When the Journalism Watchdogs Start Fighting

Then two people who know a thing or two about public communication start fighting, and suddenly the watchdog needs a watchdog.

That was the spectacle when Abike Dabiri-Erewa, chairperson of the Nigerians in Diaspora Commission, and Rufai Oseni, an ARISE News presenter, exchanged accusations over a controversial social media post involving the Igbo people.

Dabiri-Erewa accused Oseni of irresponsible journalism, alleging that he misrepresented her reaction to a post as an endorsement of an offensive description of Igbo people. Oseni maintained that her laughing emoji amounted to an endorsement of the post and challenged her to defend her position publicly. The two have offered competing interpretations of the exchange.

Somewhere between the emoji, the accusations and the proposed debate, a familiar Nigerian tradition came alive: everybody was ready to hold somebody accountable, provided somebody else was holding the microphone.

Of course, emojis are not affidavits. A laughing face does not automatically establish agreement, just as denying an interpretation does not automatically settle the matter. Context is important. So is evidence. These are precisely the principles journalists are expected to apply before turning an online quarrel into a public verdict.

The irony is difficult to miss. A debate about journalistic standards has become a demonstration of why standards matter.

Perhaps the profession needs fewer declarations about who has destroyed journalism and more careful examination of what was actually said, what was meant and what can be established.

Unpopular Pele verdict: When journalists and public officials argue, the public deserves facts, not merely competing megaphones. The watchdog’s job is to bark at power, not spend the afternoon fighting over who owns the loudest bark.