THE MEDIA, ETHICS AND NATIONAL INTEREST

The media has become an indispensable component of

modern civilization. This centrality of the media to

modern life is often traced to an Englishman, Edmund

Burke, who referred to it as the “Fourth Estate” of the

realm. By this, Burke gave impetus to subsequent

movements that effectively philosophized the media out

of the old-time prejudiced under which it was viewed as

a subtle formalization of gossips. It is also the

eternal credit of global media managers and operators

that they have risen to the occasion and successfully

transformed their trade to become the watchdog of the

society and undisputable evangelist of freedom. In both

instances – as watchdog of the society and evangelist

of freedom- the media has provided unmatched checks and

balances to the activities of government around globe:

cautioning for moderation and insisting that the

government acts accord to publics interest.

Its men and women have wrestled depart to the ground

and good number of them has paid for this with their

lives. Our own Dele Giwa is the handiest example that

comes immediately to my mind. Indeed, the enmity

between the media and despotism is so deep that both

are considered mutually exclusive commodities. The

unprecedented worldwide spread of democracy attests to

the triumph of media over despotism. Adroitly, we can

refer to democracy as the reign of the pressmen.

In celebrating the achievements of the media, however,

we must take care that the media itself does not

transform into a new form of tyranny. To ensure this we

must, again, raise the philosophical conundrum left to

us by Thomas Hobbes: “who will guide the guardian?” in

this case, how do we ensure that the media keeps the

ideals that legitimize THE MEDIA, ETHICS AND NATIONAL

INTEREST

The media has become an indispensabl component of

mordern civilization. This centrality of the media to

modern life is ofte traced to an Englishman, Edmund

Burke, who refered to it as the “Fourth Estate” of the

realm. By this, Burke gave impetus to susequent

movements that effectively philosophised the media out

of the old-time prejuiced under which it was viewed as

a subtle formalisation of gossips. It is also the

eternal credit of global media managers and operators

that they have risen to the occasion and successfully

transformed their trade to become the watchdog of the

society and undisputable evangelist of freedom. In both

instances – as watchdog of the society and evangelist

of freedom- the media has provided unmatched checks and

balances to the activities of gpvernment around globe:

cautioning for moderation and insisting that the

government acts accord to pulict interest.

Its men and women have wrestled despart to the ground

and good number of them has paid for this with their

lives. Our own Dele Giwa is the handiest example that

comes immidiately to my mind. Indeed, the emnity

between the media and despotism is so deep that both

are considered mutually exclusive commodities. The

unprecedented worldwide spread of democracy attests to

the triumph of media over depotism. Adroitly, we can

refer to democracy as the reign of the pressmen.

In celebrating the achievements of the media, however,

we must take care that the media itself does not

transform into a new form of tyranny. To ensure this we

must, again, raise the philosophical conundrum left to

us by Thomas Hobbes: “who will guide the guardian?” in

this case, how do we ensure that the media keeps mthe

ideals that legitimise it and upon which it has guides

us into resting the whole edific of modern society?

This sort of question is not new. Perhaps, the most

dramatic example of it was in 1898. That was the year

of the spanish-American war. The proprietorship of the

leading newspaper in America at the time was in the

hand of two media magnets, William Randolph Hearst and

Joseph Pulitzer (of Pulitzer of fame). In anticipation

of the war, the two newspapermen sent their journalist

to Havana (Cuba), the ecpected battlefield. Among those

sent by Hearst was Frederic Remington, a famous artist

of the time who served as illustrator to Hearst’s

newspapers. Remington had spent time in Havana without

a war taking place. Concluding that war was unlikely,

Remington requested Hearst to allow him return to his

desk in the United States of America. Hearst had

rejected the request with the following words: “you

provided the pictures and I’ll flourish the war.”

The subsequent leaking of this conversation altered the

American public to the power of the media and its men

in bringing into reality a non exixtent phenomenon.

Hearst’s sole concerns in making that statement were

patronage and profits which reportage of a non-exixting

war would attract to his newspapers. This is far too

dangerous, and the American took note. A people reputed

for their penchant for asking the right questions, the

American public rightly wondered whether the media

magnets- as businessmen should propelled only by their

own interest or should their private interest be

subsumed under a higher interest like truth and

national interest various strugles to give answers to

this late 19th century puzzle contributed tremendously

to the emergence of what is today regarded as media

ethics. At the core of this is what should constitue

the ideal code of conduct for media men and

establishing the extent of their responsibility to

their societies.

