Fighting the scourge of corruption in Nigerian Journalism KAYODE KETEFE The troubling reality of the corruption ravaging the practice of journalism profession in Nigeria ignited some virulent discourse recently at a recent three-day "Media Training on Economic Crimes, the EFCC and the Rule of Law" organised by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and International Pres Centre. The forum itself was intended to be a capacity-building avenue for practising journalists and could be called a success as far as this end is concerned, going by caliber of resource persons and quality of participation. However, a paper entitled, which was presented by a top of member in the commission public relations section on the last day took unstinted swipe at journalists in a most intemperate manner. The scurrilous attack delivered in packets of unsavourry adjectives, which immediately stymied the affable rapport hitherto flowing at the forum, drew the ire of media attendees. This writer, with every sense of modesty, was one of those who intervened to save the day and prevented a massive walk-out. He submitted that while it is true some practitioners could have compromised the ethical standards of the profession, it was absolutely wrong to cast all journalists or even a majority (expressly or through innuendoes) in a single stereotypical mould of unscrupulous practitioners. This writer then tacitly invited the presenter to apologise for what is lacking in diction, style and discretion in the paper. After adducing an excuse that she was not the original author but merely a surrogate presenter drafted in after some exigency had detained the author (which is true), she complied. Thus, an apology, essentially couched in form of clarification that reduced the former sweeping statement to a more discriminatory one, was promptly offered, accepted in good faith, and the forum ended in good spirit. But the underlying reality explaining why such spat would be flung down with effrontery in a forum full of journalists, many of whom are senior members of the profession, still needs to be analysed with some objective candour. The incident re-echoes the perception, by a section the public, of reporters as a bunch of morally-debased brown envelope-chasing beggars and their editors as business men with pens that are ready for hire by venal politicians and other scoundrels. Since 1859 when "Iwe Irohin" blazed the trail of journalism in Nigeria down to the present era, some sort of odious stigma has continued to haunt journalistic profession, albeit with varying intensity. Speaking of his experience when he was at the Daily Times in the 1930s, late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, said journalists were then regarded as ""flotsam and jetsam of the growing population." A lot has changed since then, nonetheless, journalists have never attained the social status and prestige bestowed on members of the other professions like law, medicine, engineering etc in spite of the fact that the profession has attracted some of the best minds in the land. The Inferiorisation of the profession stems from bland stereotyping which fuels unwarranted generalisation, but it would be tantamount to professional obscurantism to suggest that corruption does not thrive in the field. A number of factors, including those universally acknowledged challenges and others that mirror the peculiarities of our socio-economic clime, have collectively combined to hamper the practice of journalism in the country. These range from proprietary vested interests (which at times can be inimical to press freedom, but not always so) to the problems of owing journalists multiple arrears of salaries (which is still a painful reality in some Nigerian media houses) poor condition of services, infiltration of bad characters into the profession, incontestable presence of media business men masquerading as professionals, etc In Nigeria today, there are three categories of journalists from ethical point of view. The first category comprises the unscrupulous population who see their practice as avenue to make money; they would misrepresent facts, do biased reporting, or even blackmail all in a bid for easy lucre. These are very small in number. The second category, which boasts of the largest size of all the three categories, are those who would not go out of their way to demand for any gifts or gratifications; would not ask for bribe or engage in bias or misrepresented reporting for personal gain, but are not averse to "being appreciated" with monetary or other gifts from people and organisations. These would collect seasonal gifts from individuals and corporate bodies as PR offerings with "no-strings-attached" mindset. The third category is the one I may call "Zero tolerance group". This has the smallest population of the lots; the journalists under this categorisation see all forms of gratification as an aberration of journalistic ethics and would not collect any gifts under whatever guises. This segment insists that true journalism must be free from all forms of inducement, pecuniary or otherwise, capable of encumbering unfettered exercise of discretion and judgment which hampers the practice of journalism; that journalists have an overriding vocational calling of discharging their duties absolutely free of all undue influences which acceptance of gifts of any kind would invariably foist on the practitioners. All these categories of practitioners are represented in varying degrees among most of the media houses. -To be continued- Fighting the scourge of corruption in Nigerian Journalism KAYODE KETEFE Although the membership