By Muhammed Shaeed Osioyemi
I’ve read stories about reputable journalists, reporters, and media house owners who, at one point in their careers, took up PR or media-related roles with the government or politicians.
Reuben Abati left his position as Chairman of the Editorial Board of The Guardian to serve as Special Adviser on Media and Publicity to President Goodluck Jonathan; Femi Adesina moved from being Managing Director/Editor-in-Chief of The Sun and President of the Nigerian Guild of Editors to become President Muhammadu Buhari’s Special Adviser on Media and Publicity; and Garba Shehu, another former President of the Guild of Editors and former editor of The Triumph, also served as Buhari’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity.
There are other prominent figures in Nigerian journalism who, at different times, moved from journalism into government communication roles. What stands out is that such transitions were clear; they left their newsroom positions to serve in government. Some returned to journalism after their appointments ended, while some never did.
I find the above really understandable. In fact, I think it’s the best thing to do to avoid unnecessary grumbles and murmurs.
But what I find difficult to discern, especially in my state, is the situation where media house owners, reporters, and journalists simultaneously operate as media aides to politicians while continuing to run or work in the media.
This act creates a difficult line to draw. Imagine a publisher of a media house who becomes a media aide to a politician and still operates a platform that reports on public affairs.
So, what happens when there’s a disagreement with the politician or others? Will he tell the story as it is? Or when a person is not on good terms with their principal? The reports you’ll see are most likely to appear less like journalism and more like an extension of a political (dis)agreement.
And the problem doesn’t stop there. There are reporters who, according to what we see and hear within the industry, are sometimes discouraged from submitting reports about the government of the day.
I know media houses in this state that become active once there’s a bad report about the last administration and the one before it. There’s one, too, that stopped publishing news about the state government because the governor is having an issue with the owner’s principal.
It worries me a lot. And I think it should worry anyone who cares about the media. As is expected, the media should question those in power, scrutinise government policies, and give citizens the information they need to make sense of what is happening around them.
Sadly, the person who pays the salary, controls the newsroom, or influences the publisher also happens to be a political actor.
There is nothing wrong with a journalist leaving journalism to work as a government spokesperson, media aide, or PR professional. Those are legitimate professional paths. But there should be honesty about the transition and a clear separation between the two roles.
Because once a media platform becomes an extension of someone’s political interest, the public deserves to know. The credibility of journalism rests largely on trust. And that trust becomes difficult to maintain when the watchdog is also trying to serve the person it is expected to watch.
Perhaps the conversation we need in Ilorin is not about who supports which politician. It is about whether our media institutions still have enough independence to ask uncomfortable questions, even when those questions are directed at the people who have access to them, employ their owners, or influence their professional relationships.
