Amidst the focus on the coverage of the Charlie Hebdo killings and the seizure of Baga town in Northern Nigeria by Boko Haram operatives within the same week in January 2015, the consensus was that there was a dereliction of duty on the part of both the Nigerian media and the global media. How so, you may ask? The global media were inundated with the Paris killings despite the fact that the Nigerian incident claimed a significantly greater number of lives. This is underlined by the fact that both acts were carried out by different shades of religious extremists. Coverage of the Nigerian story was pushed mainly by foreign media outlets like the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. However, this still informed complaints that the focus from the international media had been disproportionate. The Nigerian media on the other hand, neglected the Boko Haram tale choosing to centre its focus on the elections. A look at the major Nigerian dailies saw that the Baga news generally failed to make the front pages. When it did, it tended to be one of the lesser stories with very little detail. That said, it is noteworthy that then President Jonathan was quicker to bemoan the Charlie Hebdo incident whilst staying suspiciously silent on the Baga incident.
It is against this background, I intend to highlight the factors that complicate the reportage of such stories.
To start with, it must be said that part of this issue lies in the fact that the Boko Haram war is largely unusual in the sense that it falls under what it regarded as asymmetric warfare making it a war fought in the most unconventional of fashion. In essence, it can be said that Boko Haram function as a guerilla outfit. Chatham House in an attempt to conceptualize it described it as being “a radical religious sect, a violent insurgency, a terrorist organization, a network of criminal gangs, a political tool and a cult” before seeking to contextualize the multiplicity of definitions on the basis that “it comprises a complex set of individuals and interests that have been evolving for over a decade.” This broadness and lack of clarity on who they are serves as a challenge for those tasked with reporting. This results in distance reporting on the part of the Nigerian media; because of the fear of this unusual war there’s a reluctance to place journalists in positions of risk. In an article analyzing the media’s reporting of the kidnapping of about 276 schoolgirls in Chibok (Both Chibok and Baga are towns in Borno state in North Western Nigeria), Media Review’s Femi Babatunde suggested that this fear saw the media fail to provide any rich insight into the perspectives of the natives as it was impossible for them to enlighten the audience on something they knew very little about. A quote from Punch Editor, Martin Ayankola appeared to address this when he suggested that “the consideration for the safety of journalists in the region is a major challenge we face in reporting the insurgency. And this is why most correspondents only stay in Maiduguri, the state capital, which is relatively safer and file in their reports from there.” The Nation’s Borno correspondent categorically stated that “only a journalist who wouldn’t mind losing his life would dare” visit Chibok despite the distance between Chibok and Maiduguri being about 134 kilometers. In a nutshell, this speaks of the risk free strategy that plagues the Nigerian press partially because of the country’s lack of a war reporting culture. A cynic would argue that there’s also a degree of complacency attached to this. The vast majority of Nigeria’s more reputed media houses are based in the South and because Boko Haram have not done anything sufficiently threatening in that zone, there has not been as much clamor from the Press as there should be because the North is seen as distant and the going ons there unrepresentative of the happenings in the rest of the country.
The Nigerian military have also played a role in the breakdown of communication in that they have done a shoddy job informing the media and the general population of developments made in the war against the sect. The military tend to be extremely bureaucratic and this has lent itself to the failure to provide the logistical support to aid the press. As a result of the unusual nature of the war, their argument is that it would be detrimental to national security if they were briefing the press as has been suggested. However, it is possible for them to employ the press in telling the story better by providing support and cooperating with the media without exposing national security matters. This would help in shaping the narrative and providing the public a gauge with which to measure the effectiveness of the military and government. Before it opted to postpone last year’s February elections to fight the sect, the general consensus was that the government had been guilty of neglect and that the military were deprived on the intelligence front to fight the well armed and funded Boko Haram. Knowing what we know now, the scandal that was the misappropriation of funds meant for the military for election campaigning enhances our understanding of the failure. The Military did make interesting attempts at stepping its communication up. There was a Twitter account set up to give public updates on the small victories made.
The manner in which information is released has also been cause for worry. The bureaucratic issues I mentioned earlier also come to play here in that there’s a lag between things taking place and reports being made by the local press. This coming because the local press first of all need to have representatives close to the action and the security risks hinder that. The local press also feel compelled to secure corroboration from official quarters before going to press. In instances like this, the military spokespersons who aren’t particularly powerful need to clear with those higher in command on what they can brief. This tends to take a couple of days at best. The foreign press on the other hand tend to bypass all this choosing to go with more “unofficial sources” i.e eyewitness accounts, community leaders and activists etc. They also don’t follow the official line by pointing out where need be that the reports are subject to confirmation. The obvious conclusion from this would be to implore the local press to follow in this regard but there is a fear of not offending the government by going against the party line.
The lack of truly independent media outlets also complicates the manner in which the news is reported. Two of the big media agencies with the power to shape discourse; The Nigerian Television Authority (NTA) the official broadcaster and the Nigeria News Agency (NAN) are controlled by the state. Unlike the UK , where the BBC is run by a trust, has a duty to be neutral and is funded directly by taxpayers, both agencies are funded by the government and their Director Generals are government appointees ultimately making them nothing but government mouthpieces. By virtue of this, there’s an incentive for them not to rock the boat so the manner in which they cover the stories are pretty much as the government will prefer. This involves Boko Haram stories buried halfway through the hour long 9pm news broadcast and lacking the clarity to assist the average watcher in developing a truly informed opinion.
It stands to reason that because of the sensitivity of this mater, there’s only so much that can be in the public space. That influences what the Military can put out. Where the Nigerian journalistic corps can earn their coins is by doing ground breaking journalism highlighting the plight of the people affected by the crisis. The Sunday Times’ Christina Lamb recently won the Foreign Policy Association’s award for Feature of the Year for her extremely gripping and graphic story on the Chibok girls. The best of journalism is providing insight- telling the people what they need to know that they don’t already. We need more stories and it’s nigh time our journalists step up to the plate.
Photo Credit: The Sunday Times.