A snake slithers into a river and snaps up an unsuspecting fish from the water. With the struggling fish safely secured in its mouth, it heads back to the shore to devour its meal. Waiting for it at the shore are three journalists who each want to ask their own questions about what they have just seen. The first one completely ignores the visible anguish of the fish and asks the snake “Sir, what inspired you to risk your life and bravely go into the river to save this fish from drowning?”
The second journalist apparently does not approve of the dishonest sycophancy of the first one. He acknowledges the physical pain the fish is going through and the trail of fresh blood dripping from its wounds as it thrashes around inside the snake’s mouth. He then opens his briefcase, gets some paper, and takes a quill pen out of his top hat. A courtroom-style examination of the fish ensues – it must explain what it was doing in the river at the time the snake “allegedly” bit it, and it must answer the question; “In your opinion, do you think that the snake is an aggressor trying to eat you, or do you think it is possible that there is some blame on both sides?”
He then takes out a ruler and measures the length of the fish’s recorded responses, before moving on to the snake. He likewise questions the snake, making sure that the length of what he records is the same length as that of the fish. This is for the purpose of journalistic balance. Afterward, Journalist 1 and Journalist 2 each take a picture of the snake holding the weak and bloodied fish inside its mouth, and they go off to draft their stories. The story later published by Journalist 1 has the headline “Jubilation, Encomiums as Brave Snake Saves Drowning Fish From Water Rapids.” Journalist 2’s story has the headline “Controversy as Fish and Snake Trade Accusations.”
And then there is the third journalist.
The third journalist
In 2020, I published a story about Marek Zmyslowski, the charismatic Polish tech entrepreneur who turned out to be a very unsavoury character. The story itself was one of the most exhaustive and comprehensive pieces of journalism I have ever worked on. Every kind of documentation and evidence needed to make the point was presented and meticulously pictured, linked and embedded. The story was so conclusive that nobody who read it even bothered to offer the slightest attempt at a defence for Marek. The evidence of who he was and what he had done was clear. Everyone was satisfied. Everyone that is, except Marek himself.
As he made known in a series of angry tweets the following week, he felt that he had not been given sufficient time to respond to the issues raised in the story. According to him, it was somehow against the rules for such a story to emerge and not feature his response prominently. Apparently, according to the universal rules of journalism written down in a cosmic Bible somewhere, “journalism” is not the simple act of telling stories that answer the 5 W’s and H (what, where, when, who and how). To qualify as “journalism,” stories must apparently include the snake’s perspective on why it thinks the bloodied fish is desperately thrashing about in the grip of its teeth as it emerges from the river.
Unfortunately for Marek, I was the third journalist observing the fish vs snake saga, and this journalist’s reaction to it is completely different to the other two. Journalist 3 is entirely focused on getting the fish free from the snake’s death grip, or at least reporting the situation accurately and contextually. He has looked at the sequence of events that saw the snake come out of the river biting a fish, and he has come to the obvious and unsurprising conclusion that the snake is in fact, a predator looking to eat some fresh fillet. There is no prevarication and unnecessary playing of the devil’s advocate in Journalist 3’s response. His questions are directed only at the fish, and their only purpose is to establish when, where and how the attack from the snake happened from the perspective of the entity most likely to give anything close to an accurate answer – the fish.
This journalist has very little use for whatever story the snake wants to tell because he understands something very simple and obvious – the snake has no reason to tell the truth, and has every incentive to lie. The snake is hardly going to come out and say “I am a violent, bloodthirsty predator and I am looking for defenceless prey to kill and eat,” even though that is exactly what is happening. To this journalist, the story is only advanced in any meaningful way by engaging with the facts of the matter and the defenceless victim. To engage with the snake in the name of “balance” like Journalist 2, only to produce a wishy-washy “Both Sides” story that achieves absolutely nothing except ticking a box on the editor’s table, is what Journalist 3 thinks of as a crime against the profession.
Read also: Nigeria pushes for cost consideration in amendment to IFRS
We have heard from the snake already! Zuru Ike!
Furthermore, and even more importantly, as I pointed out to Marek a year ago, it is extremely dishonest to pretend as though the snake has not already had ample and unfair opportunity to tell its side of the story exclusively. After 2 TED talks with over a million views each, a “bestselling” book, a series of high-traffic Medium articles and several speaking engagements around the world for 2 years telling his story, what did he have to say that he had not already said? Now that someone was finally telling the fish’s side of the story, why did he want me to insert himself, so he could yet again grip fish in his teeth and claim that its death spasms were sobs of joy?
A snake was behind the construction of a 21-storey concrete lego high rise with matchsticks for pillars on Gerrard Road in Ikoyi, Lagos. This building collapsed and killed at least 42 people a few days ago. That snake had appeared on national television a few months prior, openly boasting that he no longer listened to architects, M&As, and structural engineers in Nigeria because “They only know about book, they don’t know about the practical aspect of the work.” He also admitted openly and on record several times, to repeatedly adding unapproved storeys to buildings in the past – the very practise that later collapsed Gerrard Terraces. Each time he said it, nobody called him up on it because it was usually Journalist 1 or Journalist 2 he said it to.
If journalist 3 had covered the story of Femi Osibona’s construction corner-cutting, the resultant story would have raised the alarm about an impending tragedy fuelled by the greed and hubris of a mediocre rich man who thought he was Socrates. Journalist 3 would have focused on the material facts of the matter – the quality of materials used, the disregard for professional advice, the direct employment of artisans without a competent supervisor, and Femi Osibona’s own words indicating his vast ignorance, overconfidence and disregard for other people’s lives. Journalist 3 would not have given Osibona – the snake – yet another platform to tell lies and dilute the only story that really matters – that of the fish/impending building collapse.
Who has a problem with Journalist 3?
Nigeria is a country where power generally controls journalism. The Nigerian media is almost entirely subsumed by the powerful government and private sector interests that fund it and thus control it. I am an industry insider and I understand how things work here. I find it dishonest and self destructive to pretend as if the snakes responsible for Nigeria’s condition at all levels do not already get their point across every second of every day of the year in Nigeria. In fact one of Nigeria’s biggest historical problems is that often, even on the rare occasion that wrongdoing by a snake is publicly acknowledged, absolutely nothing happens – impunity, as that is popularly known.
So why – why on earth – does the snake need yet another platform to tell its story with? Does it not have enough of those already? Does it not already have the fawning Ovation Magazine Journalist 1 and the box-ticking Premium Times Journalist 2 at its beck and call? Does it not already use them to tell its stories or control narratives using woefully outdated, heavily slanted, and comically subjective notions of “balance”? Why does it need Journalist 3 as well? Why am I expected to join this charade? Why is it that telling stories that unapologetically pick the side of the snake (power and authority) is fine, but telling stories that unapologetically pick the side of the fish (powerless and disenfranchised) is perceived fearfully as some sort of regulated activity?
Finally – I’m asking the reader this question directly – what is your problem with me? Do you have a problem with journalists who have spent an entire career fawning over known fraudsters like Fred Ajudua, and the likes of Ibrahim Babangida? Do you react strongly and viscerally to the likes of Tolu Ogunlesi appearing on CNN to defend the government’s ban on Twitter? Or do you just chalk these things up to “people doing what they have to do”, while making excuses for them? If you do not react powerfully to these prime examples of Journalist 1 and Journalist 2 unapologetically siding with the snake, but you are inexplicably disturbed when Journalist 3 unapologetically sides with the fish, then I’m afraid some questions must be asked, and real introspection is needed.
Why fundamentally, is that such a problem to you?
Only you can answer that question truthfully.
