Online Media and the Dangers of Quack Journalism

4^th August, 2015

By: Amir Abdulazeez

O

ne profession that cannot afford quackery and unethical conduct in whatever form and measure is journalism. This is simply because the profession is the official mouthpiece and channel through which the society informs and is been informed and in many cases through which the values and aspirations of that society is being promoted. This is why the profession must not be only entrusted in the hands of well-trained people, but also those who are honest, unbiased, patriotic and trustworthy. The primary consequence of quackery in journalism is public misinformation which can lead to ignorance, hatred, division, conflicts, immorality and all other unimaginable things among the society.

The Nigerian media has come of age and over the years; it has been directly and indirectly partly responsible for our national social, political and economic development. The growth and development of the Nigerian media has been quite incredible just as it has been unprecedentedly impactful.

The emergence of online media in Nigeria over the last 10 to 15 years or so has no doubt enormously contributed not only to the journalistic profession but to the overall development of information dissemination and management as well as intellectual growth and development. Despite these successes, the online media is however threatened with problems that seriously endanger not only its credibility, but its existence. Some of these problems have been in existence for quite a while whereas others are manifesting recently and gradually in line with the shape of events, mostly political.

One fundamental problem facing online media is porosity, vulnerability and facelessness. The online media industry is so porous that anyone with a laptop, access to the internet and some information technology skills can just put up a news site, run it and claim to be a journalist. This makes the online media very vulnerable to all kinds of problems. Infact all other problems bedeviling the online media is directly and indirectly derived from its little or no immunity to infiltrations.

Lack of a proper identity or a confusing identity is another major problem facing the online media in Nigeria. The massive presence of the online media organizations on the social media and the very thin-or in the eyes of many, non-existent-boundary that exists between the two has made many unsophisticated readers to be quite unable to distinctively differentiate between news media and social media that are both online. The online news media have succumbed to the dominant power of social media so much so that the two now overlap. For example some people can’t simply state a source of news for reference and verification purpose, except stating that they read it on social media. Another identity crisis is being caused by other websites other than the actual online news media sites. Every other website now carries news items to attract traffic to the sites and blogs. Jobs, fashion, religious, sports, education and other special websites do not strict to their original purpose; many of them disseminate news as if they were originally developed for such purpose. Another identity problem is being caused by the conventional media that also have a well registered presence online. The print and electronic media now operate actively online with many of them outperforming some media that were established to only operate online. This to some significant effect makes it difficult to differentiate between conventional media that also operate online and online-based media only. These identity issues have facilitated the easy and smooth entrance of quack and fake journalists into the system, all in the name of online journalism. Some even confuse online activism with online journalism.

So many online media websites now exists with apparently no regulatory framework in place to either authenticate them or to checkmate their activities. Many of the news websites are run by one or two people merely depending on copy-edit-and-paste mode of plagiarism as the major source of their contents. Under normal circumstances, some online news media websites are not qualified enough to become personal blogs. All these have facilitated the unchecked dissemination of propaganda, outright falsehood as well as massive misinformation of the gullible public. Unfortunately, it appears that the number of fake online websites far outweigh the number of credible ones. This in turn has made the bulk of public misinformation and fake news circulating at any given time to come from online sources. The conventional media, despite its shortcomings have fought hard ethically to collectively protect its reputation in this regard.

The main victims of the misinformation coming from some online media are the youths-most of whose faculties of learning and intuition are still under construction-who find it easy to believe and assimilate what they are being fed with. This portends the intellectual future of our youths in bad light and in serious danger along with potential unpatriotism. The thinking of many youths is being poisoned by the falsehood and hate contents published by such online media.

The perception of some people in some sections of our society is that online media is largely for youths. This may not be unconnected with the platform on which it operates which many old people consider too modern as well the  continuous and inevitable integration of youth-dominated social media into the running of the online news sites. This, with other aforementioned problems is gradually contributing towards the detachment of some groups of people, mainly the old and non-social from online media.

It is the conduct of these non-credible online news media that have contributed to heated abusive debates among Nigerians on social media. Many average Nigerians cannot simply discuss political issues on social media without insulting each other. This makes the sociability of the social media questionable in the Nigerian context. If we use the so-called ‘social’ media to rain abuses upon each other mostly in reaction to poisoned news content from unethical online news media, then how social is that social media? In essence, these online media contribute a lot in making the social media unsocial for Nigerians.

