THE fundamental right to seek and disseminate information through an independent press is under attack, and part of the assault has come from an unexpected source: the media itself. The Minister of Information and Culture, Lai Mohammed, was on target when he berated the Nigerian mass media for the unethical, self-subversive and self-destructive practice of conferring awards on public functionaries and private sector operators. In his speech at an interactive session during the 27th Nigerian Economic Summit in Abuja, on the Fourth Estate: Holding Power Accountable, he argued, correctly, that the press that conferred debatable awards on persons it should constantly hold accountable is antithetical to its constitutional watchdog role.

His grim reminder touches at the heart of media responsibility, ethics, and global best practices. Professionals, publishers, and media owners should re-examine the unwholesome practice. A media pandering to the vanity of the ruling class and sending gratuitous messages of service where there is an unmitigated ruin; competence where there is bland mediocrity and integrity where there is vile impropriety is caged. There is no iota of honour in such journalistic practice.

Highlighting the fad of media outfits awarding public officials “of the same government they are supposed to hold accountable,” he asked: “To what extent can they hold their awardees accountable?” He alluded to the stinking pecuniary benefits from the awards to the media owners, media organisations and journalists. He is right. This is a setback to independent journalism and investigative reporting that have been growing since independence. Even when the military opened a long, systematic assault on a free press, the Nigerian media system stood its ground, flying the banner of liberty without stain.

But the minister’s poser on this trend and its effect are crystal clear: it is antithetical to the custodian role of the media. The sacred ethic is betrayed the moment money changes hands. And the veneer of neutrality seems to crack, reader trust and credibility lost. This makes the state of democracy truly dangerous.

Separating the message from the messenger, media owners and professionals should rethink. Yes, as Information Minister in an anti-democratic and repressive regime, Mohammed has waged war against the media and press freedom. Obsessed with silencing critics and scrutiny of the inept government, he rails constantly against the press, assails broadcast organisations through the regulatory agencies and voices his preference for autocratic systems like China’s to control the internet and social media. These are equally dramatic, obvious, and potent ways to control the media.

But he struck a chord; undeniably, the press, as the Fourth Estate of the Realm, the monitor and watchdog of society and all its segments, should be circumspect. While standard democratic practice, through elaborate constitutional arrangements, formalises the separation of powers, by making the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary, separate branches of government with distinct duties, yet acting as checks on each other, the press is the unofficial sentinel that checks all three by mirroring their action, inaction, failures, and excesses. This extends to all segments of society, including the private sector, groups, and individuals.

Political scientists and statesmen deem an independent press indispensable to progress. An American founding father, Thomas Jefferson, said that given a choice of government without a free press or newspapers without a government, “I should not hesitate to prefer the latter.” Celebrated writer, George Orwell, declared, “Freedom of the press, if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticise and oppose.” The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office says, “the backbone of any democracy is independent, professional and responsible media,” adding that their role “to inform, criticise and stimulate debate” must be sacrosanct and always encouraged.

Despite the general decay of all other institutions, though weakened, the Nigerian press has largely remained resilient. But a compromised media is as dangerous to society as a compromised judiciary.

It can happen in subtle and unintended ways such as the new culture of giving bogus and often undeserving awards to public officials, private sector chieftains and individuals.

As critics, the mass media should also be tolerant of criticism and engage in self-examination. Surely, conferring flattering awards on persons and institutions they are meant to keep on their toes is ethically ambiguous and self-subversive. In a polity where maladministration, corruption and impunity reign with disastrous outcomes, the media should not be perceived deservedly or otherwise as accomplices in the rot.

When a newspaper, magazine or broadcast outlet confers such titles as Governor of the Year, Minister of the Year or Top Banker on the very people and institutions they are meant to watch, compromise beckons. This reduces the media to a transactional equation. Journalists simply become subservient to media owners who are in turn controlled by governments. This damages the media’s reputation for strict neutrality in reporting.

Equally uninspiring has been the private sector where malpractices, tax evasion and unethical conduct are prevalent. Worse, the awardees invariably mobilise friends, public and private institutions to splash out on advert spaces, tables at the elaborate award night dinners or luncheons. Sycophancy reigns.

Such spectacles belittle the media, as the masses, traumatised by the impact of the maladministration of public officials, see no evidence of good governance. It damages the credibility of the media and its ability to shape public opinion for progressive action.

There are, of course, many lessons to be learned from foreign media. There is no similarity in the egregious awards given to some Nigerian media organisations and the recognition of outstanding personalities by respected foreign media groups. For instance, TIME magazine’s Person of the Year format is nothing like the fawning, obsequious awards bestowed by media outlets in Nigeria. The TIME feature profiles a person, group or idea or object that “for better or for worse” has done most to influence events in a particular year. It is, in fact, excellent journalism, featuring the impact and events the person has influenced. It is not to highlight “achievements” or massage an ego. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Ayatollah Khomeini were therefore featured in different years for their impact, including (for worse) the death of millions, just as Pope John Paul II, Ted Turner, and Whistleblowers (for better) were also awardees.

Update news