healthserve:
Illiterates with cultist based thinking. This is an APC school, I won't tolerate any criticism against APC. Since when did criticisms becomes so unacceptable in any democracy. These folks with their cultists based thinking will never understand the difference between a democracy and a cult.

Imagine the ridiculous statement coming out of the mouth of a supposed educationist what's the future of Nigeria institution of learning

healthserve:
Illiterates with cultist based thinking. This is an APC school, I won't tolerate any criticism against APC. Since when did criticisms becomes so unacceptable in any democracy. These folks with their cultists based thinking will never understand the difference between a democracy and a cult.

Imagine the ridiculous statement coming out of the mouth of a supposed educationist what's the future of Nigeria institution of learning?

QuickStandard:
Another scape goat





.




Mehn, this kwantiri Sha!!!

Katikati

Softwhales:


Imagine the ridiculous statement coming out of the mouth of a supposed educationist what's the future of Nigeria institution of learning?

You can imagine my brother. This is an APC school. Who has Nigerian offended to receive such treatment

YungJo207:


Let just keep hoping it doesn't happen cause if it does those same people too will be affected none will be saved from it.

They are fully aware of the consequences, reason they will keep doing anything to appease the sheeples

Ass licking Rector!!! No doubt

NaijaDonCast:
The Rector asslicker doesn't want to lose his job, its sad The supervisory team now facing DSS threats, the Journalist himself already arrested, is this democracy or Babylon?

Professional ass licking has become a full-time occupation for some people.

Have we asked at what modus operandi the efcc are acting on??

Sleevia:
I respect the way you presented your points. Are you a journalist?

Thanks.

No, I'm not a journalist. I only write as a hobby.

etrange:
I want Tinubu to be investigated. I am not a good fan of PMB. However, one would need to read the contents to know if the arrest is justified or not. Some of the titles up there are not any bit tactful. That's not journalism but partisanship.

Journalism is not about publicising your opinion on papers that are supposedly meant to be neutral. However, a good writer can always express his opinion either by tactfully presenting it as a reflection of other people's take or galvanizing it with empirical information such that his message would be received without creating room for any harassment.

"President Buhari does not believe in Nigeria" is a terrible title that appears far more opinionated than factual; this is regardless of how true it may be. A better title would have been "Presidents Buhari's loopsided appointments cast a shadow of doubt on his one-Nigeria mantra". Here, the number of Northerners heading different MDAs could serve as the backing empirical evidence. Besides, this title comes off as an expression of doubt and not a statement of fact thus protecting the writer. Another better title would be "President Buhari does not believe in Nigeria - Internet users". Here the writer would be presenting his case as an opinion of others and could easily fetch numerous online posts to back it up if push comes to shove.

Journalism requires tact and mind games. The students may not have these skills yet but the supervising lecturer whom I suppose is from the department of Mass Communication should have known better.

Poor guys...

Nice write up though based on a faulty submission.
There's nowhere in the world where journalism is expected to be neutral. A journalism outfit decides to either be partisan or neutral on any subject matter. For example, you'll agree with me that nta, frcn, nan are not neutral outfits. They are pro-government. In the US also for a better example, CNN are democrat leaning while fox are conservative. Thus, when a democrat is president, CNN becomes pro while fox become anti and vice versa.
While I agree our democracy has not developed to a state where mass media are allowed to toe partisan part, there's nothing that stops a media outfit from choosing a particular position to embrace on a particular subject be it, culture, religion, ethnicity etc.

Okoroawusa:
Everybody wan shine sha!.... which one "SSS Remo branch"? Mr Man go n sit down, DSS have better things to do

I hope you're aware DSS is in every local govt in Nigeria

Agboriotejoye:

Nice write up though based on a faulty submission.
There's nowhere in the world were journalism is expected to be neutral. A journalism outfit decides to either be partisan or neutral on any subject matter. For example, you'll agree with me that nta, frcn, nan are not neutral outfits. They are pro-government. In the US also for a better example, CNN are democrat leaning while fox are conservative. Thus, when a democrat is president, CNN becomes pro while fox become anti and vice versa.
While I agree our democracy has not developed to a state where mass media are allowed to toe partisan part, there's nothing that stops a media outfit from choosing a particular position to embrace on a particular subject be it, culture, religion, ethnicity etc.