All these do not mean that we don’t have other online media news sites that are credible, ethical and professional. A handful of them exist, but their percentage when compared to the non-credible and unprofessional ones is quite discouraging. If the current trend continues, soon will the credible ones get drowned in the ocean of the non-credible ones and if this happens, news online in Nigeria will no longer be regarded as credible except if published or reported by the conventional media. If this is allowed to happen, the contribution of the online media will be lost completely.

Online media being the cheapest, most interactive, most prompt and most popular news media need to be saved from these problems, if we must continue enjoying the wide range of opportunities it offers. First and foremost, the stakeholders of the online media must stop operating in complete isolation and come together to find a way of getting rid of hundreds of fake, divisive and propaganda news websites. Even if they can’t take them out of existence, they must design a framework that will separate authentic from fake news websites.

Secondly, the apparent and gradual divorcing of online media from the conventional media should stop. With the help of veteran professionals from the conventional media, the menace in the online media can be arrested. Online media journalists need to align and properly integrate themselves into the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ). They should make the NUJ leadership see online media as an important part of the profession that they can’t do without. Journalists and stakeholders nationwide must be made to understand that any damage done to online media is as good as damages done to the whole media profession.

A regulatory framework for online media has to be in place; if it exists, it has to be made very operational and effective. Hate-promoting news sites and those spreading calumny campaigns, false hood, half-truths and unverified cum unverifiable news must be shut down. Websites with anonymous publishers and questionable promoters should also be shut down from the cyber space. If this requires any legislative provision, let the National Assembly act fast.

©2015: abdulazeezamir@hotmail.com 

The Hypocrisy of America’s Leahy Law By Muhammad Al-Ghazali

28^th July, 2015

ghazalism@gmail.com

Let’s accept this blunt truth from the onset. Nigeria is currently paying the price for the crass neglect of several cardinal requirements for prominence in the international arena. The most prominent of those requirements almost without question, has been our embarrassing failure to develop a potent military industrial complex since our independence more than half a century ago.

Our embarrassment is all the more telling given the fact that our founding fathers did realize the importance of a viable military industrial complex to the nation. In 1964, they established what is today known as the Defence Industries Corporation of Nigeria (DICON) to produce small arms and ammunition for the use of the Nigerian Army and other Security agencies. Even today,  a casual visit to  DICON’s website will reveal the following legend as its vision statement: “to build  the Corporation on a sound commercial footing to continuously produce and constantly improve on the quality of arms and ammunition needs of the Defence, Security and foreign policy of Nigeria with the best international standards”
What the website does not give is the full account of stories of the missed opportunities of DICON since its creation. In one particularly tragic phase in its tragic evolution into irrelevance, it was involved in the production of domestic consumables.

In sharp contrast, Brazil began manufacturing its first automatic pistols in 1954 and its earliest armoured personnel carriers (APCs) in the 1960s. Today, Brazil’s defense industry is booming, fueled by government incentives to modernize the country’s armed forces and develop a robust, export-oriented military industrial complex. Brazil has bought conventional submarines and helicopters from France, insisting on technology transfer and their assembly on its territory. It produces almost the entire aircraft requirements of its air force, and has also resurrected a plan to develop, beginning in 2016, its first nuclear-powered fast attack submarine! It is almost entirely self-sufficient in its armaments requirements. 

And what about Malaysia which evolved into its present form in September 1963 - three years after Nigeria’s independence? While its defense industry cannot be compared to that of Brazil by any means, it has come a long way since the reforms deliberately embarked upon in the 1970s and 1980s with the ultimate goal of achieving self reliance.  

The decision to proceed toward domestic production was taken for military rather than economic reasons: rifles could be purchased at a cheaper rate on the competitive international market than they could be made locally, but for national security purposes, it was deemed necessary to ensure an uninterrupted source of supply! They subsequently privatized some of its military industrial facilities in the 1970s. Today, Malaysia’s defence industry contributes to the growing supply of military assault rifles, small calibre ammunitions, and unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), patrol vessels, information and communications technology (ICT) based solutions and military gear and apparel.

This, then, provides the backdrop to the sobering situation in which Nigeria now finds itself. It is more than half a century since our independence, but Nigeria is far from achieving self-sufficiency in the critical armaments it requires to competently defend itself against domestic and foreign predators.
Even before President Buhari’s visit to Washington last week, it was apparent that Nigeria was at the mercy of the law authored by the ranking Senator Patrick Joseph Leahy, which prohibits the sale of American military hardware to nations whose forces are alleged to have committed serious human rights abuses in various theatres of operation across the world.