A recent study of the Nigerian media reveals a group of

people ardent at setting standard for others while

declaring themselves free from the shackles of any

known standard. Albert Camus’s book, the Rebel, regards

the exhibitoin of this attitude by any revolutionary as

tragic. Tyrants who erect prisons for others whereas

they themselves ought to be their prime inmates are all

caught yp in the web of this trgedy.

The tragedy of the media lies in the conclusion that

the ideals of freedom of information have freed its men

from any moral responsibility for the information they

disseminate. Within the matrix of such logic, how the

information is sourced, an anticipated end for which it

is deployed, and the general consequece to the health

of society is not of concern to the media. This,

actually, is the expression of the most radical form of

liberalism whose proponents hold that no media man is

to be held responsible fro any information he puts out

to the public, rather members of the public are

responsible for whatever use they convert the

information they accede to this sort of radical

liberlism for the media, it would have freed the

Rwandan Journalist known and convicted for instigating

the 1994 genocide perperated by the Hutu ethnic group

against the Tutsi ethnic group from any type of

responsibility for their actions. Rather, the stupid

mob that allowed themselves to be controlled by such

hate broadcast should be held responsible for allowing

the media men instigate their taste for tutsi blood.

Despicale and condemnable as the Rwadan example is, any

person who has had cause to follow the Nigerian media

In the recent time, specifically the print media must

have been alarmed by the close correspondence between

the content of the Rwandan media of 1994 and that of

Nigerian media 2013. It chills the blood to think that

while Rwandan has evolved progressively considering

that aspect of its history as the darkest momentof its

national life that is good only for the dustbin of

history, Nigeria seems to be evolving retrogressively

as some of our fellow citizens wish Nigeria the Rwandan

experience as part of a glorious furure.

It is with utmost difficult and pain that I cite the

recent media outings of Mr. Femi Fani Kayode as the

perfect example of this malady. Severally have I

supressed the urge to reply Femi Fani Kayode. In each

of these times, I was refrained by the imposibility of

his essay serving as stepping stones for a value adding

conversation. The most acerbic of kayode’s malignant

essays was the one entitled “my struggle, my Dream”.

The highpoint of that essay was Kayode’s open

administration for Hitler inspired version of

nationalism and his (Kayode’s) failure to see that

Nazizm and the Holocaust were necessary consequences of

that form of nationalism. Another major sore point of

that essay was kayode’s dream and struggle to put

weapons in the hands of every single Yoruba person in

readiness for an imminent war.

To speak seriously, the truth about consciences is that

an individual has the right to hold an opinion and to

express that opinion. However, the same individual does

no have the right to express certain opinions in all

places. It becomes more repugnant when the media elects

to abet the public expression of opinions that should

rather be unspoken. However, it may happen that the

media persons are witnesses to certain person

expressing what should be locked up in their minds in

the public, it behoves the media to bring this to the

attention of the public, alerting it f the dangers to

its health and wellbeing through responsible reportage.

We must draw a clear line between doing this and

affording such individuals column or opinion spaces to

express their views and spread hate. To put things

squarely, that Femi Fani Kayode’s article, by calling

for preparations for war, subverts Nigeria society as

we know it. No responsible media house should publish

an article that subverts the society upon which it

depends for its existence. I engaged a Mass

Communication colleague of mine in argument about the

indecency of Kayode’s essay as I sought to know whether

the media house have no control whatsoever over what

they publish. While he accepted the sub-versive nature

of that essay, he made it clear to me that his own

judgement was personal. A newspaper editor, based on

his disposition, could still find justifable reason to

publish it. This amounts to overstretching of

relativism and no society built on it survives. Society

built on the understanding that certain acts are bad in

themselves. Take murder, violence, terrorism, war, and

their likes as examples.

I must state here what I consider the absolute truth

about the media. It is that the media is the greatest

insrument for the cultivation of culture and nation

building. It is this because a good number of people

believe every story from the media as nothing but the

truth and often organises and recognises his life based

on them. If the Nigeria media is concious of this it

will pay great attention to ehat David Berry, in his

book Journalism, Ethics and Society regards as the challenge of

the mass media: the othe challenge to the mass media is

to revise its priorities giving a lower one to the

means of gathering or transmitting news, and assigning

the highest to improvement of the quality of

information it delivers each day. More attention should

be paid to the content and less to the package. By

pandering to the lowest level of taste the mass media

have surely helped citizens lose their identity and

intensified their moral isolation from each other, from

reality and from themselves. Indeed, the assumption

that the 21st century media is for everyone who has

something to say is faulty. At the base, the forum of

the mass media is for enlightment and not necessarily

for information. In this sense, only such information

that enlightens is worthy of publication. The practice

of mixing the wheat with the chaffs is evidence of a

decadent media. Edward Wilson’s revulsion may indeed

serve the rest of us here. Appalled by the quality of

information that comes from the media houses he

exclaimed that we are drowning information, while

sterving the wisdom.