Thanks for your observation.

However, in sharp contrary to your stance, Journalism is actually expected to be neutral everywhere in the world. There's what we call journalistic objectivity (JO) which requires that a journalist not be on either side of an argument. This concept of JO comprises three major sub concepts: truthfulness, neutrality and detachment. Quoting wiki:

"...Truthfulness is a commitment to reporting only accurate and truthful information, without skewing any facts or details to improve the story or better align an issue with any certain agenda. Neutrality suggests that stories be reported in an unbiased, even-handed, and impartial manner. The third idea, detachment, refers to the emotional approach of the journalist. Essentially, reporters should not only approach issues in an unbiased manner, but also with a dispassionate and emotionless attitude...

It will be much easier to accommodate if you posit that this is hardly ever the case. This is because there's a clear distinction between what is expected to be and what is obtainable. And that will take me back to my initial post where I acknowledged the fact that opinionated submissions are not totally uncommon in modern day journalism. This acknowledgment is embodied in my statement which goes thus:

"However, a good writer can always express his opinion either by tactfully presenting it as a reflection of other people's take or galvanizing it with empirical information such that his message would be received without creating room for any harassment."

The statement above constitutes the crux of my stance. Even the evidently biased news outlets you mentioned above still adopt tacts while presenting their cases. A title such as "President Donald Trump does not believe in the United States of America" would be an over ambitious campaign against the government and you'll agree with me such can never find it's way to CNN's news scripts.

Hahaha! Ass lickers are so desperate to earn praise from their masters that they can't help making fools of themselves.

So there is nothing in journalism known as editorials or opinion pieces?

Taking a stand or declaring an opinion is not at odds with objectivity.

Even a first year mass communications student understands this basic.

etrange:


Thanks for your observation.

However, in sharp contrary to your stance, Journalism is actually expected to be neutral everywhere in the world. There's what we call journalistic objectivity (JO) which requires that a journalist not be on either side of an argument. This concept of JO comprises three major sub concepts: truthfulness, neutrality and detachment. Quoting wiki:

"...Truthfulness is a commitment to reporting only accurate and truthful information, without skewing any facts or details to improve the story or better align an issue with any certain agenda. Neutrality suggests that stories be reported in an unbiased, even-handed, and impartial manner. The third idea, detachment, refers to the emotional approach of the journalist. Essentially, reporters should not only approach issues in an unbiased manner, but also with a dispassionate and emotionless attitude...

It will be much easier to accommodate if you posit that this is hardly ever the case. This is because there's a clear distinction between what is expected to be and what is obtainable. And that will take me back to my initial post where I acknowledged the fact that opinionated submissions are not totally uncommon in modern day journalism. This acknowledgment is embodied in my statement which goes thus:

"However, a good writer can always express his opinion either by tactfully presenting it as a reflection of other people's take or galvanizing it with empirical information such that his message would be received without creating room for any harassment."

The statement above constitutes the crux of my stance. Even the evidently biased news outlets you mentioned above still adopt tacts while presenting their cases. A title such as "President Donald Trump does not believe in the United States of America" would be an over ambitious campaign against the government and you'll agree with me such can never find it's way to CNN's news scripts.

TheExecutioner:

Hahaha! Ass lickers are so desperate to earn praise from their masters that they can't help making fools of themselves.

So there is nothing in journalism known as editorials or opinion pieces?

Taking a stand or declaring an opinion is not at odds with objectivity.

Even a first year mass communications student understands this basic.

I will not even attempt to engage you. Your first line shows you lack the required etiquette for a formal debate. Enjoy your day.

etrange:


Thanks for your observation.

