Of Tinubu, Arise TV And Moral Crusading, By Tunde Abatan
He who must come to equity must come with clean hands according to a popular saying.
Yes, the media in any society serves as the watchdog of the people. The media is supposed to be the moral conscience of the people asking questions and seeking solutions to issues affecting the polity.
Statutorily, the media as an institution has the moral right as the Fourth estate of the realm to question the activity of the operators in any society and brings into focus critical issues that affect the citizenry.
They thus have the duty to set agenda for public discourse in any polity.
However, the axiom, he who pays the piper, dictates the tune, has become the moral cross on the watchdog role of the media.
It has also for some time now especially in a developing polity like Nigeria becomes the instrument to propagate views and set agenda by the owners of such outfits considering that such agenda is for public good and in the public interest.
The on- going media war of attrition by Arise Television owned by former President of Newspaper Proprietor Association of Nigeria, Nduka Obaigbena has been in the front burner of public discursion and call to question whether public trust in the media should not be reexamined periodically.
It is necessary not because ownership precludes media organisation from taken a stand on or on behalf of the public which it serves on crucial issues that concerns the public interest, such public trust becomes suspicious and questionable when the method adopted becomes so obvious.
It is unacceptable when media partisan media outfits begin to arrogate conscience of the public it is meant to serve as an unbiased umpire to itself .
This disposition alone has seriously call to question whether such arrogation is for the public good or to serve personal interest especially when the media outfit adopts bullying a tool to discharge or perform it’s role .
While the Arise Television has the right to invite candidates who wish to serve the nation to answer questions concerning his or her programme or agenda for the nation, it behoves that acceptance of such invitation is also not a fait accompli especially when such organisation though in public domain is not funded by the public.
It is an erosion on the fundamental right of such individual to compel him or her to appear on its programme.
Until such a time when a media outfit becomes generally accepted as moral compass of the nation by its wide acceptability and viewership, such organisation cannot in all sincerity claim to serve public interest.. The motive of Arise Television , known to belong to a media baron with membership of a partisan political view becomes suspect when it resolves to bullying to compel personalities to appear before it especially on issues that has been settled for long.
While it is rather difficult to prevent media owners from having vested political interest, earning the public trust becomes suspect when style, presentation and editorial attitude as is the case with anchors of the Arise Townhall meeting comprising the duo of Rufai Oseni and Reuben Abati, a respected columnist is seen by many as purely partisan.
While a candidate by being invited should seize the opportunity to sell himself to the public, it is also incumbent on the organisation to portray non partisanship especially when issues to be discussed transcends personal or group interest.
That is,at every point in time, a media outfit is supposed to put behind it’s ownership interests when it concerns national issues.
Inability by the Obaigbena media outfits to separate it’s owners personal interest from national interest made any aspirant to public office feel scared of such organisation which to all intent and purpose may be out either to rubbish him or her especially since such programmes is a live programme watched by thousands across the globe or to bring him to ridicule .
Yes, it could be argued that those who cannot endure smoke should not near the kitchen, yes he or she has a choice as to where his/her food is cooked.
We can also argue that media outfit is a moral conscience of the public but candidates like All Progressives Congress, APC, Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, a media baron himself has every right not to attend or grant audience to media outfits perceived as being out to rubbish him .
Since, Television stations constitute just a fraction of the voting public, non attendance at such Television programme should not be seen as an offence especially when the candidate is not made to pay for such…..afterall, who will not want free publicity.
He should be made to bear alone the social cost of not presenting or selling himself through any medium.
Besides, the partisan accusation of Messrs Dele Alake and Bayo Onanuga, who are spokespersons of Tinubu and who themselves are senior and experienced media managers against Arise outfit could even be proved wrong by Arise if the right approach and attitude is adopted but definitely not by bullying or compulsion since the station alone does not constitute the overall custodian of conscience of the people.
By deliberately bullying personalities and potential office holders to attend an event speaks volume of the motive and raisin detre of such invitation.
Since, issues about Tinubu’s pedigree vis a vis his parental and educational background are already in public domain, media stations deserves no right of compulsion for such a candidate. This is so especially since the station in question is neither organised by outfits set up in public trust and funded by state resources like the Nigeria Television Authority, NTA, Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria, FRCN, News Agency of Nigeria, NAN and even the electoral umpire the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC.
It is neither officially nor morally wrong for candidates to ignore such stations.
National debates for candidates at all levels organised by INEC, the electoral umpire in conjunction with organisations like the Nigeria Broadcasting Commission, NBC, Nigeria Union of Journalists, NUJ still command neutrality and fairness and would’ve been very difficult for any candidate not to attend for organisers are institutions with conferred public trust.
Since, the issue of mutual trust based on obvious partisanship, very difficult to deny has been put on the neck of Arise TV, it is incumbent on the public sponsored organisations mentioned above to seize the initiative from the maddening crowd and organize a public debate which will be difficult for any serious candidate not to attend.
The brouhaha generated over the Arise TV/Tinubu attendance at it’s Town Hall meeting has undeniably cast a partisanship garb difficult to wash clean by owners of Arise TV.
The inability of owners of Arise to divorce it’s past from the sleeze of public funds that occurred in the former administration of President Goodluck Jonathan and it’s security agency, the National Security Adviser, NSA and questions of financial integrity attested to by media organisations, alleged blackmail of citizens, Injustice of non payment of salary by his workers in Thisday are all grave moral infractions of it’s owner which could not have added positive image to Arise TV .
This is obvious since Obaigbena has not divorced himself from the stations operations.
Since Tinubu is equally a media mogul, that the organisations he owed has not been found wanting clearly remove focus on them on account of their non partisan ship in spite of their owners outlook.
The saying that he who lives in glass house should not throw stone applies to both Obaigbena, Oseni and Abati, a widely respected columnist whose role in public office in the recent past has seriously affected his public image as an outstanding commentator on national issues.
To say that he has allowed his image to be affected by his conduct in public office is an understatement.
Be that as it may, Tinubu’s media handlers should also bear in mind that as a man to beat, opponents are not likely to let him rest since his profile constitute a hinderance to their ambition.
They should focus more on publicising his manifestos and programmes aimed at restoring hopes in the citizenry in view of the serious security and economic problems which the government he helped to enthrone has not done much to improve.
Restoring Hope in the citizenry whose quality of life has taken a nose dive in the past seven years requires consistent and persistent effort and not allowed to be distracted by political jabs below the belt by opponents.