Perhaps, it needs reemphasising that the media is a

major instrument of nation building. In this matrix,

the least of the media person has no less

responsibility than the biggest of the government

officials in protecting the national interest. Seen

from this perspective, the media person are also public

servants. This means that the public also places the

burden of expectation on them. They are judge, praised

and blamed as they meet those expectations. The media

becomes dangerous when its people consider themselves

are mere businessmen and women, only intent using their

brains and brawns to acquire as much wealth made

possible by the nature of their trade. Herein is the

beginning of anything goes journalism. The danger of

this does not affect the society alone. It aslo affect

the media as it eludes public truston them which once

lost everything is lost as far as media business is

concerned.

I am a proponent of having the media in the thick of

action in protecting the national interest. This places

the media at the same level with the military, and even

higher, for the pen, we say is mightier than sword. In

this age inter-diciplinary dialogue and inter-

professional exchange, the media has a lot to take from

the military. The most attractive of all this is the

bushido, the ethical code of the Japanese warrior. The

bushido demands that the soldier engages himself in

rigorous training of his mind and body. The four

cardina engines that drive the bushido- absolute

loyalty, spontaneity, collective responsibility and

personal sacrifice- can also be of great importance to

the media. The bushido if adopted by the media disposes

the media person, a warrior in his or her own rigth, to

make good judgment and to die defending his nation and

its interest when circumstances call for it.

it and upon which it has guides us into resting the

whole edifice of modern society? This sort of question

is not new. Perhaps, the most dramatic example of it

was in 1898. That was the year of the Spanish-American

war. The proprietorship of the leading newspaper in

America at the time was in the hand of two media

magnets, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer

(of Pulitzer of fame). In anticipation of the war, the

two newspapermen sent their journalist to Havana

(Cuba), the expected battlefield. Among those sent by

Hearst was Frederic Remington, a famous artist of the

time who served as illustrator to Hearst’s newspapers.

Remington had spent time in Havana without a war taking

place. Concluding that war was unlikely, Remington

requested Hearst to allow him return to his desk in the

United States of America. Hearst had rejected the

request with the following words: “you provided the

pictures and I’ll flourish the war.”

The subsequent leaking of this conversation altered the

American public to the power of the media and its men

in bringing into reality a non existent phenomenon.

Hearst’s sole concerns in making that statement were

patronage and profits which reportage of a non-existing

war would attract to his newspapers. This is far too

dangerous, and the American took note. A people reputed

for their penchant for asking the right questions, the

American public rightly wondered whether the media

magnets- as businessmen should propelled only by their

own interest or should their private interest be

subsumed under a higher interest like truth and

national interest various strugles to give answers to

this late 19th century puzzle contributed tremendously

to the emergence of what is today regarded as media

ethics. At the core of this is what should constitue

the ideal code of conduct for media men and

establishing the extent of their responsibility to

their societies.

A recent study of the Nigerian media reveals a group of

people ardent at setting standard for others while

declaring themselves free from the shackles of any

known standard. Albert Camus’s book, the Rebel, regards

the exhibitoin of this attitude by any revolutionary as

tragic. Tyrants who erect prisons for others whereas

they themselves ought to be their prime inmates are all

caught yp in the web of this trgedy.

The tragedy of the media lies in the conclusion that

the ideals of freedom of information have freed its men

from any moral responsibility for the information they

disseminate. Within the matrix of such logic, how the

information is sourced, an anticipated end for which it

is deployed, and the general consequece to the health

of society is not of concern to the media. This,

actually, is the expression of the most radical form of

liberalism whose proponents hold that no media man is

to be held responsible fro any information he puts out

to the public, rather members of the public are

responsible for whatever use they convert the

information they accede to this sort of radical

liberlism for the media, it would have freed the

Rwandan Journalist known and convicted for instigating

the 1994 genocide perperated by the Hutu ethnic group

against the Tutsi ethnic group from any type of

responsibility for their actions. Rather, the stupid

mob that allowed themselves to be controlled by such

hate broadcast should be held responsible for allowing

the media men instigate their taste for tutsi blood.

Despicale and condemnable as the Rwadan example is, any

person who has had cause to follow the Nigerian media

In the recent time, specifically the print media must

have been alarmed by the close correspondence between

the content of the Rwandan media of 1994 and that of

Nigerian media 2013. It chills the blood to think that

while Rwandan has evolved progressively considering

that aspect of its history as the darkest momentof its

national life that is good only for the dustbin of

history, Nigeria seems to be evolving retrogressively

as some of our fellow citizens wish Nigeria the Rwandan

experience as part of a glorious furure.