However, in sharp contrary to your stance, Journalism is actually expected to be neutral everywhere in the world. There's what we call journalistic objectivity (JO) which requires that a journalist not be on either side of an argument. This concept of JO comprises three major sub concepts: truthfulness, neutrality and detachment. Quoting wiki:

"...Truthfulness is a commitment to reporting only accurate and truthful information, without skewing any facts or details to improve the story or better align an issue with any certain agenda. Neutrality suggests that stories be reported in an unbiased, even-handed, and impartial manner. The third idea, detachment, refers to the emotional approach of the journalist. Essentially, reporters should not only approach issues in an unbiased manner, but also with a dispassionate and emotionless attitude...

It will be much easier to accommodate if you posit that this is hardly ever the case. This is because there's a clear distinction between what is expected to be and what is obtainable. And that will take me back to my initial post where I acknowledged the fact that opinionated submissions are not totally uncommon in modern day journalism. This acknowledgment is embodied in my statement which goes thus:

"However, a good writer can always express his opinion either by tactfully presenting it as a reflection of other people's take or galvanizing it with empirical information such that his message would be received without creating room for any harassment."

The statement above constitutes the crux of my stance. Even the evidently biased news outlets you mentioned above still adopt tacts while presenting their cases. A title such as "President Donald Trump does not believe in the United States of America" would be an over ambitious campaign against the government and you'll agree with me such can never find it's way to CNN's news scripts.

I tried to read through the Wikipedia page and while I agree and see your point, I think I should call your attention to this point below under the heading "alternative" from the same page.

"ISome argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and accuracy (as enshrined in the names of groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Under this standard, taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate and the other side was given a fair chance to respond. Many professionals believe that true objectivity in journalism is not possible and reporters must seek balance in their stories (giving all sides their respective points of view), which fosters fairness."
If you watch CNN as I do, you will probably be alarmed as I always am at the manner in which they attack Donald Trump's govt and even person. While I see method in their madness as they always seem stick to facts as you said, it is important to stress that NO headline is beyond them. They may go about proving it, but they don't seem be held back. Another important one I should draw to your attention is the article by a UK newspaper can't recall the name now that referred to former president Goodluck Jonathan as ineffectual buffoon. I used to think that was wrong but still I doubt if any media outlet in Nigeria can refer to any leader with such uncharitable words. Note though that it's not only a foreign leader they address as such, even theirs are not spared.
I would like some enlightenment on this.
Thank you

healthserve:
Illiterates with cultist based thinking. This is an APC school, I won't tolerate any criticism against APC. Since when did criticisms becomes so unacceptable in any democracy. These folks with their cultists based thinking will never understand the difference between a democracy and a cult.

Because of daily bread the man sold his conscience sharp sharp

Bad Government

I can't believe a rector said all these, 'APC SCHOOL ' why is everyone afraid of Buhari? Is this Buhari a human being at all? This fear of Buhari is becoming unbecoming. God save Nigeria.

reccy:
This is a good development.... Kudos to the Rector for making use of his brain.....

You don't open your mouth to spew thrash against the government that's trying hard to bring sanity and development to our society just because you're a campus journalist or lecturer

God bless PMB

God bless Nigeria.

You are a fool for making that statement, Nigeria is drowning everyday in dictatorship and tyranny. You don't know what you are saying at all. Next year u go see am

We living in a shit hole called a country

Agboriotejoye:

I tried to read through the Wikipedia page and while I agree and see your point, I think I should call your attention to this point below under the heading "alternative" from the same page.

