After reading my intervention on last week’s incident on Arise Morning Show, a friend, who is one of the leaders of public relations practice in Nigeria sent me a message.
‘What’s your professional view about Rufai Oseni?’ They had asked. I replied as follows: ‘I think he’s bright, patriotic and objective. But he gets too emotional and descends into the arena, sometimes doing more than a journalist should do.’
My friend, who said they had known Mr Oseni personally for years, responded: ‘Really? He lacks every trait of a professional Journalist!’ They went further to suggest that the television anchor required training and so on.
I said nothing further for two reasons. One, I do not disagree that Mr Oseni, and any other professional, for that matter, requires continuous training and retraining. Didn’t someone say that the education of a man is never completed until he dies? In addition, I concluded that I would share my opinion on this issue in an article.
I’ll be upfront by admitting that while many Nigerians say Rufai Oseni is biased, I do not think so. I understand that many people, especially those on the receiving end of his sometimes vigorous and relentless ‘interrogation’ of issues and people, judge the Arise Morning Show anchor as partisan, arrogant, and unprofessional. But I do not see it that way. And I say that as someone who follows the show with passion.
Over the years, I have found that Oseni, alongside his colleagues, Dr Ruben Abati, Mrs Ayo Mairo-Ese and, occasionally, Mrs Vimbai Mutinhiri-Ekpenyong, hold their guests to the same demand of accountability, good governance and responsibility.
To extend my assessment of Oseni, I find him to be one of the most brilliant television journalists on Nigerian television today. He is commendably well-read, has an impressive command of facts and figures, and demonstrates an undeniable level of preparation that should be the minimum prerequisite for anyone with the unique privilege of presenting a morning show on national television.
Oseni would remember what a public official said months back. He would retrieve figures, point out contradictions and press on when guests try to evade questions. He is also obviously passionate about Nigeria. You see that passion in virtually every discussion. I cannot imagine that any country should demand less than these qualities from a journalist.
So why does Oseni come across as biased, even unprofessional, to many viewers?
First, we must acknowledge something about the format of the Arise Morning Show. The three main anchors on this show perform at least two distinct functions. Yes, they are journalists, but they are also analysts.
In the first 30 minutes or so, they do not merely tell us what happened; they interpret developments. They interrogate policies, positions and issues. Here, they can draw inferences from political conduct and tell viewers their personal views without equivocation. This also applies to segments like The Brief with Rotus Odiri, World Brief and Newspapers Review by Akinfemi Adesanya, Sports with Aron Akerejola or Ebi Iyomon and What’s Trending by Ojy Okpe.
This distinction between straight news reporting and other forms of broadcast journalism is standard and well recognised. The United Kingdom’s broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for instance, recognises, in Rule 5.9, that presenters outside news programmes, including presenters of personal-view programmes and chairs of discussion programmes, may express their own views on matters of political controversy or current public policy. This freedom, however, demands the adequate representation of alternative viewpoints. Presenters must also not use the advantage of their regular appearances to promote their views in a way that ‘compromises due impartiality.’
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with any anchor telling viewers exactly what they feel in these segments. Analysts who are afraid to reach and convey their conclusions do not deserve the title. If two positions contradict one another, or a policy is incoherent, an analyst should say so. If the conduct of people raises questions about integrity, consistency, competence and such, a journalist, while wearing the cap of an analyst, should be able to make that judgment, as long as it is based on verified or at least verifiable facts. It shouldn’t matter whose ox is gored.
The problem, however, starts when an analyst fails to completely surrender the chair to the journalist when the programme moves into interviews. Therein lies the rub.
The interviewer has a different responsibility from the analyst. He should not arrive at the interview determined to establish the accuracy of his own opinion. He has invited the guest or expert to answer questions and provide information to viewers, and so his role is defined. He should ask questions, interrogate the answers provided, introduce contradictory evidence where necessary, and make it easy for the audience to draw its own conclusion through the information the guest provides or clarifies. However, this doesn’t mean that the journalist should be timid.
Anyone, especially public officials who attend television interviews, should expect difficult questions. And to every question, they should expect a follow-up. When they evade questions, they must know that the interviewer will double down. When they contradict themselves, the interviewer should point it out, and when facts differ from their claims, the interviewer has a responsibility to call them out. That is ideal journalism.
And this is where many of those who criticise Oseni miss the point. Tough or relentless questioning is not necessarily evidence of bias, just as interruption is not necessarily rude. Sometimes, an interviewer has no choice but to interrupt a guest who is apparently avoiding a question, taking too much airtime, or getting unacceptably promotional.
On balance, however, adversarial journalism is not argumentative journalism. The line between interrogating a guest’s argument and arguing with them in an interview is very thin, and interviewers should avoid it.
This is where I think Mr Oseni occasionally gets into trouble with guests and viewers. Sometimes, he appears so emotional and determined to demonstrate his correctness that the question gets too long, and his supplementary question becomes an explanation. The explanation itself develops into an argument, and before long, viewers are left with two people struggling to establish a superior position instead of seeing a journalist extract information from a guest. They become confused instead of educated and better informed. At such times, this spectacle becomes embarrassingly unedifying.
And, unfortunately, things need not get to this point because Oseni is usually armed with enough information. In my opinion, the better prepared an interviewer is, the less he sometimes needs to say. An interviewer should only put the fact to the guest, no matter how inconvenient, ask his question and then find the grace to listen. If the guest prevaricates, repeat your question; if he contradicts himself, ask him to reconcile his position. If he fails, allow him. You have made your point, and the audience, which is never stupid, already sees it. Interviews should not degenerate into shouting matches and altercations simply because an interviewer wants his opinion to win the day. His desire to prove his own opinion should, in fact, be unseen in an interview.
Despite all of these, it will be difficult to sustain the charge of political bias against Oseni. A journalist’s strong views or aggressive questioning should not amount to allegiance to an opposing view and vice versa. To judge an interview’s objectivity, the most useful test should be consistency.
Does the interviewer subject claims to equivalent scrutiny regardless of who makes them? Does he interrogate attempted evasions from politicians he is presumed to favour with the same intensity with which he engages those he is presumed to dislike? Does he treat evidence with the same seriousness without regard to political tendencies? These are fair questions for Oseni, his colleagues on the Arise Morning Show, and every journalist.
On these questions, I do not recall any persuasive evidence of Rufai Oseni using his platform to advance the electoral fortunes of one political tendency over another. On the contrary, he repeatedly demands that government must deliver to the people, and that candidates must not just make promises, but spell out the methodology for attaining campaign promises. I see a man with a very strong passion for seeing Nigeria work, but who sometimes allows his convictions to become too visible and dominate his interviews with people who disagree with his views. That contradicts the journalist’s role, but it is no proof of bias.
But the average viewer may miss this distinction, and that is where professional restraint becomes critical. Journalism is most effective when it is credible, and credibility largely depends on perception. When many viewers assume they already know an interviewer’s position before a guest even starts to answer questions, the journalist has created a problem for himself, even when that perception is misplaced and unfair.
So, the journalist needs restraint. He also needs proper characterisation of roles when he wears more than one cap, as we have on the Arise Morning Show.
God forbid that Nigerian television lacks interviewers with knowledge and courage, but a journalist must resist the temptation to complete the argument for the guest or force personal opinions down the throats of his viewers. When a journalist crosses that thin line, he risks creating the impression of partisanship even though he is not necessarily partisan.
Adedokun is a writer, book coach and public relations consultant