Journalism is not strange to peculiar challenges thrown at it by changing societal circumstances which, in themselves, are the challenges of the times. Rough and tough times are inevitable in all societies, developed and under-developed. But whenever a society is passing through times such as we are now passing through in Nigeria, the news media stand the risk of being held responsible for whatever ails the society. Editors and their reporters become the first professional casualties in the war of attrition. It is neither unusual nor unreasonable to blame the messenger for conveying the message. The watch words are: watch out. Don’t get sucked into it. Let the politicians dance in the market place, if they will.
The 21st century is mankind’s most technologically advanced in its tortuous history. It ought to be much easier now to gather and process information for the primary purpose of informing, educating and entertaining the public. That simple act is no longer that simple any more. It is fraught with dangers of manufactured information and information designed to profile ethnic and sub-ethnic as well as religious and politically disadvantaged groups.
The news media face a new and potent poison working its way into its veins. Fake news and hate speech are so complicated that it is easy for an editor to step over the line and impugn the integrity of his medium. They represent bad journalism. We must see them as the new challenges to good journalism. We must work hard to protect good journalism from being overwhelmed by this blight and watch, horror of horrors, our respectable profession made to head for the darkness of ignorance in this blessed age of enlightenment. Editors and their reporters must brace up for this latest threat to good journalism.
Fake news mutated into its current virulent form from propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. If those were mild forms of misleading the people, fake news is deliberate falsehood designed not merely to mislead but to poison the minds of people and force them to act in a manner detrimental to the collective interests of the society. The good thing is that media professionals and academics, worried by the real threats of fake news and hate speech, are taking up the challenges of stopping them or minimizing their hold and effect on both the news media and the public at large.
One of such latest efforts was the colloquium organized by the Olusegun Obasanjo Centre for Africa of the National Open University of Nigeria in Abuja on July 16 this year. The one topic colloquium featured an interesting lecture by Ray Ekpu on fake news and hate speech. The discussants were erudite scholars and some of the leading professional media men and women in the country. The discussion was led by Bishop Hassan Kukah, Catholic Bishop of Sokoto diocese. It paraded such media and legal luminaries as Senator Chris Anyanwu, Dr Reuben Abati, former presidential spokesman, Professor Chidi Odinkalu, former chairman of the National Human Rights Commission, Ms Funke Egbemode, president of the Nigerian Guild of Editors, Dr Obadiah Mailafia and Dr Nduka Otiono.
This is not a report on the colloquium. My purpose is to draw attention to Ekpu’s conclusion in which he raised some pertinent questions and issues on fake news and hate speech because I believe that pondering them would not only keep fake news and hate speech in focus but also help the media and women whose sad duty it is to sift the chaff of falsehood and hate from the grains of truth and honesty as our country finds itself once more convulsed in existential threats.
Here is part of what Ekpu said:
In most African countries, there is no law on Hate Speech. Last year or so a member of Nigeria’s National Assembly was canvassing for the enactment of a law that will punish hate speech with a death penalty. No one has raised it again. However, in South Africa there is the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill which is based on the constitutional provision that “everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.” But the protection excludes (a) propaganda for war (b) incitement of imminent violence (c) advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion and that constitutes incitement to cause harm. The bill is very wide ranging and does not make a distinction between hate speech and extreme speech. The excuse for having this kind of legislation is that in South Africa there is a historical relevance because of its struggle against apartheid.
Let me conclude this speech by making a few declaratory remarks:
(1) Online media have liberalized access to information and have expanded the sources of information available to the public. It has also provided relevance to the Office of the Citizen.
(2) The public conversation conducted on the internet is done by billions world-wide. Is it possible that these multiple voices can lead to societal fragmentation and centrifugalism?
(3) It is obvious that fake news published by either digital or mainstream media especially on volatile issues such as religion, politics and ethnicity can lead to hate speech. Hate speech, in turn, can lead to violence or discrimination or hostility. What should society do about fake news and hate speech so that society’s equilibrium can be maintained?
(4) Fake news and hate speech have been fingered for the Asaba massacre of August 1967 and the Rwanda genocide of 1994. How can society avoid a repeat of such heinous crimes today?
(5) The spirit of mercantilism is a major driving force in the social media where they seek to acquire power without responsibility, what has been described as the prerogative of the harlot.
(6) Technology has brought unprecedented positive changes to the way we live and communicate. However, technology is a double-edged sword. It can cut for us or cut against us. With technology we have apparently reached a point of no return. With the high level of unruliness that we find in the internet can we get our lives back?
(7) What can we do about the elasticity of fake news and the near undefinability of hate speech? How can both be curbed?
(8) Operators in the social media have claimed victory on three current issues (a) the suspension of the Ruga settlement issue (b) the stepping aside of Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo over rape accusations and (c) the trial of Senator Elisha Abbo. In an era of media convergence and a resurgence of activism by better society groups can the social media justifiably claim to be the sole problem solver as far as these three issues are concerned?
(9) Where do we draw the line between hate speech and extreme speech and how can free speech be protected from annihilation?
(10) How do we establish a higher standard for truth and fairness in the media, digital and mainstream, so that our society can enjoy the gifts of accountability, transparency and enhanced public good?