"ISome argue that a more appropriate standard should be fairness and accuracy (as enshrined in the names of groups like Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting). Under this standard, taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate and the other side was given a fair chance to respond. Many professionals believe that true objectivity in journalism is not possible and reporters must seek balance in their stories (giving all sides their respective points of view), which fosters fairness."
If you watch CNN as I do, you will probably be alarmed as I always am at the manner in which they attack Donald Trump's govt and even person. While I see method in their madness as they always seem stick to facts as you said, it is important to stress that NO headline is beyond them. They may go about proving it, but they don't seem be held back. Another important one I should draw to your attention is the article by a UK newspaper can't recall the name now that referred to former president Goodluck Jonathan as ineffectual buffoon. I used to think that was wrong but still I doubt if any media outlet in Nigeria can refer to any leader with such uncharitable words. Note though that it's not only a foreign leader they address as such, even theirs are not spared.
I would like some enlightenment on this.
Thank you

Please, permit me to simply ride on the excerpt you quoted above and also adopt CNN as a case study.

For every school of thought, there's an alternative and I never lost sight of that fact. The advocacy to move away from objective journalism has been there for ages but yet to actually find it's way out of the academia. This is because its practicality is highly in doubt. A line from your quote above says "... taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate" and the question would be: who says what is accurate and what's not? Reporting facts is the objective of journalism and once opinions are allowed to freely creep in, even the actual facts would be in doubt. This is why virtually all news agencies have adopted the objectivity standard. Whether they're actually objective or not, I will talk about shortly. However, this public adoption of objectivity has come to serve as their own self imposed restrain that checkmates their excesses as it's difficult to profess a standard and publicly go against it.

Now, are they really objective? Evidently, they are not. Even I would agree to that. And your examples have done justice to that claim. However, this was never the bone of contention. The debate here is the manner in which they go about expressing their lack of objectivity. For a media outlet who takes pride in referring to themselves as "objective" and would go to any length to argue this, you'll agree with me that they already naturally have a limit to which they can express their opinions without attracting severe criticism (which CNN has suffered in the past). This limitation makes it impossible for such non tactful headlines as "President Trump does not believe in the US" to ever appear on their screen. Typical CNN would say "Does President Trump believe in the US?". Now that's tact. They could get someone to say Trump does not believe in the US and then go ahead to quote that person; that's tactics. These are skills that the students above lack.

The Economists magazin did tag GEJ as "ineffectual buffoon" and that drew sharp criticism from journalists and non journalists alike. They made that slip and that doesn't in any way make it right. That was crude journalism and not worthy of emulation. That shouldn't be cited where standard journalistic practices are being discussed cause they didn't just express their opinion, they went as low as name calling.

Now, the difference between The Economist and the students above is that latter's titles were accusatory in nature and therefore opened them up to legal harassment. Something they could have easily avoided by applying some more skills. Like I said in my first statement, one would have to read the writeup to know if the invite was necessary or not but going by the headline, it's clear the content won't be any better delivered.

SenecaTheYonger:


Carry this nonsense to Facebook

Chibest2000:
I can't believe a rector said all these, 'APC SCHOOL ' why is everyone afraid of Buhari? Is this Buhari a human being at all? This fear of Buhari is becoming unbecoming. God save Nigeria.

Na so we see am ooooo. I'm not sure public service rules allows civil servants to be overtly partisan.

etrange:


Please, permit me to simply ride on the excerpt you quoted above and also adopt CNN as a case study.

For every school of thought, there's an alternative and I never lost sight of that fact. The advocacy to move away from objective journalism has been there for ages but yet to actually find it's way out of the academia. This is because its practicality is highly in doubt. A line from your quote above says "... taking sides on an issue would be permitted as long as the side taken was accurate" and the question would be: who says what is accurate and what's not? Reporting facts is the objective of journalism and once opinions are allowed to freely creep in, even the actual facts would be in doubt. This is why virtually all news agencies have adopted the objectivity standard. Whether they're actually objective or not, I will talk about shortly. However, this public adoption of objectivity has come to serve as their own self imposed restrain that checkmates their excesses as it's difficult to profess a standard and publicly go against it.

