Thursday, 28th March 2024
To guardian.ng
Search

Journalism of making allegations untenable

By Aminu Ibrahim
09 July 2015   |   11:36 pm
WHILE reading a news story captioned “BPE in N1.45b scam” in a newspaper of June 15, 2015, I was reminded of the reasons why I failed an interview for the post of a reporter in a Nigerian newspaper many years ago.
Journalist. Photo; ionigeria

Journalist. Photo; ionigeria

WHILE reading a news story captioned “BPE in N1.45b scam” in a newspaper of June 15, 2015, I was reminded of the reasons why I failed an interview for the post of a reporter in a Nigerian newspaper many years ago.

In a written test, some interviewees, I inclusive, were given a sample news report to rewrite and include all missing elements while eliminating all possible defects. Like the story in the newspaper that forms the basis for this piece, the interview story made certain allegations about some individuals and institutions.

I turned in my script in good time believing I had done justice to the task. However, at the oral interview that followed, an editor in the paper, in examining my script, drew my attention to the fact that I had failed to qualify the allegation with the word “alleged”, thereby treating what the paper could publish as a charge of probable wrongdoing as though it were a proven fact, whereas there is no basis in proper journalism to treat any allegation as such.

The editor further noted that, by doing so, I had broken the rule of impartiality, a serious flaw in professional reporting which could discredit or render untenable any report in which it occurs, and undermine the integrity of any paper that publishes the report.

He also pointed out that by not using the word “alleged” to qualify the charge against the accused, I had not discharged my moral responsibility to give benefit of the doubt to the accused as is required of a conscientious reporter. Also, that I reproduced the allegation without any indication that I made effort to hear from the accused, adding that I should have indicated so even if the effort was unsuccessful, since hearing from the other side is essential in filing such a controversial report that can damage the reputation of individuals and institutions.

Finally, he noted that such partisan reporting, which may merely be a sign of sloppiness, could expose the reporter, their editors and the paper to suspicion of having been used, perhaps with their knowledge, to tarnish the image of the accused person and institution with ulterior motives and for some unwholesome reward.

Done with my chastening, and while I scratched my brow in embarrassment as my now lurid reportorial sin and its grave implications glared at me from the script, he passed the verdict, which I could not challenge, that I had failed the interview and so was not going to get the job.

He had reiterated that the partisan manner in which my report had couched the allegation had made it untenable and liable to cause raised eyebrows by critical readers, stressing that he would not approve of the paper employing someone whose reporting would justify such negative reactions from the discerning public, as it might undermine the integrity of the paper and its editors.

I was surprised to see the same errors reflected in the said story in the newspaper many years after, alleging wrongful payments and other misdeeds against a public institution and its head and passing off the allegations as proven facts even though journalism ethics would mandate their being presented as mere allegations, and with no indication that the reporter sought to hear from the accused let alone balance the story with their response.

However, I must note that this sort of unprofessional conduct does not reflect the true state of contemporary Nigerian journalism.  This is evident from a more recent story published in another newspaper of July 5, 2015, captioned “IGP Summons Ekweremadu Over Alleged Forgery”. The story, which essentially dispenses with the error(s) in our previously cited story, also makes appropriate use of the word “alleged” in its body to put the allegation in a necessary anecdotal context and give the required benefit of the doubt to the accused. Thus: “The Inspector General of Police, Mr. Solomon Arase, has summoned the Deputy Senate President, Sen. Ike Ekweremadu, over alleged forgery of the Senate Rules.”

For, as the interviewing editor further explained to me, even the presentation of “documentary evidence of the guilt of the accused” to a reporter by whoever originated the allegation cannot absolve the reporter from paying such dues to neutrality and professionalism in a world in which forgery, intrigues and falsehood remain rampant, often perpetrated with sinister motives.

Imagine the difference if the second story were to be captioned “IGP Summons Ekweremadu Over Forgery”, with the implication that the paper was implying the certainty of the guilt of the accused, and insinuating that on its readers, even before he would respond to the invitation by the Inspector General of Police possibly to confirm or deny the allegation. Would that be proper or tenable?

Unfortunately, there are serious gaps of illogicality in the anti-BPE story in the first report for which a critical reader could call its credibility and that of the allegations it makes to question.
For instance, it claims that: “The payment was just unnecessary because the liquidation of the PHCN” (for which the payment was apparently made) “had been concluded since 2013. So, it was shocking to some members of the management that such … a bill came for no service provided in 2015.”

This allegation strikes me as frivolous, besides illogical; for it is tantamount to portraying late payment as official misconduct. And with the recent effort to clear several months’ salary arrears across the states, following the intervention of President Buhari, isn’t it clear that, in our country, legitimate payments could be delayed for a host of reasons only to become payable long after they are due?

Also, the report claims that …“Out of the 60 workers,” (whose employment was allegedly attended by irregularities) “22 who had been casual workers for five years were retained when even (sic) there is no provision for casual jobs in BPE”.

Since the current Director General of BPE, Mr. Benjamin Ezra Dikki, has yet to complete three years in office, it means the casual jobs were introduced before his tenure. And this prompts the question as to why the complaint against casualization was not raised against whoever might have introduced it only for it to be raised against someone who, perhaps out of compassion, abolished it and the attendant “enslavement” of the victims by converting them to full employees?

I believe the accused in the report are capable of defending themselves. But I feel compelled to draw attention to the flaws in the report as evidence of the need to improve the quality of reporting and editorial diligence in Nigerian journalism.

And perhaps, the accused entities should consider this revelation of the need to strengthen the effort to improve ethics and professionalism in our journalism as the silver lining in what is apparently a cloud of questionable allegations against them.

•Ibrahim wrote from Kaduna.

0 Comments