Stop Calling Every Difficult Question From A Journalist An Attack -By Isaac Asabor

There is something seriously wrong with the way journalism is sometimes interpreted in Nigeria. A journalist calls a politician, businessman, government official or other public figure to seek his reaction to an allegation, and the first question that comes back is not, “What is the allegation?” but, “Who sent you?” Na wao! A journalist asks a difficult question, and suddenly the journalist is accused of working for an opponent. As if the embarrassment to the Journalist is not enough, he seeks clarification on an uncomfortable issue, and someone concludes that the he is on a mission to destroy a reputation. In fact, it is absurd an interviewee’s supporters to begin search for the political sponsor behind the question whenever a journalist presents a contradiction in a public official’s statements and asks for an explanation. Given the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is not out of place to conclude that it is an unfortunate misunderstanding of journalism. In fact, it is a dangerous one. This is as Journalists are supposed to ask questions. difficult questions included.

In fact, Journalists ask difficult questions primarily because it is their professional responsibility to seek the truth, scrutinize claims and hold powerful individuals and institutions accountable. As Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel emphasize in The Elements of Journalism, journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.

Public officials and other influential figures may present carefully prepared narratives or talking points, but tough questions help journalists move beyond those official positions and uncover the fuller picture. Such questions also enable the press to serve as a check on power by challenging unverified claims, demanding transparency and drawing attention to issues that might otherwise remain hidden.

Most importantly, journalists often ask the uncomfortable questions that members of the public would ask if they had direct access to those making decisions on their behalf. Tough questioning, therefore, is not necessarily an attack on the person being interviewed; it is an essential part of journalism’s responsibility to the public.

Indeed, in serious journalism, asking questions that may make people uncomfortable is not an aberration. It is part of the job. So, when a Nigerian journalist contacts somebody who has been criticized and asks, “What is your response?”, that journalist is not necessarily attacking the person. The journalist may simply be “doing ideal journalism”. Unfortunately, we have developed a culture in which people often want the journalist to report their version of events without subjecting it to scrutiny. Unfortunately, that is not ideally how to be a professional Journalist, particularly as everybody wants to tell his story. Politicians want to tell their story. Government officials want to tell their story. Corporate executives want to tell their story. Political parties want to tell their story. But journalism is not public relations.

The journalist’s responsibility is not merely to provide a microphone. It is to listen, interrogate, verify, cross-check and, where necessary, challenge. That is where the provocative question comes in. A provocative question, properly used, is not an insult. It is not a declaration of war. It is not evidence of political sponsorship. It is a “newsgathering technique”.

In many parts of the world, journalists routinely put uncomfortable questions to people in positions of power. They challenge inconsistencies, confront interviewees with documented evidence, quote their critics and ask them to explain positions that appear contradictory.

Given the foregoing, every reader of this piece may be compelled to ask “Why?” The answer cannot be farfetched as public figures are not always going to volunteer the information that the public needs. And in an era of sophisticated public relations, that challenge has become even greater.

In fact, today’s public figure rarely walks into an interview unprepared. There are media advisers, communications consultants, talking points, prepared statements and carefully rehearsed answers. Ask a straightforward question and you may receive a five-minute answer that manages to avoid the question completely. Ask again and another five-minute answer arrives. Ask a third time and suddenly the interview has become a press conference. The journalist is left wondering whether he or she is conducting an interview or attending a political rally. This is precisely why journalists sometimes have to change the framing of a question, challenge an assertion or put an uncomfortable proposition directly before an interviewee.

Asking an interviewee, particularly politicians, a difficult question is not hostility. That is accountability. But there is an important caveat. Not every aggressive question is good journalism. A journalist who insults an interviewee, manufactures controversy or deliberately provokes somebody merely to create a viral video is not demonstrating professional courage. That is sensationalism. There is a difference between being tough and being rude. There is a difference between being persistent and being abusive. There is a difference between challenging an answer and imposing one’s personal opinion. The journalist must know where that line is. The best provocative question is not the loudest one. It is the one that is backed by facts. It may be based on a document, an earlier statement, an official record, a financial figure, a court proceeding, a previous interview or a contradiction that requires explanation.

