One of the beauty of the journalism profession is equal opportunity to individuals or groups with right of expressions, in most instances reflecting divergent views in a news content as provided in the formats of news writing, either hard news, features, etc.
Sometimes last week, I keenly followed some interesting stories, that emanated from Plateau state, wherein a feature writer reported an alleged, “statement of stigmatisation,” by functionaries of the state government, against some particular communities, calling on people to avoid as, “danger,” zones of coronavirus, within the capital city of the state.
According to the feature writer, “result of an index case was vividly leaked,” went viral on social media, allegedly from functionaries of the government. He further reported that, “statements of stigmatisation and hate speech” were separately made by state DG-ICT, and that, “Lalong also sided with his subordinates to promote hate speech and stigmatisation statement against our communities,” which report from all indication did not go down well with the government, hence the need for the right of reply, which followed two days after on same page 20 of the Blueprint newspaper.
I hold the code of ethics for Nigerian journalists in high esteem wherein under sections 2 (i), (ii) & (iii), accuracy and fairness provide that; “The public has a right to know. Factual, accurate, balanced and fair reporting,” being the ultimate objective of good journalism, and that, “A journalist should refrain from publishing inaccurate and misleading information.” Going by this section, one presumes that the feature writer has, in this context, performed his duty with due diligence.
However, same section provides that; “A journalist must hold the right of reply as a cardinal rule of practice,” and that; “..a journalist should strive to separate facts from conjecture and comment,” it is obvious that where a party feels unsatisfied or has contrary information to tell the public, such “right of reply,” shall crippe in, like the one by Dr. Makut Simon Macham, in his capacity as the director of press and public affairs to the governor of Plateau state, as was the expectation of readers like my self.
Fantastically, Macham’s reply to the first issue of the leaked result was to me more of confirmation and corroboration of what the feature writer reported. According to Macham, “First, the writer spoke about a leakage of the COVID-19 index case result which found its way to the social media thereby causing huge embarrassment not only to NVRI Vom where the test was carried out but also to the state government,” and that, “This unprofessional conduct is being investigated thoroughly and anyone found culpable would be dealt with, accordingly. We have equally reached out to the affected persons and their families to reassure them and mitigate the situation.”
From the forgone statement, it is my opinion that Macham wouldn’t have wasted his energy, time and words making such a reply, which has not given us any contrary argument, more so that the feature writer said, “Although the state government said it has investigated the matter on how the result got leaked, it further said the officer in charge has been redeployed out of the responsible agency.”
Mr. Macham has, while relying on the other issue of an alleged tweet by DG ICT, faulted the feature writer. But going through his argument, one found no substance than reaffirming the facts earlier stated in the writeup. According to Macham, “Without prejudice to the tweet by the DG ICT (which was not originated by him), but simply drawing attention to the prevalence in that area for people to take more caution to cut community transmission and avoid the spread,” and that, “The governor simply responded to an inquiry by a listener on that programme where he spoke about the community tracing in those areas to curb the virus,” was yet another confirmation of the writer’s report.
My problem with Macham’s reply to the issue was his concelling of the names of those areas, even though state commissioner of health has mentioned, “Massallachin Jumma’a Street, Duala and Rikkos communities,” and was re-tweeted by the DG ICT, as rightly mentioned by Macham, in which he also said Lalong, “simply responded,” and I faulted Lalong and his subordinates for doing that in the first place, while they deliberately ignored mentioning other areas where cases of the disease is also traced.
But I must also appreciate the reply, in defence of the governor, where Macham reminded us about Lalong cautioning people against stigmatisation, until his last minute words on a radio programme.
As ethics of the journalism profession demanded that, “facts and not conjecture,” should be the guiding principles of any journalist, it is again my firm belief that, “Governor Lalong and his appointees are very much aware that for the past seven weeks, no Jumma’at congressional prayers were held in compliance with the state government directives of not having more than 50 persons in a congregation,” is no more than reflection of the “facts and not conjecture,” being an extract out of the statements made by one of the groups. Hence, the reply failed to proved that, “…several allegations and outright misinformation were raised against the state government and the person of Governor Simon Bako Lalong.”
In my opinion, presenting “the flip-side,” in other words, seeking for response of the governor or any of his appointees as canvassed by Macham means seeking for a rebuttal. To me, the writer would have done more harm than good to the issue, because the professional calling stipulates that the writer should illecit for response from the communities, but not the government whose sides have raised the issues, though allowed in journalism, but not applicable in this context.
In the first instance, the issue of leaked result, the tweet by DG-ICT, rebroadcasting the statement of the state commissioner of health, and the last minutes respond by Governor Lalong, as reflected by the feature writer cripped off from same government functionaries, whereas, issues from the separate groups are responses in defence of their perceived statements of “hate speech and stigmatisation,” against their people.
Conclusively, it is my firm view that the feature writer was right to have wasted no time attempting to seek further comments from the government side, for he has demonstrated balancing, accuracy and fairness in the discharge of his duties.
Salisu writes from Anguwan Rogo community, Jos North local government area, Plateau state.