Now, are they really objective? Evidently, they are not. Even I would agree to that. And your examples have done justice to that claim. However, this was never the bone of contention. The debate here is the manner in which they go about expressing their lack of objectivity. For a media outlet who takes pride in referring to themselves as "objective" and would go to any length to argue this, you'll agree with me that they already naturally have a limit to which they can express their opinions without attracting severe criticism (which CNN has suffered in the past). This limitation makes it impossible for such non tactful headlines as "President Trump does not believe in the US" to ever appear on their screen. Typical CNN would say "Does President Trump believe in the US?". Now that's tact. They could get someone to say Trump does not believe in the US and then go ahead to quote that person; that's tactics. These are skills that the students above lack.

The Economists magazin did tag GEJ as "ineffectual buffoon" and that drew sharp criticism from journalists and non journalists alike. They made that slip and that doesn't in any way make it right. That was crude journalism and not worthy of emulation. That shouldn't be cited where standard journalistic practices are being discussed cause they didn't just express their opinion, they went as low as name calling.

Now, the difference between The Economist and the students above is that latter's titles were accusatory in nature and therefore opened them up to legal harassment. Something they could have easily avoided by applying some more skills. Like I said in my first statement, one would have to read the writeup to know if the invite was necessary or not but going by the headline, it's clear the content won't be any better delivered.

I really doubt your assertion that its practicality is in doubt. If major news outlets in the West seem to have adopted it, I don't know what you mean by impracticability.
You still insist that CNN can't use that headline? Ok here's an headline today from Washington post, another democrat leaning newspaper: Trump's Threat To Democracy. Just Google it.

While The economist described GEj with those words, what was overwhelmingly loud was adulation here in Nigeria. No one and I repeat no one complained against the words. Some journalists in Nigeria actually borrowed those words in their articles too.

Now to the issue which I think this discourse is premised on. The repercussions of not being seen as objective for a media house. Here in Nigeria, a lecturer has just been sacked because of a headline. The journalist has also been "invited" by the DSS. The fact is the DSS are not in position to regulate the media space. Neither is it right for a rector to sack a lecturer simply because he's not comfortable with an editorial headline.
This is what does not happen in civilised climes.
If anyone in govt feels a news headline is a threat to public peace, the right place to go is the court not arbitrary detention.
As we have both seen and acknowledged, objectivity is not a frontal requirement in modern journalism in western democracies. The trend is towards accuracy of facts and fairness of opinion. Even those are subject to interpretation since we now have the phenomenon of alternate facts.

etrange:
I want Tinubu to be investigated. I am not a good fan of PMB. However, one would need to read the contents to know if the arrest is justified or not. Some of the titles up there are not any bit tactful. That's not journalism but partisanship.

Journalism is not about publicising your opinion on papers that are supposedly meant to be neutral. However, a good writer can always express his opinion either by tactfully presenting it as a reflection of other people's take or galvanizing it with empirical information such that his message would be received without creating room for any harassment.

"President Buhari does not believe in Nigeria" is a terrible title that appears far more opinionated than factual; this is regardless of how true it may be. A better title would have been "Presidents Buhari's loopsided appointments cast a shadow of doubt on his one-Nigeria mantra". Here, the number of Northerners heading different MDAs could serve as the backing empirical evidence. Besides, this title comes off as an expression of doubt and not a statement of fact thus protecting the writer. Another better title would be "President Buhari does not believe in Nigeria - Internet users". Here the writer would be presenting his case as an opinion of others and could easily fetch numerous online posts to back it up if push comes to shove.

Journalism requires tact and mind games. The students may not have these skills yet but the supervising lecturer whom I suppose is from the department of Mass Communication should have known better.

Poor guys...

Please pay no heed to this tyranny enabler, he's obviously ignorant about what the basic tenets of journalism are. There is nothing wrong with the titles of those op-eds. News firms in saner clime use harsher headlines without no harrassment from secret police.

Agboriotejoye:

I really doubt your assertion that its practicality is in doubt. If major news outlets in the West seem to have adopted it, I don't know what you mean by impracticability.
You still insist that CNN can't use that headline? Ok here's an headline today from Washington post, another democrat leaning newspaper: Trump's Threat To Democracy. Just Google it.