The journalist does not need to shout. He simply needs to ask: “You said this yesterday. Today, you are saying this. Which one should Nigerians believe?” That question may be uncomfortable. But if the contradiction exists, asking about it is legitimate. The problem in Nigeria is that the discomfort generated by such questions is often mistaken for evidence of bias. This is where our political culture has made journalism unnecessarily difficult.

Because political loyalty is so intense, some people find it almost impossible to imagine an independent journalist. If you ask questions about Party A, you must belong to Party B. If you criticize Governor X, you must be working for Governor Y. If you question a minister, someone must have paid you. If you expose a corporate irregularity, you must be working for a competitor. This mentality reduces journalism to political mercenary work. It suggests that journalists cannot possibly act out of professional duty, curiosity, public interest or a simple desire to establish facts. That assumption should be rejected.

A journalist can ask questions without taking sides. A journalist can criticize a government today and criticize the opposition tomorrow. A journalist can challenge a businessman and, in another story, challenge the regulators overseeing his industry. The standard should be the same: “What are the facts? What does the evidence show? What is in the public interest?”

Indeed, seeking a response from someone facing criticism is not only legitimate; it is part of responsible journalism. Imagine a newspaper publishes an allegation against a public official without contacting that official. The newspaper could then rightly be accused of failing to give the subject an opportunity to respond. But when the journalist makes the call and asks for a reaction, the journalist is accused of trying to embarrass the official. That is a contradiction. The request for a response is supposed to protect fairness, not undermine it. And this is something public figures and their media aides should understand. Being asked a difficult question is not the same as being accused of wrongdoing.

Given the backdrop of the foregoing view, it is expedient to advise that if the allegation is false, the respondent should say so. If the journalist has got the facts wrong, correct the record. If there is evidence that contradicts the allegation, present it. If the question is based on a misunderstanding, explain the circumstances. But attacking the journalist does not answer the question. “Who sent you?” is not a response to an allegation. “Which political party do you support?” does not explain a missing figure. “You are trying to bring me down” does not resolve a contradiction. The journalist’s identity is not the issue. The issue is the question.

Of course, journalists themselves must earn the right to demand this respect. They must be accurate. They must verify information. They must avoid deliberately misleading questions. They must distinguish fact from assumption. They must give subjects a fair opportunity to respond. They must avoid conflicts of interest and resist attempts to turn journalism into political advocacy. Professional independence is a three-way street. Journalists must uphold it. Public officials must respect it. Audiences must understand it.

There is also an important distinction between a journalist asking a provocative question and a journalist making a provocative accusation. The former can be legitimate journalism. The latter can easily become irresponsible.

A question should open the door to an answer, not close it before the interviewee speaks. That is why preparation matters. The journalist who asks a difficult question should know why the question is being asked and what evidence supports it. A provocative question without evidence is merely provocation. A provocative question backed by facts is journalism. Nigeria needs more of the latter.

We are living in a country where powerful interests have enormous communication machinery at their disposal. Government ministries have spokespersons. Political parties have media teams. Politicians have social-media armies. Corporations have public-relations consultants. Everybody is communicating. The journalist’s job is to “interrogate the communication” That is the difference between journalism and publicity.

The public does not need journalists who merely repeat what powerful people say. It needs journalists who ask the next question. And sometimes, the next question is the most important one. It may be uncomfortable. It may irritate the interviewee. It may generate accusations against the journalist. But if it is fair, evidence-based, relevant and in the public interest, it deserves to be asked.

Nigeria must therefore stop treating every uncomfortable question as an attack. A journalist asking a politician to explain a contradiction is not necessarily working for the opposition. A journalist asking a businessman to respond to an allegation is not necessarily trying to destroy his business. A journalist asking a government official to justify a controversial decision is not necessarily anti-government. Sometimes, the journalist is simply doing what journalists are supposed to do. “Ask. Probe. Verify. Challenge. Seek the other side. And tell the public what can be established.”

The journalist is not the enemy because the question is uncomfortable. The uncomfortable question may actually be the reason the journalist is there. And if Nigeria wants a stronger democracy, it should learn to welcome, not demonise, the journalist who has the courage to ask it.