By Umaru A. Pate
It affords the media the opportunity to provide an open forum for “legitimated interest groups” to participate in public affairs. Indeed, as Nimmo and Combs (1992) put it, “historically, the mass media were heralded as the ultimate instruments of democracy… (They) were destined to unite, educate, and as a result, improve the actions and decisions of the polity”.
Furthermore, if we operationally consider the functions of the media in the country, we may realize that they are very important in conveying the messages of politicians and political office holders in their bid to capture and retain power particularly during electioneering periods. In the words of the one time Director General of the FRCN and later NTA, Mohammed Ibrahim, “the objective of politics on radio and television is essentially to sensitize the public to the significant nature of their decision, so that they can make the right choice in giving the country the government it desires”. In a simplified form, the media supply the electorate with the right information for sound political judgment.
Equally, the media, depending on how they use their powers, can “order and structure political reality, allotting events greater or lesser significance according to their presence or absence on the media agenda (McNair, 2000). This is where the issue of opinion polling or vox populi comes in. Through such mechanisms, the media too can play significant role in determining the agenda for elections and other policy issues.
PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF THE NIGERIAN MEDIA
The believability of media messages largely depend on their credibility rating by the public which in a way is a function of individual and collective perception of the content, behaviour and quality of these outlets. Credibility is at the heart of message believability and by implication media believability and action and reaction. In communication, credibility has four components that include truth, competence, relevance and dynamism. Without the feeling that the source is truthful, one can hardly believe the messages from such a source. It is equally true that individuals rate their perception of messages based on competent packaging, clarity, and skilful delivery. Furthermore, people are far more likely to believe messages that are cognitively consonant to their realities particularly when they feel involved or affected than those that contradict their common understanding or appear far removed from them. In addition, believability of messages on the media is higher when the audiences perceive that such messages are dynamic and reflect the changing issues in the society as accurately as possible.
Thus, from the foregoing, one can easily, even if none empirically hazard some guesses on the general perceptions of the Nigerian media among Nigerians into the following. First, broadcast media stations particularly those owned by the state government are hardly objective in matters that involve their states and their ruling political parties.
Secondly, foreign broadcast stations are seen as more reliable in providing credible information about events and personalities in the country. Thirdly, the resource poor, the rural majority and the female gender are peripherally involved in the media. They are treated merely as receivers than partners in the entire process.
And, fourthly the current commercialization of society has deeply eaten into the media thereby severely restricting access by the public and subverting the ideals of news, killing the spirit of investigative journalism, and devaluing the content of programmes and news on radio and television stations. Equally, the newspapers and magazines are easily associated with sectional, commercial and other discriminate interests to the extent that such colorations becloud their professional sense of judgement. And lastly, ethics and professionalism are commonly violated because the institution is constrained to sanction violators, hence the misguided conduct of many quacks who masquerade as Journalists all over the country. These observations, contentious as they may sound, have implications on the ability of the country’s media to meaningfully influence the democratic agenda in the nation.
Based on the above premises, one can then conclude that our media houses, particularly public owned media need to do far more than what they are doing now for them to be positively perceived as involving all segments of society, based on the principles of inclusivity, diversity, transparency, autonomy and accountability in their desire to build a broad based national democratic process.
MEDIA RESPONSIBILITY AND THE PROMOTION OF DEMOCRACY IN THE YEARS AHEAD
The current democratization process is expected to be sustained to the point that it guarantees peace, prosperity and sense of justice and equity to every citizen. To this end, all the stakeholders have their individual as well as collective roles to play. At this point, it is important to understand that the media is part of the political structure of the society and operate within some economic and political parameters; thus, any discussion on what the media can do to further facilitate and strengthen the process should be viewed within the context of the seriousness of the political leadership in the country to enthrone sustainable peace, accountable leadership and general development in the nation. With that understanding, it may be possible to appreciate the behaviour, performance, limitations and even interest of the media in the whole process.
But that notwithstanding, it is obvious that there are specific responsibilities that are most appropriately discharged by the media in consolidating the process. Obviously, the media institution widens the frontiers of the public sphere for good governance and development. It does this by legitimising, criticising and questioning the legitimacy as well as the operations of the stakeholders. In doing so, the media aids in shaping the public sphere, a major source of public opinion needed to ‘’legitimate authority in any functioning democracy’’ (Rutherford, 2000).