It is with utmost difficult and pain that I cite the

recent media outings of Mr. Femi Fani Kayode as the

perfect example of this malady. Severally have I

supressed the urge to reply Femi Fani Kayode. In each

of these times, I was refrained by the imposibility of

his essay serving as stepping stones for a value adding

conversation. The most acerbic of kayode’s malignant

essays was the one entitled “my struggle, my Dream”.

The highpoint of that essay was Kayode’s open

administration for Hitler inspired version of

nationalism and his (Kayode’s) failure to see that

Nazizm and the Holocaust were necessary consequences of

that form of nationalism. Another major sore point of

that essay was kayode’s dream and struggle to put

weapons in the hands of every single Yoruba person in

readiness for an imminent war.

To speak seriously, the truth about consciences is that

an individual has the right to hold an opinion and to

express that opinion. However, the same individual does

no have the right to express certain opinions in all

places. It becomes more repugnant when the media elects

to abet the public expression of opinions that should

rather be unspoken. However, it may happen that the

media persons are witnesses to certain person

expressing what should be locked up in their minds in

the public, it behoves the media to bring this to the

attention of the public, alerting it f the dangers to

its health and wellbeing through responsible reportage.

We must draw a clear line between doing this and

affording such individuals column or opinion spaces to

express their views and spread hate. To put things

squarely, that Femi Fani Kayode’s article, by calling

for preparations for war, subverts Nigeria society as

we know it. No responsible media house should publish

an article that subverts the society upon which it

depends for its existence. I engaged a Mass

Communication colleague of mine in argument about the

indecency of Kayode’s essay as I sought to know whether

the media house have no control whatsoever over what

they publish. While he accepted the sub-versive nature

of that essay, he made it clear to me that his own

judgement was personal. A newspaper editor, based on

his disposition, could still find justifable reason to

publish it. This amounts to overstretching of

relativism and no society built on it survives. Society

built on the understanding that certain acts are bad in

themselves. Take murder, violence, terrorism, war, and

their likes as examples.

I must state here what I consider the absolute truth

about the media. It is that the media is the greatest

insrument for the cultivation of culture and nation

building. It is this because a good number of people

believe every story from the media as nothing but the

truth and often organises and recognises his life based

on them. If the Nigeria media is concious of this it

will pay great attention to ehat David Berry, in his

book Journalism, Ethics and Society regards as the challenge of

the mass media: the othe challenge to the mass media is

to revise its priorities giving a lower one to the

means of gathering or transmitting news, and assigning

the highest to improvement of the quality of

information it delivers each day. More attention should

be paid to the content and less to the package. By

pandering to the lowest level of taste the mass media

have surely helped citizens lose their identity and

intensified their moral isolation from each other, from

reality and from themselves. Indeed, the assumption

that the 21st century media is for everyone who has

something to say is faulty. At the base, the forum of

the mass media is for enlightment and not necessarily

for information. In this sense, only such information

that enlightens is worthy of publication. The practice

of mixing the wheat with the chaffs is evidence of a

decadent media. Edward Wilson’s revulsion may indeed

serve the rest of us here. Appalled by the quality of

information that comes from the media houses he

exclaimed that we are drowning information, while

sterving the wisdom.

Perhaps, it needs reemphasising that the media is a

major instrument of nation building. In this matrix,

the least of the media person has no less

responsibility than the biggest of the government

officials in protecting the national interest. Seen

from this perspective, the media person are also public

servants. This means that the public also places the

burden of expectation on them. They are judge, praised

and blamed as they meet those expectations. The media

becomes dangerous when its people consider themselves

are mere businessmen and women, only intent using their

brains and brawns to acquire as much wealth made

possible by the nature of their trade. Herein is the

beginning of anything goes journalism. The danger of

this does not affect the society alone. It aslo affect

the media as it eludes public truston them which once

lost everything is lost as far as media business is

concerned.

I am a proponent of having the media in the thick of

action in protecting the national interest. This places

the media at the same level with the military, and even

higher, for the pen, we say is mightier than sword. In

this age inter-diciplinary dialogue and inter-

professional exchange, the media has a lot to take from

the military. The most attractive of all this is the

bushido, the ethical code of the Japanese warrior. The

bushido demands that the soldier engages himself in

rigorous training of his mind and body. The four

cardina engines that drive the bushido- absolute

loyalty, spontaneity, collective responsibility and

personal sacrifice- can also be of great importance to

the media. The bushido if adopted by the media disposes

the media person, a warrior in his or her own rigth, to

make good judgment and to die defending his nation and

its interest when circumstances call for it.