OF all the arguments to redeem the image of the Nigerian military as it battles unimpressively and unconvincingly against terrorism, the most mystifying must be the illogic that blames media treatment of the anti-terror war for the continuing demystification of the country’s armed forces. The signs of a possible prolongation of the already protracted defiance of state capacity by the Islamist militia Boko Haram are observable, despite oft-repeated assurances from official quarters that the insurrectionists are doomed.
Media blaming was discernible when the Director of Defence Information, Major-General Chris Olukolade, launched his two books in Abuja on June 30. The title of one of the books in particular, Issues in the mobilization of public support for military operations in Nigeria, was suggestive enough. The other book was called The Voice
and battles of the Nigerian military.
It is instructive to note that Olukolade stated his aim in a pre-launch message: to “celebrate the Nigerian military and my career therein.” Given this celebratory goal, the event was not a stage for self-contemplation. In other words, the military emerged from the event smelling good. But not the media, which needs to ponder the wider and graver implications of Olukolade’s remarks about its performance in the context of the anti-terror war Speaking about the men and women whose job is to “splash military stories across pages around the world”, Olukolade reportedly said: “I think they misrepresent our stories not out of sheer mischief but out of mere disorientation.”
According to a report: “He added that the only way to reduce the level of misinformation is to increase the skills of journalists and media executives to report issues of military affairs. Mr. Olukolade noted that he has always sought to reduce the instances of misinterpretation of military actions but also eliminate public empathy towards the use of the military power when the need arises.”
It is interesting that Olukolade’s message to the media was reformulated and reinforced by no other than former military president Ibrahim Babangida in a Sallah message on July 15. Babangida was perhaps more frontal in his accusation that the media has been pro-terrorism in practice. He said: “Going by the news and information we get every day, I feel very strongly that the media has a greater role to play in the management of information. The types of headlines and lead stories that are promoted in favour of the insurgents could only help to motivate members of Boko Haram rather than demotivate them.”
Babangida also said: “I expect, with a deep sense of patriotism, to see a greater deal of positive news promoted in support of military efforts at confronting this menace than a celebration of Boko Haram carnage, day in and day out…Each time we celebrate the dastardly acts of Boko Haram on the front pages of our newspapers and electronic platforms, it is a score for Boko Haram. We must weigh such information against our collective national interest. Do we subscribe to Boko Haram or to the Nigeria nation?”
Evidently, Babangida considers the media guilty of anti-state activities, guilty of romancing and romanticising terrorism and terrorists. What deepens the gravity of Babangida’s charges is that they were made by an ex-military ruler and seem to reflect the current thinking in the military as expressed by Olukolade. This may be interpreted as a strange and complex manoeuvre by the military and its friends to shift an essentially military burden. It is disturbing because the externalisation of responsibility mirrors possible internal confusion and frustration.
It would appear that there is a misapprehension of the media’s role in the “reconstruction of reality”. Reporting realities does not necessarily suggest poverty of patriotism or partying with terrorism. The military got it wrong.
It must be thought-provoking that Abubakar Shekau, the elusive Boko Haram leader, was this year among “The World’s Most Influential People” listed by TIME. The identified influencers in the 2015 TIME 100 included four Nigerians and Shekau was the most intriguing of them, specifically because he is an anti-hero. According to the TIME portrait, “the citizens of Nigeria, Africa’s most populous country, know Abubakar Shekau all too well: he is the most violent killer their country has ever seen.”
Of course, Shekau’s terrifying profile is compounded by the outrageous seizure of more than 200 schoolgirls by Boko Haram terrorists in Chibok, Borno State, over one year ago. With most of the kidnapped girls still missing and the world still in shock, Shekau and his followers are like an open wound on humanity’s conscience.
Before the TIME ranking, an international think tank, the Project for the Study of the 21st Century, said the Boko Haram insurgency was the fourth deadliest conflict in the world in 2014 and responsible for 11, 529 deaths. It is noteworthy that the think tank added that the figure of fatalities could be underestimated.
The activities of Shekau and his destroyers necessitated ongoing emergency rule in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states, and prompted the formation of a multi-national regional force expected to crush Boko Haram, including fighters from Nigeria and neighbouring Chad, Cameroon and Niger.
To underline Boko Haram’s unignorable notoriety, the National Economic Council (NEC), after a July 23 meeting, released alarming information about its deliberations: “On Boko Haram issues, governors of Yobe and Borno raised the alarm of five local government areas of the two states being in possession of the insurgents.” Is it possible that reporting the dominance of terrorists in the affected local government areas, for instance, could be interpreted as a celebration of terrorism by the media?
The anti-terror war is a real war in real life, affecting real people; and communicating these realities is part of the media’s real job. It goes without saying that fighting the war against Boko Haram is specifically a military responsibility, while reporting the conflict is a media responsibility. It may well be that, as far as the military is concerned, the media’s professional focus on the twists and turns in the fight against terrorism is itself terrorism of sorts. This may well be positive terrorism. In the final analysis, the military cannot reasonably expect an anti-terror partnership with the media that will negate the essence of its watchdog role.
Ref: http://thenationonlineng.net/positive-terrorism/
No comments:
Post a Comment