Media responsibility connotes four things. The first responsibility is the answerability of the media to the various constituencies that depend on it for information, education and direction on the functioning of the system. In other words, to what extent can the various sections of the media sufficiently and ethically answer the queries of the public on the progress and challenges of democracy based on their role as watchdogs in the society? Secondly, the media is expected to strengthen its role as mediating agents through increased interactions between the various clients and consumers in the Nigerian society. Stated differently, the media is expected to interact more increasingly with all the parties and the stakeholders so that no one feels that the media is isolating his important opinion. Thirdly, the media has a responsibility to stamp some element of legitimacy on the democratic credentials of the constituent stakeholders by publicly justifying their actions or inactions that are positive or injurious to the democratization process in the country. For instance, the media has the responsibility to engage the parties on the extent to which they are abiding with the spirit of the democracy in their internal affairs.
The fourth responsibility relates to ensuring that the conduct of each of the stakeholders is in conformity with public interest, because, after all, the media’s objective is at all times expected to be for public good. Any action that deviates from that should, ethically, attract the critical eye of the media, partly because of the moral pedestal upon which it rides.
The ability of the media to be able to fulfil the above responsibilities creditably depends on a number of internal as well as external contingencies like ownership patterns, the openness of the communication system, the freedom of the media and the right of the audience to receive and impart mediated messages. Perhaps, one should also add the behaviour of the political elite as well as the performance of the economy.
With these definitive responsibilities which are, of course, derived from the constitutional, structural and psychological clout of the media, one can proceed to interrogate the extent to which the institution has been able to creditably engage the democratic process. Such total engagement may not necessarily mean the right engagement. It is possible to be busy doing nothing, or more commonly, to be busy doing harm. The intensity of the engagement should be able to reveal to us if the amount of goodwill invested by Nigerians in the media is yielding commensurate results.
SPECIFIC ACTIONS
First, the media has the huge task of working on the various mindsets of Nigerians about politics, elections, resource allocation, etc. I believe that we need a new mindset in the country on how we perceive leadership and politics in the country. I share the view that the media should champion and advocate a new approach to the subject to deviate from the emphasis on money-sharing to be approached from the point of view of being performance, competence, tolerance and equal justice for all in the country. The media should treat such issues as Nigerian problem by highlighting more on the miserable conditions of all Nigerians as opposed to the behaviour of the leadership at all levels. I believe that the media may have to focus increasing attention on leaders in public institutions, political offices and how they discharge their responsibilities, lead their people and acquit public trust. In other words, the leadership and our institutions should be far more monitored to ensure that public resources are judiciously utilized to address genuine concerns of the people.
Closely related to the above is the need for the media to focus extra attention on building institutions in the country instead of building some strong individuals. Institutions building have more advantages than strengthening of individuals. Functional institutions enhance the performance of the system and protect the society from the deviant behaviour of the few that try to injure the majority. This is what can sustain the interest of the majority to feel obligated to the extent of even sacrificing their lives if they have to.
CHALLENGES
While the media in Nigeria may want to play their constructive role in instituting democratic values and strengthening the democratic process, we must also acknowledge some of the major challenges confronting them both individually and collectively. Some of the weaknesses are internally generated while others are beyond their borders.
The greatest challenge to the effective performance of the media and indeed Nigeria in its bid to strengthen the democratic process is the behaviour of politicians especially those in government and particularly at state levels irrespective of political party affiliation. The non tolerant behaviour of politicians to alternative views or options in the present dispensation is frightening and threatening to democratic values. In fact, one can argue that while we have happily embraced democracy, our politicians have shown that they are unwilling or incapable of imbibing the tenets of democratization, two of which are tolerance and allowance of freedom to dissent. Unfortunately, what we see today is the crude emasculation and physical strangulation of the alternative voice by ruling politicians. There are hardly any exceptions. The media find it difficult to effectively perform in such a climate. Instead, sycophancy and praise singing dominate the airwaves and pages of our newspapers.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