While The economist described GEj with those words, what was overwhelmingly loud was adulation here in Nigeria. No one and I repeat no one complained against the words. Some journalists in Nigeria actually borrowed those words in their articles too.

Now to the issue which I think this discourse is premised on. The repercussions of not being seen as objective for a media house. Here in Nigeria, a lecturer has just been sacked because of a headline. The journalist has also been "invited" by the DSS. The fact is the DSS are not in position to regulate the media space. Neither is it right for a rector to sack a lecturer simply because he's not comfortable with an editorial headline.
This is what does not happen in civilised climes.
If anyone in govt feels a news headline is a threat to public peace, the right place to go is the court not arbitrary detention.
As we have both seen and acknowledged, objectivity is not a frontal requirement in modern journalism in western democracies. The trend is towards accuracy of facts and fairness of opinion. Even those are subject to interpretation since we now have the phenomenon of alternate facts.

First, I still do not believe any western media news outlet publicly profess opinionated journalism over objectivity. Don't get me wrong, whether they are being objective or not is a different thing. But in theory, most media outlets have objectivity as their mantra. My point is, when they want to sell their opinion, they do with tact to avoid criticisms or legal harassment. I don't know the article you mentioned (I'll check it out later, I promise) but I'm almost certain it must be an editorial. An editorial is a section where the writer is allowed to express how own personal opinion which does not necessarily have to reflect the stance of the media outlet. In editorials, the writer is just like you and I typing here on NL; virtually anything goes since it's an open space.

The Economists got backlashes just as much as they were lauded. The article came at a time when Nigeria was greatly divided along political lines so it's not surprise if a certain group of people accepted it and even inculcated it into their active language.

Thank you for bringing us back to the bone of contention. If you scroll up, you'd see I've said it over and over again that knowing the content of the writeup would help make a better judgement. I'm not in any way defending DSS. I live in the abroad and I know how things should be. I'm only saying what the young journalists would have done to avert such ugly situation given the country we live in. They could have made themselves so slippery such that they would be no way to hold them down.

While it is undemocratic to harass people based on their opinions, an accusation/defamation is something very serious and some of the titles there are accusatory in nature (or could be interpreted to be). Their enemies could easily ride on this to reach them. With better wordings, those same articles could have still gone out without creating rooms for such incidence. As a journalist, one is expected to understand his environment and know how to circumvent unwanted situations. I wouldn't write the way I write in the US in Iraq. It's just like someone drafting a legal document (a contract for instance), they work hard to endure no line could be given an interpretation that would work against them. Journalism is not far from this analogy.

LOL. I thought I was the only one who found that particular phrase quite incomprehensible


O pari

MondayOsunbor:



Reporting Sowore’s story and writing against Tinubu, this is an APC school and I’m an APC member.

Before they sack me, I will sack her first,

abeg my brain can not process these infomation abeg i need help?

what is this man talking about and what is the story about? is this a joke?

etrange:


First, I still do not believe any western media news outlet publicly profess opinionated journalism over objectivity. Don't get me wrong, whether they are being objective or not is a different thing. But in theory, most media outlets have objectivity as their mantra. My point is, when they want to sell their opinion, they do with tact to avoid criticisms or legal harassment. I don't know the article you mentioned (I'll check it out later, I promise) but I'm almost certain it must be an editorial. An editorial is a section where the writer is allowed to express how own personal opinion which does not necessarily have to reflect the stance of the media outlet. In editorials, the writer is just like you and I typing here on NL; virtually anything goes since it's an open space.

The Economists got backlashes just as much as they were lauded. The article came at a time when Nigeria was greatly divided along political lines so it's not surprise if a certain group of people accepted it and even inculcated it into their active language.

