By Adamu S. Ladan, FCAI
The recent exchange between veteran broadcaster, Dr Reuben Abati and his Arise News colleague, Rufai Oseni, during the station’s Morning Show has produced something of a media storm.
What began as a disagreement during political discussion quickly became the subject of public debate, with viewers taking sides and commentators questioning whether the conduct of the presenters was consistent with the standards expected of professional journalists.
But perhaps the more important question is not who won the argument. It is what the episode tells us about journalism, professional conduct and the power of the microphone in contemporary Nigeria.
The disagreement arose during a discussion of political developments involving FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike and the approaching 2027 elections. Rufai Oseni made a contentious reference to PDP presidential candidate Senator Sandy Onor, prompting Abati to intervene and caution him about the possible implications of his language, including the possibility of legal consequences. Rufai resisted the intervention and sought to continue making his point.
The exchange subsequently escaped the confines of the television studio and became a subject of public conversation. That development is itself instructive.
Journalists spend much of their professional lives examining the conduct of politicians, public officials, business leaders and other influential persons. Occasionally, however, the journalist becomes the subject of public scrutiny. When that happens, the same standards that journalists apply to others ought to be applied to themselves.
Journalism is a position of trust
The Code of Ethics for Nigerian Journalists begins from a principle that should never be forgotten: journalism entails a high degree of public trust. That is not merely a ceremonial statement. It imposes a responsibility.
The journalist is entrusted with information that can influence public opinion, shape political discourse, damage reputations and, in some circumstances, affect the peace and stability of society.
The Code therefore requires accuracy, fairness and balance and urges journalists to distinguish facts from conjecture and comment. It also requires journalists to promote human rights, democracy, justice, equity, peace and international understanding.
These principles are particularly important in television broadcasting, where a statement made in the heat of discussion can reach millions of people before anyone has the opportunity to verify, qualify or correct it.
This does not mean that journalists should become timid.
Quite the contrary. A journalist must be courageous enough to ask uncomfortable questions, challenge contradictions and hold powerful people accountable.
But professional courage is not the same thing as verbal aggression. Disagreement is not the problem. There is nothing wrong with Abati and Rufai disagreeing. Indeed, disagreement is fundamental to journalism.
A newsroom where everyone agrees with everyone else is unlikely to produce challenging journalism. Editors, presenters and reporters must be able to question one another. They must be able to say: That assertion requires evidence. They must be able to ask: Is that fact or opinion? They must be able to warn: That expression may expose us to legal or ethical consequences. That is healthy journalism.
The difficulty however arises when professional disagreement degenerates into personal confrontation or when one colleague’s attempt to exercise editorial responsibility is perceived as an attempt to silence another. The answer, therefore, is not to eliminate disagreement but to professionalise disagreement.
The journalist should be free to say, “I disagree with you.” But he should equally be prepared to explain why. The presenter should be free to challenge an assertion. But the challenge should ideally be based on facts, editorial judgment and professional responsibility rather than personality.
And the senior journalist has a responsibility to guide without humiliating, just as the younger journalist has a responsibility to disagree without becoming disrespectful.
The microphone is power.
The microphone is a form of power. This is perhaps the lesson that deserves greater attention.
A popular television presenter can shape the perception of millions of people within minutes. That power is potentially greater than many people appreciate. Consequently, the journalist must exercise what might be called disciplined freedom. Importantly, Freedom of expression allows the journalist to express a strong opinion.
However, in same vein, Professional ethics requires him to distinguish that opinion from established fact.
That distinction is particularly important as Nigeria approaches the 2027 elections. The political atmosphere will become increasingly polarised. Political parties and their supporters will scrutinise every word spoken by journalists. Social media will amplify provocative statements. Short video clips will be removed from their original context and circulated independently.
The consequences of careless journalism will therefore become greater, not smaller. What then should the professional bodies do?
The professional bodies
This is where the episode presents an opportunity for the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Nigerian Guild of Editors (NGE), the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission (NBC) and the Nigerian Press Council (NPC).
The NUJ should not necessarily approach the matter as an opportunity to punish personalities. Its more useful role would be to facilitate a professional conversation about “ethics under pressure”—particularly live broadcasting, political commentary, defamation risks, editorial intervention and respectful disagreement among journalists.
The NUJ already identifies the promotion of ethical standards as part of its professional mission. The Nigerian Guild of Editors, as the professional body representing editors and senior newsroom leadership, has an even more important role to play. Moreso, Editors are the gatekeepers of newsroom culture.
They should therefore examine whether modern television journalism is sufficiently supported by clear editorial protocols for live programmes. Presenters should know when a co-presenter or editor can intervene, how such intervention should occur and how disagreements should be resolved without turning the programme itself into the story.
The Nigerian Broadcasting Commission and the Nigerian Press Council, meanwhile, have a statutory and professional interest in promoting high standards and monitoring compliance with the journalism code. It could use episodes such as this not merely for adjudication after controversies arise, but as teaching cases for the industry.
And what about journalism academics?
Universities should not leave these questions exclusively to professional bodies. Departments of Mass Communication, Journalism, Media Studies and related disciplines should turn contemporary media controversies into case studies for ethical analysis. Students should be encouraged to examine questions such as:
• When does political commentary become defamatory?
• What distinguishes legitimate criticism from personal denigration?
• When should a co-presenter intervene in a live programme?
• How should editorial authority be exercised?
• Can a journalist be simultaneously a commentator and an impartial interviewer?
• What are the ethical consequences of viral clips taken out of context?
• How should journalists distinguish fact, inference, analysis and opinion?
• Does popularity on television necessarily translate into professional credibility?
These are no longer theoretical questions. They are the everyday realities of contemporary journalism. Indeed, the rapid transformation of journalism by social media and independent digital commentators makes such discussions even more urgent. Internationally, journalism’s traditional ethical principles are also being reconsidered in response to declining public trust and changing media technologies.
We need journalists who can disagree professionally
Perhaps the greatest lesson from the Abati–Rufai episode is that journalism needs a culture in which strong personalities can coexist with strong professional standards. We should not demand that journalists become bland. We should not discourage robust political commentary. We should not confuse politeness with professionalism.
But neither should we celebrate confrontation simply because it attracts viewers. The ultimate measure of a journalist should not be how loudly he speaks, how many people he provokes or how frequently his clips go viral.
It should be whether he helps the public understand the truth. That is the real difference between being a popular communicator and being a professional journalist.
A communicator may command an audience. But a journalist must earn its trust. And trust, once lost, is considerably harder to recover than an audience.
As we inches towards 2027 elections, Nigerian journalism will be tested, not only by the politicians it scrutinises, but by the discipline with which it scrutinises itself. The Abati–Rufai encounter should therefore not become another episode of social-media entertainment. It should become a professional lesson.
Journalists must be free to challenge one another. They must also be disciplined enough to listen to one another. They must be courageous enough to challenge power, but humble enough to recognise their own power. And above all, they must remember that the microphone is not a licence for incivility—it is a responsibility held in trust for the public.