of the ethical "Zero tolerance" class cuts across many media stables in Nigeria and some organisations have unwritten Code of Conducts applied with varying severity, but at the institutional level, the now rested Next newspaper, published by the Pulitzer Prize winner, Mr. Dele Olojede, was the first to make concisely articulated "zero tolerance" its cornerstone of professional journalism. This policy was floated with journalists being asked to enter into a special corollary contract at the time of engagement which forbids all forms of gratifications. The slightest aberration to these highest standards of ethics was punishable by summary dismissal. It is sad that that the paper died, one would have been able to assess how its institutional philosophy would impact, over the years, on the practice of journalism in the country. Be that as it may, the ethical position of the first class of journalists (that is the unscrupulous category) is a straightforward issue - they are just the dregs of the profession; the metaphorical bad eggs whose nefarious practices does constitute a clog in the wheel of efficient delivery of uncompromised services to the society. The moral position of the second category, (those who would not demand nor refuse gratifications when offered) is a much more trickish affair and it has generated a lot of debate. For example, how do you deal with the issue of hospitality between the host and guest which represents a cornerstone of our traditional civility in the context of a journalist (guest) visiting for interview? Most Africans would instinctively want to offer something to a visitor no matter the kind of guest he is. Is it then desirable for a journalist to invariably decline well-intended offerings from a gracious host? Besides, would a starving journalist (from a media house that owes many months salaries) have moral and emotional stamina to vehemently reject gifts offered in good faith? It is for all these reasons that those who operate on the second category philosophy would scoff at doctrinal rigidity of the zero tolerance class; they maintain that the latter class has adorned journalism with theoretical sanctimonious halo that discounts pragmatism and exigencies of our own society. "What is ethically wrong in being appreciated in what you do with praises and occasional material rewards by those who feel benefited from your service when no demand was made for it? They would ask. This class construes acceptance of un-demanded gifts and largesse as an innocuous aspect of public relations that does not offer affront to professional ethics. They would eagerly refer to culture of "tipping" waiters, servers, bartenders etc which is rampant in western world as a form of socially acceptable form of appreciation localised to the West which has not been demonised like "appreciations" that journalists do receive in this clime. They also criticise the working paradigm of the zero tolerance employers, whose policy rests on rewarding the practitioners with high salary in order to obviate all inclinations to corruption. These second category practitioners would even derisively refer to such good emolument package as a form of permanent bribe offered to prevent occasional ones! For their own part, the zero tolerance group who, understandably, hardly makes any distinction between the first and second category of practitioners, would insist that the journalism as the fourth estate of the realm must remain as the watchdog of the society and that this noble role is compromised whenever money and other gifts exchange hands. They would posit that the profession is not just a means of livelihood but a vocation that carries superior sanctity and a sense of moral duty. They would contend that journalists who accept pecuniary inducement under any guise cannot be trusted to protect the collective interest of the society just as a dog who relishes juicy bones from intruders could not be trusted to safeguard the security of its owners. They would also point to the free western media practice as far advance and developed than our own not because Nigerian practitioners are skillfully inferior but because the foreigners anchor their own practice on ethically sounder grounds. On the question of tipping as a culture that is not demonised in the western societies, the zero tolerance proponents would say that the menial workers being tipped stand in no position of trust to the giver, unlike what journalism owes to the society, and therefore the issue of being compromised would not arise. If you asked for my candid opinion, I would say that in spite of the fact that corruption has pervaded every facet of our national life; that journalists are owed arrears of salaries by many media houses (as enervating as this may be) and the fact that poverty rages with unabated fury in the land, journalism cannot really be freely and fairly practiced to the required standards if any factor weighs upon unfettered discretion of the journalists. It would be more appropriate to fashion out ways to remove or minimise all the impediments against zero tolerance ethical philosophy than to rationalise why it is impracticable. Concluded |
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "USA-Africa Dialogue Series" moderated by Toyin Falola, University of Texas at Austin.
For current archives, visit http://groups.google.com/group/USAAfricaDialogue
For previous archives, visit http://www.utexas.edu/conferences/africa/ads/index.html
To post to this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to USAAfricaDialogue-
unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
No comments:
Post a Comment