SIMBO OLORUNFEMI
Politics Today on Channels TV last Friday. Standing in for Seun Okinbaloye was Terry Ikomi. Among the issues for discourse was the plot in America to designate Nigeria as a ‘country of concern’ on allegations of genocide. Two guests were lined up for the evening. One was Prof Bolaji Akinyemi, Nigeria’s Foreign Affairs Minister (1985-87).
But things took a slightly different turn when Prof Akinyemi joined the programme. He declined interest on discussing the topics earlier announced, stating that the understanding he had at the time of the invitation was that he would be talking about developments in the Middle East in connection with the Nobel Peace Prize that was announced that day. “I seldom like to stray away from my area of speciality”.
I found that particularly instructive. A man with such a vast experience in the field of international relations, who had served as Director General of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs and Foreign Affairs Minister over 40 years ago, not wanting to jump into discussing a matter unless he has adequately prepared for it.
Weeks back, I had reached out to him to discuss something to do with Nigeria’s foreign policy. He asked for us to push the interview forward, as his attention at the time was on the Trump-Putin Summit in Alaska, which he would be discussing on TV days after.
Striking to me from the two instances are a few things – the importance he accords to adequate preparation; his focus on what he considers to be his areas of strength; the willingness to continue to learn, despite his extensive years of experience in the field; and the humility to admit that as much as he knows, there are areas that he might not be as knowledgeable, and it is best not to stray into them.
I have always argued that one of the most challenging problems we have in the media is the lack of preparation on the part of many of the practitioners. The culture of investing time and energy in researching the subject before coming on air has been eroded, with some wearing aggression as a mask to deflect attention away from their lack of preparation.
Just as some of the Anchors do not believe in adequate preparation, so do they not have an expectation of the Guests preparing ahead of appearance. Afterall, the show is all about performance, theatre, drama, not about dissemination of information or transfer of value to the audience. No guidelines, no guardrails. No discipline.
I dare say that some of the rancorous interview sessions we have witnessed have more to do not just with inadequate preparation of the parties involved, but a failure or disregard for the professional production process that ought to govern such programmes. That is another topic, by the way.
When an interviewer is adequately prepared, it is evident. Questions will come from the place of research and knowledge, not presumption or arrogance, with the intention to ambush the guest. When you lay bare the facts before the guest, he has little or no room to wiggle, and the audience is left in no doubt that he has been caught out. Courage is not in delivering a full-length sermon under the guise of asking a question. Courage is not in being pugnacious. It is in letting the facts guide discussion in a civil and respectful manner, no matter the level of disagreement there is over the issue.
Apparently, many people, inclusive of media practitioners, no longer source their information from primary platforms (newspapers, TV, radio) relying more on snippets (edited to drive particular narratives) shared through social media.
They run with whatever ‘grey areas’ and fabrications generated on social media, as long as they fall in line with their preferred narratives and biases.
Querying with an open mind is no longer a thing. Checking the veracity of claims made before running with them is no longer a requirement even for the media practitioner. Once it’s trending, it meets the requirement. They will lend their platforms to propagating and amplifying lies, just because it is trending and it resonates with their bias.
If only we will invest more time in preparation, and only speak to subjects we are not only familiar with, but have taken time to study.
When a man is adequately prepared, it shows. It shows in the ease with which he deploys facts harvested from learning into holding the guest to account, if that is what required. He who is well prepared will not run with factually-incorrect materials or amplify ‘grey areas’ when the information that lay them bare as ill-informed are out there in the public domain.