In Defence Of Tough Questions In Journalism -By Isaac Asabor

In Nigeria today, journalism has become one of the most misunderstood professions. It is perhaps the only field where people from virtually every other profession confidently claim expertise. Lawyers believe they know how interviews should be conducted. Politicians think they understand how stories should be framed. Businesspeople assume journalism is simply about writing. Even casual observers, armed with social media accounts and personal opinions, often feel qualified to judge how journalists should do their work.

The reason for this perception is not difficult to understand as writing is a skill that cuts across professions. Doctors write reports, lawyers draft briefs, academics publish papers, and civil servants prepare memos. Because writing is common, many people assume journalism is simply another form of writing. But journalism is far more complex than stringing sentences together. It is a discipline governed by professional ethics, editorial judgment, verification processes, and, most importantly, an obligation to the public interest.

Unfortunately, the gap between perception and reality has fueled constant criticism of journalists, particularly those who ask difficult questions during interviews. In Nigeria and beyond, broadcasters such as Rufai Oseni have frequently faced criticism for their confrontational interview style. Similarly, internationally renowned journalist Mehdi Hasan has been repeatedly accused by critics of being overly aggressive in interviews. The latest example involves Hasan’s interview with Daniel Bwala, which generated, and still generating debate among viewers and commentators.

To some observers, such interviews appear hostile or unnecessarily combative. Critics often argue that journalists should be polite, neutral, and less confrontational with their guests. But such criticisms often reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of journalism itself, particularly the distinction between adversarial journalism and development journalism.

Adversarial journalism is a tradition deeply rooted in democratic societies. Its central principle is that those who hold power, whether political leaders, government officials, corporate executives, or influential public figures, must be held accountable through rigorous questioning and scrutiny. The journalist in this model is not merely a passive conveyor of information; rather, the journalist acts as a watchdog on behalf of the public.

In adversarial journalism, tough questions are not a sign of disrespect. They are a sign of responsibility. When journalists challenge statements, demand evidence, and confront contradictions, they are fulfilling a democratic duty. Without such scrutiny, power can easily become unaccountable.

History shows that some of the most significant public revelations have come through adversarial journalism. Investigative reporting has exposed corruption, uncovered abuse of authority, and revealed misconduct that would otherwise have remained hidden. The press, in this sense, serves as a critical pillar of democratic governance.

However, adversarial journalism is not the only model of journalism. Another widely discussed approach is developmental journalism. This concept emerged in many developing nations during the post-colonial period, when governments sought to mobilize the media as partners in national development.

Developmental journalism emphasizes constructive reporting that focuses on nation-building, economic progress, social cohesion, and public education. Rather than constantly confronting government officials, journalists operating within this framework often highlight development initiatives, public policies, and programs designed to improve societal welfare.

The intention behind development journalism is not necessarily to suppress criticism but to ensure that media narratives contribute positively to national growth. In societies struggling with poverty, infrastructural deficits, and political instability, proponents argue that the media should support development agendas rather than undermine them through relentless confrontation.

The challenge, however, lies in balancing these two models.

Critics of adversarial journalism sometimes forget that the style of journalism practiced in a country is often influenced by how the government itself operates. When institutions are transparent, accountable, and responsive to citizens, journalism naturally becomes less confrontational. Information flows freely, public officials engage openly with the press, and journalists can focus more on explanatory reporting.

But when governments become secretive, defensive, or intolerant of criticism, journalists are compelled to become more adversarial. In such environments, access to information becomes difficult, and public officials often avoid accountability. Under these circumstances, tough questioning becomes not only justified but necessary.

In other words, the tone of journalism frequently mirrors the nature of governance.

This is an important point that critics often overlook when they condemn journalists for asking uncomfortable questions. A journalist who presses a public official for clarity is not being disrespectful; he or she is performing a professional duty. If public figures provide clear, honest, and transparent answers, interviews rarely become confrontational.

Take the case of journalists like Rufai Oseni. His interview style has generated both praise and criticism. Supporters see him as a journalist who refuses to allow political actors to evade accountability. Critics, on the other hand, view his approach as overly aggressive. Yet the real question should not be whether the journalist is tough; it should be whether the questions being asked are legitimate and relevant to the public interest.

Similarly, Mehdi Hasan has built a global reputation for sharp, fact-driven interviews in which he challenges interviewees with evidence, data, and past statements. His approach is rooted in adversarial journalism, a tradition that views power with skepticism and insists on accountability.

To some audiences, such interviews may appear uncomfortable. But journalism is not designed to make powerful people comfortable. It is designed to ensure that citizens are informed.

Another factor that complicates public perception of journalism is the rise of social media. In today’s digital age, everyone has the ability to comment on news events, share opinions, and critique journalists in real time. While this democratization of discourse has its advantages, it has also created an environment where professional journalism is often evaluated by individuals who may not fully understand the standards and responsibilities that guide the profession.

Social media debates often reduce complex journalistic practices to simplistic judgments: “The journalist was rude,” or “The interviewer was biased.” Rarely do these discussions examine the deeper principles involved, such as accountability, public interest, evidence-based questioning, or editorial independence. Yet journalism is not merely about tone or style. It is about purpose.

The fundamental purpose of journalism is to inform the public, hold power accountable, and facilitate democratic dialogue. Whether this is done through adversarial questioning or development-focused reporting depends largely on context. Both models have their place, and neither should be misunderstood.

What is dangerous, however, is the growing tendency to delegitimize journalism simply because it is uncomfortable. Democracies do not thrive on comfort; they thrive on transparency, debate, and scrutiny

Journalists who challenge public officials are not enemies of the state. They are essential participants in the democratic process. When they ask hard questions, they are speaking on behalf of citizens who deserve answers.

It is also important to recognize that professional journalism requires training, experience, and adherence to ethical standards. Just as one would not expect an untrained individual to perform surgery or argue a complex legal case, journalism too demands expertise. Research, factchecking, editorial judgment, and ethical responsibility are not skills acquired overnight.

Therefore, while everyone may have an opinion about journalism, not everyone understands the discipline behind it.

Criticism of journalists is not inherently wrong. In fact, journalism itself thrives on criticism and self-reflection. But such criticism should be informed and constructive, rather than rooted in misunderstanding.

When critics attack journalists simply for being tough on interviewees, they risk undermining one of the most important functions of the press: the ability to question power without fear or favor.

Ultimately, the health of any democratic society depends on the strength and independence of its media. A society where journalists are afraid to ask difficult questions is a society where accountability is weakened.

So the next time a journalist presses a public official for answers, the question should not be whether the journalist is confrontational. The real question should be whether the public deserves those answers.

If the answer is yes, and in most cases, it is, then adversarial journalism is not only justified, but also indispensable.