"; “Can I comfortably confess my techniques to the audience?"

If the answer to one of these questions were negative, the credibility of the story will be in doubt. While I concur that everyone, including media organisations, have their own slant, it is, however, neither professional nor honest to dwell almost exclusively on one side of an issue. To do so amounts to an inaccurate and dishonest view of issues on the ground, and this prevents readers and viewers from forming informed and valid opinions.

Sherlock Holmes, in the story about the disappearance of Silver Blaze, states that “it is improper to hypothesize before all of the facts are ascertained." Unfortunately, there is so much “bulverist" Journalism around such that we assume things to be true, even though they are not (and explain how they happened or what should be done about them). It is incredible that conspicuous in our media industry are presumably “educated", “professional" colleagues who are ever willing, and, perhaps, “incentivized", to disparage other people for global consumption (no thanks to the Internet).

Lately, my attention was called to a write-up on my industry (marketing communications), which I can only describe as one of the most willfully ignorant, disparaging articles of journalism I have yet to read in a supposedly circulated daily newspaper, in almost 15 years of my stay in the industry. Describing it as Journalism is truly an undeserved compliment because not only was it poorly written and presented, but it was obviously more of a personal vendetta than a well-thought- out, credible piece.

Sometime in 1992, a group of men known as the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), a unionist terrorist organisation gained entry into the offices of the Sunday World newspaper in Belfast and left a bag containing a small bomb. But for British soldiers who defused the bomb, the newspaper organisation (notorious for not allowing the truth to get in the way of a good sensational story) and its staff, who escaped unhurt, would have been blown up. The UVF subsequently accused Sunday World of setting up loyalists for attack by republican activists, its rivals, through skewed media reports given them by the newspaper. Of course the bomb attack on its office, which was followed by a threat of unspecified ‘retribution’ against the newspaper organisation led to a fall in its circulation.

If good old London could be bombed, then I do not blame the federal government for immediately taking security measures in anticipation of the worst. And considering probable targets, your guess is as good as mine! We should not forget in a hurry that the fatwa on a female colleague has not been revoked. Back to the carelessly-written piece, I must confess that I was disappointed at the outrageous amount of gross generalizations and ignorant assumptions upon which it was premised. Most times our “reliable sources" are quoted as if they are well-known, truly respected and proven experts (you will be shocked that most Nigerians outside of Lagos cannot name even one advertising agency in the country). Rather, are they not selected in the direction of the Journalist’s belief and also on their availability?

Do we report what the so-called “reliable sources" say, including errors? Positing that we do not guarantee their knowledge or truth is tantamount to a crime. It is instructive that financial success is not always synonymous with expertise as most Journalists want the public to believe.

I am concerned that most of us write or talk about issues of which we are fundamentally ignorant, but do it with such arrogance, confidence and passion that the public believe they are being fed with the truth. It becomes even more disturbing when we, in this precarious situation, are entrusted with several pages of our print media, which exclusively adorn our bylines or allowed anchor-status on prime time television (and radio).

I wonder if feature writers and columnists conduct even casual, informal research on the subject matter on which they are reporting. What I notice is that we are given our pages and allowed freedom to do whatever we like with them. I passionately root for an editorial conference in each media organisation, where, daily, we discuss our stories and ensure that the people who have written about were treated objectively and in a balanced manner.

Let us be absolutely objective, fair and pride ourselves as good and skillful writers. I do not think we should become uncontrollably euphoric because of some fallible awards we win. Rather, the motivating spirit should be the measurable impact our stories make on society. Interestingly, the 1932 Pulitzer Prize was awarded to a Journalist who had reported that Soviet farm collectivization scheme was successful and the people standing trial for anti-Soviet activities were, indeed, guilty.

However, the evidence and confessions at the trials revealed that the farm programme transformed the Soviet Union from a food exporting country to having several millions of deaths from starvation. This is merely an illustration of the imperfection of awards.

Lately, a journalist did Nigeria proud by carting home the CNN 2005 Journalist of Africa award in Business/Economy category. I had known that the humble chap would amount to something right from his high school days, having observed him from afar through my close association with his mum and elder sister back in the Anthony Village days.

But here is a paradox: A famous American Historian, Bert Kinzey, strongly believes that CNN’s coverage of events is usually characterized by inaccuracies, lies and distortions. In his book, “The Fury of Desert Storm, the Air Campaign," published by McGraw Hill in 1991, Kinzey states that CNN deliberately told outright lies, while one of its Atlanta employees actually owned up to their inaccurate reporting.

As far as the organisation was concerned, they merely wanted to be the first to get the story on the air and in the most dramatic way possible. According to Kinzey, CNN’s primary purpose was to make money by selling advertisement space, not reporting the news!

Writing lately on the war in Iraq, Kinzey observes that the situation has not improved at CNN. I am not tempted to question the moral justification for CNN’s various awards because I am convinced that in spite of its shortcomings, it still recognizes quality stories such as the award-winning one by our homeboy. Rather, the lesson is that the winner should stay focused, maintain his sustained humility and hardwork, and never allow the award to over-rate his personality.

Considering the crucial role played by Journalists in society, I am unapologetic about recommending a singling-out of Journalism from mass communication. Let us make it a graduate programme (taught by the top five NUC – rated universities) that requires the applicants to have a bachelor’s degree in some other field. It should be a profession for mature minds.

Let us spend endless hours in research and strive to meet with sources and truly credible experts over issues. We should also be bold enough to make conspicuous retractions if need be.

Above all, we should always remember that the media owes society the responsibility of reporting issues and events accurately without bias. If we err, we should openly admit it.

Long live Journalism!