By Eyitayo Folorunso

The recent encounter between ARISE TV anchor Rufai Oseni and Lere Olayinka, spokesperson to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, should not be dismissed as just another political argument on Nigerian television. It is much bigger than Rufai Oseni. It is much bigger than Lere Olayinka. And it is certainly bigger than the political disagreement that triggered the exchange. It raises a fundamental question for the Nigerian media industry: At what point does disagreement with a journalist become an unacceptable attack on the journalism profession itself?

During the September 4 edition of The Morning Show, Olayinka declined to answer questions from Oseni and said he preferred to have the conversation among “reasonable human beings.” The disagreement eventually became sufficiently heated for the programme to be terminated. There are several legitimate questions to ask about the conduct of journalists and presenters.

Journalists are not above criticism. Presenters can ask unfair questions. Interviewers can be provocative. Journalists can make mistakes. Broadcasters can sometimes cross professional boundaries.

And when any of these happens, they should be held accountable. But accountability is not the same thing as humiliation. A guest who believes that a presenter has behaved improperly has several professional options: challenge the question, correct the record, decline to answer a particular question, request clarification, complain to the station, or simply end the interview.

What should not become normal is the idea that a guest can walk into a broadcast studio and, because he disagrees with the presenter, begin questioning the presenter’s humanity, intelligence, competence or professional worth. That is where the media industry must draw a line. It would be easy to turn this controversy into another Rufai-versus-Olayinka debate. That would miss the point.

The real issue is whether the Nigerian media will allow public officials, politicians, political aides and other influential guests to determine which journalists are worthy of respect based on whether they like the questions being asked. If a journalist asks a difficult question, the appropriate response is an answer, a rebuttal or a refusal to answer. The appropriate response should not be to rubbish the journalist. A television presenter is not a punching bag. A radio host is not a political opponent simply because he or she asks an uncomfortable question. A journalist does not surrender professional dignity merely because a guest has a powerful political principal behind him. Indeed, journalism loses its meaning if journalists are expected to remain polite only when interviewing people who agree with them. The whole purpose of serious journalism is to ask questions that those in positions of power may sometimes prefer not to answer.

There is something else that the Nigerian media industry needs to confront: professional solidarity. Solidarity does not mean journalists should defend every mistake committed by another journalist. It does not mean presenters should never be criticised. It does not mean media houses should protect incompetence.

It means that when a disagreement occurs, the profession should distinguish between legitimate criticism and contempt for the profession itself. If a guest believes Rufai Oseni is wrong, challenge Rufai Oseni. If a guest believes a question is biased, explain why. If a guest believes a presenter has breached

professional ethics, lodge a complaint. But there must be consequences when the line between criticism and deliberate professional humiliation is crossed. Otherwise, today’s humiliation of one presenter becomes tomorrow’s humiliation of another. Today it may be Rufai. Tomorrow it may be a young reporter on radio.

Next week it may be a television presenter who does not have the profile or protection of a national platform. And eventually, we create a culture in which powerful guests believe they can insult journalists with impunity. That would be dangerous for journalism. There is another irony here. A political spokesperson’s job is fundamentally about communication. Such an official is expected to explain, defend and communicate the position of a principal to the public. That responsibility necessarily involves engaging the media—even when the questions are uncomfortable. A journalist does not become unreasonable simply because the journalist asks a question that a government spokesman does not like. In fact, difficult questions are part of the job. The spokesperson can say: “I disagree with the premise of your question.” He can say: “That allegation is incorrect.” He can say: “I cannot comment on that matter.” He can even say: “I do not wish to continue this interview.” All of those are legitimate responses.

But when the exchange degenerates into questioning whether a journalist is a “reasonable human being,” the discussion has moved away from public accountability and towards personal confrontation. That is not good for journalism. And it is not particularly good political communication either. However, defending the dignity of journalism must not become a licence for journalists to behave irresponsibly. The media must police itself. Presenters should not insult guests. They should not deliberately provoke people merely for television ratings. They should not substitute political activism for journalism. They should not make allegations without evidence. They should not turn interviews into personal battles. And they must be prepared to accept scrutiny when they get things wrong. The strongest defence of journalism is therefore not blind solidarity. It is professionalism. A journalist who behaves professionally gives the profession a stronger basis to demand professionalism from everyone who enters the studio.

Perhaps this incident should lead Nigerian broadcasters to revisit their guest-management policies.

Media organisations should have clear standards stating that guests are expected to:

Respect presenters, producers and other guests; answer questions professionally or clearly decline to answer; avoid personal insults and intimidation; refrain from threatening or humiliating media workers;

Respect the authority of the programme’s moderators; understand that accepting an invitation to a programme does not give a guest control over the questions; and recognise that disagreement with a journalist does not justify attacking the journalist personally.

There should equally be standards for journalists requiring fairness, accuracy, civility and professional conduct. The objective should not be to create a media environment where guests are afraid to speak. It should be to create one where everybody understands the rules of engagement. There is a troubling culture developing in public discourse where the worth of a journalist is sometimes measured by the political power of the person sitting across the table. That must stop.

A journalist should not become more respectable because the guest is a nobody. And a journalist should not become less respectable because the guest is a minister, governor, presidential aide, political heavyweight or spokesperson to a powerful politician.

The microphone does not become smaller because the guest is powerful. The question does not become less legitimate because the person being questioned has influence. And the journalist’s dignity should not depend on whether the guest approves of the question. The media is one of the few places where a powerful individual can be required to explain himself or herself publicly. That role must be protected.

The Rufai Oseni–Lere Olayinka episode should therefore be treated as an opportunity for serious introspection. The lesson should not be that journalists are always right. Nor should it be that politicians and their representatives are always wrong. The lesson should be that professional disagreement must have professional boundaries. If Rufai is wrong, correct him. If a journalist is biased, expose the bias. If a presenter violates professional ethics, discipline the presenter. But do not rubbish the profession because you dislike the person holding the microphone. And media organisations must not sit quietly when their workers are publicly demeaned. There is a difference between protecting a journalist from accountability and protecting the dignity of journalism. The former is dangerous.

The latter is necessary. Nigerian journalists should therefore begin to ask themselves a difficult question: Are we sufficiently united to defend the integrity of our profession when one of us is unfairly attacked? We cannot demand respect from society if we do not respect the profession ourselves.

We cannot expect politicians to respect journalists if media organisations themselves tolerate the humiliation of their presenters. And we cannot complain about the shrinking space for serious journalism while allowing powerful guests to dictate who is qualified to ask questions. The media must remain open.

It must remain critical. It must remain accountable. But it must also remain dignified. Rufai Oseni will not be the last presenter to clash with a powerful guest. Lere Olayinka will not be the last political spokesperson to become uncomfortable with a journalist’s question. There will be many more such encounters. What will determine the future of Nigerian broadcasting is not whether these clashes occur.

It is how the profession responds when they do. The microphone must remain a symbol of public accountability—not a licence for anyone, regardless of political status, to humiliate the person holding it. The media should be open to criticism, but it must never become a place where the profession itself is put on trial every time a guest dislikes a question.

Journalism deserves better. Broadcasting deserves better. And the people who dedicate their careers to asking questions on behalf of the public deserve better.

Read the remaining part of thia article on www.guardian.ng
Dr Folorunso is of Diamond 101.1 FM, University of Ibadan.