February 17, 1986

Whispering Drums With Maigani

by Musa Ibrahim

Government-by-newspaper

During the more than 40 years in which mass communication and, invariably, the mass media, has been the subject of serious study, mass communication scholars and researchers have come out with various theories and results as to what the mass media do to society. First among the theories attributed great power to mass communication. Known as the "Bullet Theory", its proponents argued that the mass media structured a reality which was so pervasive and so obtrusive that it was difficult, if not impossible, to escape its influence. But as more and their more scholars conducted more and more research, there were startling revelations ridiculing the Bullet Theory. Findings from these other researchers concluded that the influence of communication on any given populace was considerably less than had been popularly supposed.

More than 50 years later, there is still no conclusive evidence from research regarding the role the press can play in a nation's political life. What is still available, however, are two very divergent and conflicting views. One view still portrays the press as having little or no influence in the direction or intensity of people's political attitudes or beliefs because, according to this argument, political messages in the press tend to reach only a pre-selected minority readership. This view also doubts the press' role as a neutral conveyor of information to the rest of the populace. The second school of thought belongs to those who still believe strongly in what communicologists call the "agenda-setting function" of the press. Here, the contention is that the press actually plays an important role in people's political lives, presenting to them what they should think about, know about and have feelings about. Researches of these nature and their subsequent findings have been con- ducted mostly in the developed Western societies where virtually everybody can either read the newspapers or have access to one form of medium of information or another.

Since he assumed leadership on that historic August 27, 1985, as Nigeria's eighth Head of State in the country's 25 years of independence, there has developed interesting kind of an relationship between the President, Major-General Ibrahim Babangida, and the country's press. This relationship is not only interesting; it is very, very intriguing as well. From the deep, insurmountable and impenetrable belly of DN4 (Decree Number Four), Nigerian Press has suddenly the been catapulted into unbelievable heights, earning presidential pardon here and there and certainly taking charge of the affairs of the nation. It is an unprecedented and undeserved honour and the press are gloating and revelling in new found "self" For every government policy and statement, they are the ones to tell the government what to do and what not to do. And why not? Is not Babangida's government an open government run by public opinion? And has not the President been getting the opinion of the Nigerian public (more than 80 million out of a population of 100 million cannot read or write) on the pages of Concord, Tribune, Sketch, Guardian, Punch, Daily Times and New Nigerian?

Consider the following "spectacular achievements" of the Nigerian press from August 27 1985 to date. With Babangida's presidential breath, DN4 was sent to the guillotine; a public debate on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was constituted. The press became the public and wrote to say they did not want it. The government swiftly consented. The government wants to release all detained politicians unconditionally. The press said no, that an investigating panel should be set up first. The government agrees and sets up two panels - the Justice Uwaifo and Justice Aguda panels. Justice Uwaifo completes his assignment on former President Shehu Shagari and his deputy, Dr Alex Ekwueme, and passes a verdict of "Not Guilty". The judgement is pronounced on Friday afternoon. On Saturday and Sunday the Nigerian press wrote to say that Samson Uwaifo has goofed and bullied the government not to release the two leaders. On Monday morning, the government comes out with a "white paper" saying that it is not bound to abide by the recommendations of Mr Justice Samson Uwaifo. Another victory for the Nigerian press, and today, there seems to be no end to these catalogue of victories. But is the Nigerian press a public press, expressing the opinions of the public?

Apart from the New Nigerian which is wholly government-owned and therefore supported by public funds, all other newspapers in Nigeria are either state- government owned and controlled or owned by rich Nigerians. The state-owned newspapers serve only as government hand-outs or gazettes. Those that are privately owned were established for certain set personal objectives, mostly political, and are therefore subjected to ownership control. There can therefore be no neutrality or objectivity in their comments or write-ups. Anybody who is intimately acquainted or read in the dynamics of mass communication will know that owners, patrons or sponsors of newspapers are kings because they control the content of their newspapers, and make sure that it is their own personal views that appear in the pages which will subsequently reach the reading public. After all, he who pays the piper dictates the tune. So where is the public opinion the government says it gets from the newspapers?

There is nothing like public opinion in the Nigerian newspapers. Made up of an amalgam of diverse ethnic units within which a multiplicity of cultural identities co-exist, Nigeria is a nation with a problem of communication. Ethnic diversity and cultural differences create linguistic polarities, which in turn combine to produce difficult channels for effective communication. Coupled with these is the enigmatic presence of an almost wholly uneducated population.

Babangida must not be blindfolded into not seeing these. That is why he has to be decisive and not wait for an opinion that will eventually emanate from Ikeja, Isolo or Ibadan. Saddled with a country such as Nigeria, public opinion can only be derived through an open referendum or through a popular election via the ballot box. Anything outside of these two shall be considered a fraud and wholly un- acceptable. After all, nations or governments who talk of public opinion are often, always, democratic nations or governments. The Babangida regime is not a democratic government, so in essence, there is nothing public about it.

Experience, they say, is the best teacher. And my experience on the Nigerian press tells me this of the unholy alliance between the press and President Ibrahim Babangida: the Nigerian press view President Babangida as if he were a shrinking-violet-of-a-General, thrust suddenly into a hothouse, there to bloom briefly, and, at last, to wither away. Mark my words: when the crunch finally comes (as it would have had Vatsa's coup succeeded), these mobilization-fees newspapers are the ones going to move in for the kill. Already, I think they smell blood. This is the time for the President to resist and prevent and end this deadly game of governing by newspaper.