Thank you for bringing us back to the bone of contention. If you scroll up, you'd see I've said it over and over again that knowing the content of the writeup would help make a better judgement. I'm not in any way defending DSS. I live in the abroad and I know how things should be. I'm only saying what the young journalists would have done to avert such ugly situation given the country we live in. They could have made themselves so slippery such that they would be no way to hold them down.

While it is undemocratic to harass people based on their opinions, an accusation/defamation is something very serious and some of the titles there are accusatory in nature (or could be interpreted to be). Their enemies could easily ride on this to reach them. With better wordings, those same articles could have still gone out without creating rooms for such incidence. As a journalist, one is expected to understand his environment and know how to circumvent unwanted situations. I wouldn't write the way I write in the US in Iraq. It's just like someone drafting a legal document (a contract for instance), they work hard to endure no line could be given an interpretation that would work against them. Journalism is not far from this analogy.

I have already shown you evidence of media dat are not objective. They pursue a certain agenda using facts. Facts is what they claim to work with not objectivity. Check CNN advertorials. But that is immaterial. It seems you didn't read the op before jumping in. The three titles are most certainly editorials and not news articles. Good you agreed articles are opinions. It proves what I've said that media are allowed to have an opinion. Punch just made use of theirs recently.
Nigeria is not Iraq. Comparing Nigeria with Iraq should be a shameful thing for any Nigerian who loves and believes in our democracy to do. Even when we operated a dictatorship like Abacha's, news editorials were confrontational, blunt and irrepressible in laying into the government. Check out TELL, Punch and newswatch in those times. They never sugarcoated their publications. It's a sad commentary when you expect a journalist in a 20year old democracy to consider "environment" in writing articles. It shows you don't understand what democracy is about nor the principle behind freedom of speech. Take my advice. If you really love Nigeria, condemn in its entirety any attempt at muzzling the media. Press freedom is part of what we signed up for in 1999. If any news outlet goes out of line, there are enough mechanisms to correct dat. Osinbajo made use of such when a false story was published about him. But it seems Buhari especially is uncomfortable with media scrutiny.

P.S: Whether you live abroad or Nigeria is immaterial. The important thing is freedom of expression and press freedom are important part of democracy and should be jealously protected by all

Agboriotejoye:


I have already shown you evidence of media dat are not objective. They pursue a certain agenda using facts. Facts is what they claim to work with not objectivity. Check CNN advertorials. But that is immaterial. It seems you didn't read the op before jumping in. The three titles are most certainly editorials and not news articles. Good you agreed articles are opinions. It proves what I've said that media are allowed to have an opinion. Punch just made use of theirs recently.
Nigeria is not Iraq. Comparing Nigeria with Iraq should be a shameful thing for any Nigerian who loves and believes in our democracy to do. Even when we operated a dictatorship like Abacha's, news editorials were confrontational, blunt and irrepressible in laying into the government. Check out TELL, Punch and newswatch in those times. They never sugarcoated their publications. It's a sad commentary when you expect a journalist in a 20year old democracy to consider "environment" in writing articles. It shows you don't understand what democracy is about nor the principle behind freedom of speech. Take my advice. If you really love Nigeria, condemn in its entirety any attempt at muzzling the media. Press freedom is part of what we signed up for in 1999. If any news outlet goes out of line, there are enough mechanisms to correct dat. Osinbajo made use of such when a false story was published about him. But it seems Buhari especially is uncomfortable with media scrutiny.

P.S: Whether you live abroad or Nigeria is immaterial. The important thing is freedom of expression and press freedom are important part of democracy and should be jealously protected by all

Firstly, saying I didn't read before "jumping in" gives the impression you're already worked up and that's a red flag. I'll just let that go. The OP never explicitly stated it was an editorial.

