On The Menace Of Attack Dogs Called Media Assistants In Corridors Of Power -By Isaac Asabor

In any functional democracy, public communication should act as a vital bridge between leaders and the people they govern. It should educate, clarify, and strengthen trust between government and citizens. But in Nigeria, this critical responsibility has been hijacked by a breed of spokespersons who have morphed into political attack dogs. These are not aides trained in strategic communication or ethical public engagement. Rather, they are aggressive enforcers, armed with microphones and social media passwords, whose primary assignment seems to be the defense of their principals through any means necessary, even if it means dragging the country’s democratic values through the mud.

The phenomenon of media aides acting like attack dogs has become an entrenched part of Nigeria’s political culture. Instead of using their platforms to convey accurate information, they have become hitmen in suits, issuing statements not to inform, but to destroy. They are quick to lash out, eager to discredit, and allergic to constructive criticism. Their mission is singular: defend their bosses at all costs, truth and decency be damned.

One of the most common tactics used by these political attack dogs is the relentless discrediting of opposition voices. Rather than engage in reasoned debate or policy comparison, these aides specialize in smear campaigns, character assassinations, and conspiracy theories. They dig up past missteps, fabricate scandals, and question the patriotism of those who dare to oppose their bosses.

This aggressive posture does more than just damage reputations, it drowns out real conversation. When aides resort to personal attacks and innuendo instead of facts and logic, they replace political discourse with schoolyard brawling. Citizens looking for answers and direction are instead fed vitriol and bile.

Even more troubling is the adversarial stance these aides have adopted toward the press. In a democracy, the media is a watchdog, critical, yes, and essential. Unfortunately, in Nigeria, watchdogs are being attacked by attack dogs. Journalists who report unfavorably on government actions are routinely branded as opposition agents, blackmailers, or enemies of progress.

Rather than clarify facts or correct inaccuracies, these media aides often go on the offensive. Some resort to outright intimidation, threatening reporters or blacklisting media houses. Others spin outrageous narratives to discredit legitimate journalism. The endgame is clear: silence scrutiny and keep the public in the dark.

Such hostility undermines press freedom and discourages investigative reporting. When the press is under siege, accountability suffers, and so does democracy.

Modern-day political communication in Nigeria has become a factory of propaganda and misinformation, and media aides are the chief operators. With access to social media and large followings, these aides manufacture narratives that twist reality. Statistics are distorted. Quotes are taken out of context. Videos are edited to mislead. News is created, not reported.

This deliberate spread of false or slanted information is not a mistake, it is a strategy. The goal is to confuse the public, manipulate sentiment, and demonize opposition. What emerges is a toxic fog in which the truth becomes elusive, and the people are left to grope in the dark.

Unfortunately, the digital age provides the perfect playground for this deceit. A single tweet, laced with aggression or misinformation, can go viral in minutes. And in a country where digital literacy remains low, these falsehoods are often believed, shared, and used to justify political violence or hatred.

When communication is built on aggression and lies, polarization is inevitable. Media aides, in their bid to protect their principals, often frame every issue in binary terms: us versus them, loyalists versus saboteurs, and patriots versus enemies. This framing deepens existing divisions and stokes ethnic, religious, and political animosities.

In this hyper-charged atmosphere, dialogue becomes impossible. Compromise is seen as weakness. Disagreement is interpreted as betrayal. The democratic space becomes a battlefield where only the loudest and most vicious voices are heard.

This is how nations fall apart, not by sudden explosions, but by a steady erosion of civility, trust, and the shared values that bind a people together.

The rise of attack dogs in the corridors of power does not only affect political opponents or the media, it affects the entire machinery of governance. When public officials surround themselves with aggressive loyalists instead of principled communicators, they isolate themselves from reality. Feedback becomes filtered. Criticism is blocked. Honest conversations are replaced by flattery and delusion.

This echo chamber leads to poor decision-making, policy failure, and disconnection from the masses. Leaders begin to believe the myths their aides spin, while ignoring the real concerns on the streets. The result is a government that governs in illusion, while the people suffer in silence.

Moreover, when attack dog communication becomes the norm, democratic values like transparency, accountability, and participation are severely compromised. Citizens lose trust in public institutions. Voter apathy increases. Civic engagement declines. And over time, democracy is reduced to a hollow ritual of elections without substance.

Several factors explain the rise and entrenchment of attack dog politics in Nigeria. One is the high-stakes nature of Nigerian politics, where power is everything, and losing means political and economic exile. This “do or die” mentality fuels a communication style that values aggression over persuasion.

Another reason is the lack of regulation and accountability. In many cases, there are no consequences for unethical communication. Lies go unpunished. Slander is ignored. Social media accounts are weaponized without oversight.

Furthermore, many of these media aides are not professionals. They are appointed based on loyalty, not competence. Lacking training in ethics, communication strategy, or media relations, they resort to the only tactic they know, attack.

Lastly, the reward system in politics is broken. Aides who attack most fiercely are often promoted. Those who advocate civility and professionalism are sidelined. In such an environment, bad behavior is not just tolerated, it is incentivized.

As to how the way can be charted forward, it is germane to opine that if Nigeria is to reclaim its political space from these attack dogs, several steps must be taken. First, political leaders must stop rewarding aggression and start promoting professionalism. Media aides should be chosen for their skill and integrity, not their ability to trend on Twitter or insult opponents.

Second, there must be training and reorientation. Communication teams should undergo ethics training, media literacy workshops, and courses on responsible public engagement. Public discourse must be rescued from the gutter and returned to the realm of civility.

Third, regulatory bodies must wake up. There should be clear codes of conduct for government communication, especially on social media. Violations should attract sanctions, not just for the aides, but for the principals they represent.

Lastly, the media and civil society must continue to resist intimidation and call out toxic communication. Silence emboldens the attack dogs. But sustained pressure, fact-checking, and public shaming can help expose and neutralize them.

Without a doubt, the corridors of power are no place for attack dogs. Governance is a sacred trust, and communication is one of its most powerful tools. When that tool is used to attack rather than inform, to divide rather than unite, and to deceive rather than enlighten, democracy becomes the victim.

Nigeria must decide: will it continue down this path of toxic communication and broken discourse, or will it choose a higher road, where truth, decency, and respect guide our public conversations?

The microphone, the pen, smartphone, and even the computer should be an instrument of service, not weapons of war.