That means that at a critical moment in our history, the defence of our dear nations are to be determined by factors beyond our direct control. We must go on bent knees before prospective weapons suppliers for the critical arms required defending ourselves. It is a collective national tragedy. It is a price we are compelled to pay for the criminal neglect of our military industrial complex by successive regimes for more than five decades. 

I have no qualms with nations enacting laws that suit them provided it is in their overall national interests, but what I find very nauseating and unacceptable is the selective application of the laws. The same America whose laws are against polygamy, recently legalized same-sex marriages. The same America that will not sale arms to Nigeria for the alleged human rights abuses perpetrated by our military sees nothing wrong in ensuring that Israel retains its military superiority in the Middle East, in spite of its illegal and de-facto imprisonment of several generations of Arabs in the Gaza and the West Bank.

In the desperate quest to get Israel to accent to UN-brokered Nuclear deal with Iran, America has offered to even increase its military aid to Israel by an additional 1.5 billion dollars per year on top of the three billion dollars it already receives annually to purchase US military hardware such as fighter jets and missile defence systems.

The sales will occur in spite of the well-documented chronology genocide and grievous human rights abuses perpetrated by Israel spanning several decades. Not only has the UN severally sought to condemn Israel for its actions, the Americans have become notorious for vetoing and precluding any such possibilities.
Only recently, it will be recalled, an international inquiry into Israel’s conduct in Gaza was launched after the UN’s Human Rights Commissioner concluded that there was a “strong possibility” that the country was guilty of war crimes. The 46-member Human Rights Council backed the Palestine-drafted resolution to begin the investigation by 29 votes. It was backed by fellow Muslim countries joined by China, Russia, Latin American and African countries except Nigeria under Goodluck Jonathan which abstained! America predictably voted against it, while most European nations like Britain abstained.

The same America, we must not forget, has continued to arm Egypt despite its serial repressions of bloggers and free press, along with its crackdown on credible opposition parties like the Islamic Brotherhood overthrown in a military coup which the US failed to decisively condemn. Only last month, the US announced that it had released 575 million dollars in military aid cosmetically frozen since the ousting of Present Mohamed Morsi - the democratically elected Egyptian President overthrown by the incumbent Abdul Fattah Al-Sisi Washington prefers to do business with.     

While I welcome the thaw in the relations between Nigerian and the U.S., which suffered during the tenure of President Jonathan; what I cannot tolerate is the collective insult on the intelligence of Nigerians by the attempt to flaunt the Leahy law in our faces as a measure of American decency, or higher moral values, because it is far from reality.

Stripped of all pretences, the Leahy Law has been discriminatorily applied by Washington in furtherance of America’s own narrow national interests. If we stretch the matter even further, it is even possible to perceive a tinge of racism in its selective application. A law - any law for that matter- assumes credibility when it is universally applied without exception. If it fails to meet that litmus test, then it becomes the very instrument of oppression the Leahy law wants the world to believe it is against. Our situation should serve as a poignant lesson to our leaders.  No other country can love us more than we love ourselves.

Source: Daily Trust

Nigerian Politicians and the Myth of 'Assets Declaration'

1^st August, 2015

 By: Amir Abdulazeez

I

t is safe to assume that many Nigerians showed little or no concern towards the declaration of assets by elected and appointed public officials prior to the emergence of Ummaru Musa ‘Yaradua as Nigerian president in 2007. This is probably due to the facts that the declarations are made in secret or because many Nigerians share the opinion that with or without assets declarations, our politicians are not just trustworthy. The trail blazing public assets declaration by the late president sparked into life the interest of many Nigerians on this matter.

Another issue that further accelerated public interest on assets declaration was former President Jonathan’s (in) famous ‘I don’t give a damn’ comment on public assets declaration. It is still unclear whether Jonathan said that deliberately or it was a gaffe, but to many Nigerians, this meant that, not only was Jonathan hiding something from them, he also had some sinister moves and doesn’t care what the public thinks about it. To be a bit fair to Jonathan, he probably meant assets declaration doesn’t effectively and significantly prevents anything and as such, he doesn’t care to publicly do so.