Back to the issue, telling me how what DSS did was wrong shows you still do not or have deliberately refused to appreciate my stance. I am not arguing for DSS or any politician out there. Nobody has the right to arrest anyone or harass another cause of the issue at hand. And I do not know much about our politics to even address most of the points you made above and I won't pretend to do. I was only advocating for smarter journalism. One that creates little or no room for an interpretation that can be used against the writer maliciously. I was not comparing Nigeria to Iraq and it is laughable if that was your take from my analogy. I believe I was clear on all these. Fact is, regardless of how you view it, there is a form of oppression going on in that school (which I believe the writer is aware of) and the best way to fight this oppression in a seemingly democratic environment like ours is to not give the oppressors any ground to stand on and being tactful is one of the ways to achieve that.

I'm sorry for saying I stay in the abroad. I didn't know you would dedicate a whole paragraph to address what you refer to as insignificant. It was just to buttress a point.

etrange:


Firstly, saying I didn't read before "jumping in" gives the impression you're already worked up and that's a red flag. I'll just let that go. The OP never explicitly stated it was an editorial.

Back to the issue, telling me how what DSS did was wrong shows you still do not or have deliberately refused to appreciate my stance. I am not arguing for DSS or any politician out there. Nobody has the right to arrest anyone or harass another cause of the issue at hand. And I do not know much about our politics to even address most of the points you made above and I won't pretend to do. I was only advocating for smarter journalism. One that creates little or no room for an interpretation that can be used against the writer maliciously. I was not comparing Nigeria to Iraq and it is laughable if that was your take from my analogy. I believe I was clear on all these. Fact is, regardless of how you view it, there is a form of oppression going on in that school (which I believe the writer is aware of) and the best way to fight this oppression in a seemingly democratic environment like ours is to not give the oppressors any ground to stand on and being tactful is one of the ways to achieve that.

I'm sorry for saying I stay in the abroad. I didn't know you would dedicate a whole paragraph to address what you refer to as insignificant. It was just to buttress a point.

Here:

The campus newspaper had recently published articles demanding good governance and obedience to rule of law in Nigeria.
Some of the articles published include:

'Will EFCC investigate Chief Bola Tinubu?',

'Sowore: An equal opportunity offender', and

'President Buhari does not believe in Nigeria'.

This is from the op which shows the articles were editorials esp the bolded.

You're still repeating the mistake. No such thing as tact is needed in journalism. What is important is truth, facts, clarity, fairness and yes objectivity.
The moment you're advocating for tact in journalism is when you activate an attempt to gag them. The constitution guarantees press freedom regardless of how bitter and unsavoury their activities may be to politicians. In fighting for civil rights, human rights and even democracy, from Martin Luther to Martin Luther king, tact has never been a desirable trait. It's airways been boldness, courage, clarity from Dare babarinsa to ray ekpu even dele Giwa who would rather die than employ tact, journalism has been about saying it as it is not as it should sound. Any other thing is hypocrisy and a descent to fascism

P.S: Like I said, your staying abroad is immaterial. It's even a surprise you stay abroad and you're advocating for "press tact". You should know better and demand better

Agboriotejoye:


Here:

This is from the op which shows the articles were editorials esp the bolded.

You're still repeating the mistake. No such thing as tact is needed in journalism. What is important is truth, facts, clarity, fairness and yes objectivity.
The moment you're advocating for tact in journalism is when you activate an attempt to gag them. The constitution guarantees press freedom regardless of how bitter and unsavoury their activities may be to politicians. In fighting for civil rights, human rights and even democracy, from Martin Luther to Martin Luther king, tact has never been a desirable trait. It's airways been boldness, courage, clarity from Dare babarinsa to ray ekpu even dele Giwa who would rather die than employ tact, journalism has been about saying it as it is not as it should sound. Any other thing is hypocrisy and a descent to fascism

P.S: Like I said, your staying abroad is immaterial. It's even a surprise you stay abroad and you're advocating for "press tact". You should know better and demand better

To avoid running in circles, let me lead with a question that will help me understand.

If I get you clearly, you believe fact is important in journalism and at the same time, opinions and partisanship should be embraced? And there's no need for tact while presenting one's view?

Note: Can you just let the abroad thing be? I'm struggling to understand why that part irks.