If willingly and publicly declaring one’s assets upon assuming office is to be translated as incorruptibility, then we can easily conclude the Late President Ummaru is arguably the most incorrupt president’s in Nigeria’s history, whereas former President Jonathan is the most corrupt. However, when we critically examine the issue, we can come up with many unanswered or even unanswerable questions that will make us have a massive rethink about our conclusions. For instance, Ummaru’s assets were made public, but did he direct the Code of Conduct Bureau (CCB) to reveal to the public the processes it followed in verifying those assets? How rigorous, thorough and transparent was the verification exercise? If at all, the whole process was to convince the public that they indeed have an honest president in place, what provision was made for independent public verification? Is the CCB empowered by law to continue monitoring the acquisition and disposal of assets and liabilities of those public officers or it can only fold its arms and watch? Upon his death, did Ummaru’s family declared his assets? If yes, did they make it public so that Nigerians can have a basis for comparism with his earlier declared assets upon assumption of office?

By the time, one starts seeking for genuine and convincing answers to the above questions, one may find out that the whole issue about asset declaration in Nigeria is more of a myth rather than a reality. Prior to Ummaru’s voluntary public declaration, the whole issue was kept as a secret from the public and few or no people ask any questions.

One fundamental thing we need to look at is that, no public official is required by law to make his assets declaration and liability-if any-public, he is only required to declare his assets to the Code of Conduct Bureau. May be, we can say the Freedom of Information Act can now be used to inquire and have access to information on politicians’ declared assets. Though CCB is a federal agency, what if state public officers who declare their assets in the state chapters manipulate this and mischievously use it to deny access to information from the bureau?

The declaration of assets is as politicized as the politicians themselves. Upon assuming office, one hears about declaration of assets everywhere, especially in the media, but upon leaving office, what one hears is a deafening silence. Hardly will you hear of any public official prosecuted for acquiring additional assets more than his total legitimate earnings while in office. The very few ones that come up usually have some obvious semblance with witch hunt.

If this whole process is meant to stop public officers from using their offices for self-enrichment, then asset declaration upon leaving office should be more emphasized than declaration of assets while assuming office. However, the reverse is the case.

One of Nigeria’s most critical setbacks is its constitution. Although the authors of that constitution may have inserted every single item there-in base on patriotism and good intentions, they have probably forgotten that the potential operators of that constitution may be unpatriotic and may have bad intentions. The 1999 constitution supposed to be the legal instrument with the highest capacity to stop corruption and impunity by public officers, especially those elected and appointed. However, it ironically appears to be the highest one promoting or encouraging impunity and corruption. The authors of the 1999 constitution probably did not take into consideration the weaknesses of our checks and balances mechanisms involving our legislature and judiciary before inserting the controversial immunity clause. They also appeared not to have considered the general untrustworthy reputation of Nigerian politicians in allowing for the clause.

It was from this constitution that the issue of assets declaration comes up, but the same constitution went ahead to give unrestricted immunity against prosecution to those who are the main actors and are therefore the ones most likely expected to violate the code of conduct rules against using public office for illegal self-enrichment. What the 1999 constitution did was akin to protecting someone for four years to do all the damage he wants to do before making him available to a weak and largely compromised judicial system. If he escapes justice-which he is very likely to do, he then finds a safe haven to enjoy his loot.

The fifth schedule of the 1999 constitution provides for assets and liability declaration upon assumption of office and at the end of the tenure of all public office holders. It went ahead to declare any person who failed to do so as someone who has breached the code of conduct for public officers and is liable to punishment by law. The constitution had forgotten that it had earlier provided immunity to the category of public officers who have the biggest custody of public resources.

Even though Buhari is yet to fulfill his promise, but it is good that he has promised to make his assets and liabilities public and also ‘encourage’ all his appointees to make theirs public. However, the president should move a step further by making sure the CCB does a thorough job of not only verifying the authenticity of all submissions by the declarants but also conduct thorough searches on the sources and legitimacy of these assets. Without a proper verification, declarants have various tricks of cheating their way through. Declarants can declare much more than the own, so that during their time in office, they can steal enough to cover for what they over declared. The CCB should also be empowered to monitor the acquisition of assets by friends, families, associates and cronies of those in office as mostly public funds are being diverted through these people. The president should make sure that the CCB asks outgoing public officials to promptly declare their assets and those with questions to answer must come forward and give satisfying explanations.

Meanwhile, Nigerians themselves are the ones who must make sure that public officers properly account for all their assets. It is before the eyes of all Nigerians that many politicians come to office as poor and humble people and leave as stupendously rich and arrogant elites, but they still go ahead to support them on ethnic, religious and other partisan affiliations.

©2015: abdulazeezamir@hotmail.com