By Ehi Braimah

The dramatic encounter between Lere Olayinka, senior special assistant on public communication and social media to the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, Nyesom Wike, and Arise News anchor Rufai Oseni on The Morning Show last Friday has generated considerable debate about journalism, the conduct of public officials and their spokespersons, and the boundaries of adversarial journalism. It was an unnecessary spectacle.

Also read: Presidency Rejects Speculation on Tinubu FBI Files

Lere Olayinka was invited to appear on the programme anchored by Dr Reuben Abati, Ayo Mairo-Ese and Rufai Oseni. Lere knew, or ought to have known, that all three anchors were part of the programme.

He accepted the invitation and entered the Arise News Abuja studio. He answered questions from Abati and Ayo. But when it became Rufai’s turn, Lere declared that he would not answer his questions because he regarded Rufai as an “enemy” and wanted to engage only with “reasonable human beings.” That was provocative and unacceptable.

A spokesperson for a public official does not have the luxury of selecting which journalist is sufficiently “reasonable” to ask questions.

Once a government spokesperson voluntarily accepts an invitation to a major television programme, he should expect difficult questions, including questions he may consider uncomfortable, hostile or unfair.

The proper response is to answer, challenge the premise of the question, correct the interviewer, or decline to answer a particular question for a legitimate reason.

What he should not do is attempt to determine which of the programme’s anchors is entitled to interview him.

Ayo Mairo-Ese was therefore right to intervene and terminate the interview. Her point was simple: Since you are aware there are three anchors on the programme and accept the invitation, you cannot subsequently decide that one of them is an “enemy” and therefore unworthy of your answers.

That episode should not, however, be used as an excuse to ignore the bigger issue raised by Rufai Oseni’s interviewing style.

What exactly is adversarial journalism?

Journalism is not public relations. A journalist is not expected to make a government official, politician or corporate executive comfortable.

Journalism’s fundamental responsibility is to seek the truth; interrogate power and provide citizens with information they need to make informed decisions. This is where adversarial journalism has an important role.

Adversarial journalism is essentially a style of reporting and interviewing that subjects people in positions of power to rigorous scrutiny.

It challenges claims, tests evidence, exposes contradictions and refuses to accept official explanations at face value. In a democracy, that is necessary.

Indeed, some of the most memorable television interviews around the world have been produced by journalists who refused to allow powerful guests to evade difficult questions.

They include Christianne Amanpour, Pierce Morgan, Jerry Paxman, James O’Brien, Andrew Neil, Kay Burnley, Megyn Kelly, Mehdi Hassan, Chris Wallace and Billy O’Reilly. Rufai Oseni belongs to that tradition. He is fearless and asks questions many journalists would hesitate to ask.

Rufai frequently challenges government officials and politicians on their claims, policies and records.

His preparation is obvious; his knowledge is substantial and his ability to connect seemingly unrelated issues can make for compelling viewing, thereby giving The Morning Show significant ranking. That explains his enormous fans and admirers.

.

But it also explains why he has become controversial. There is a thin but important line between aggressive journalism and combative journalism; between robust questioning and confrontation, and between holding power to account and becoming part of the story. That line must not be crossed.

Rufai’s greatest strength can also become his weakness

Rufai has developed a distinctive television personality. He is passionate, energetic, intellectually confident and unwilling to be intimidated.

Those qualities are assets, but television magnifies personality, and what works brilliantly on one occasion can become irritating when repeated too frequently.

The journalist must remain in control of the interview without appearing to be in a contest with the guest. This is particularly important when interviewing government officials. A tough interviewer should not necessarily be an angry interviewer.

In addition, a difficult question does not have to be delivered aggressively and using the cross-examination technique can be devastatingly effective when conducted calmly.

Sometimes, the most powerful television question is asked quietly. The objective is not to defeat the guest, but to extract information, expose contradictions and enable viewers to make their own judgments.

When the interviewer becomes visibly embroiled in an argument with the guest, the focus can shift from the substance of the interview to the personalities involved. That is dangerous. When the journalist becomes the news, there is a problem.

Lere was wrong — but Rufai should listen

It is important to separate the two issues. Lere Olayinka’s behaviour should be condemned.

His refusal to answer Rufai because he considers him an “enemy” was unprofessional. His subsequent decision to continue the confrontation on social media after leaving the studio only prolonged an unnecessary controversy. It was clearly an act of bad faith.

There is also no justification for repeatedly questioning Rufai’s professional competence because he studied Animal Science.

What is wrong with studying Animal Science, or History, Mathematics, Biochemistry, Psychology, Architecture, or Law? These are examples of courses offered in Nigerian universities and other places.

Journalism is a profession in which people acquire expertise through formal education, professional training and experience. A person’s first degree does not, by itself, determine whether he can become a competent journalist.

Rufai has clearly acquired considerable experience in broadcasting and journalism. But Lere’s provocation does not mean Rufai should ignore legitimate criticism of his style.

In fact, because Rufai has become such an influential media personality, he should welcome constructive criticism.

He has built something remarkable on The Morning Show. Alongside Reuben Abati, Ayo Mairo-Ese, Adefemi Akinsanya, Vimbai Muthihirin-Ekpenyong and Ojy Okpe, he has helped create a programme with a substantial audience and a loyal following.

The anchors bring different personalities, rich perspectives, nuamces and strengths to the programme. That diversity is part of its attraction to the station’s global audience, but influence comes with responsibility.

The danger of overreach

Rufai’s admirers appreciate his fearlessness, but his critics accuse him of overreach, excessive aggression and combativeness.

In truth, both perceptions can coexist. The fact that millions enjoy his style does not automatically make every aspect of it desirable. Equally, the fact that some viewers find him abrasive does not mean he should abandon his robust approach. The answer is moderation.

Rufai does not need to become a different journalist; he simply needs to refine the journalist he already is.

He should retain the probing questions, painstaking research, exceptional courage and intellectual rigour. But he can reduce the volume, the interruptions and the personal confrontations.

He can challenge without appearing hostile; disagree without appearing offended, and cross-examine his guests without turning the interview into a courtroom battle.

And he can allow a guest to finish speaking even when he knows the answer is evasive. That may actually make his questions more powerful.

There is a lesson here for public officials, too

Government spokespersons and politicians must also understand that the media environment has changed and should stop feeling entitled.

They cannot expect sympathetic interviews simply because they are government representatives.

A journalist’s job is not to protect a government official from difficult and probing questions. Public office is held in trust for the people, and those who communicate on behalf of public officials should expect scrutiny.

If a spokesperson believes an interviewer is biased, the appropriate response is to make that case publicly and professionally.

If a question is inaccurate, correct it, and if it is malicious, say so. But refusing to answer because the journalist is considered an “enemy” creates precisely the impression that the spokesperson has something to hide. It also denies viewers the opportunity to hear the government’s side of the argument.

The media must remain bigger than the personalities

The Lere-Rufai confrontation provides an important lesson for Nigerian journalism. Television news is not theatre, even though television is undoubtedly a performance medium. The personalities of anchors matter, but journalism matters more.

The Morning Show has become influential because it combines news, analysis, debate, interviews and entertainment.

Its anchors have built a community of viewers and, in some respects, a movement. That influence should be protected.

Rufai should therefore not interpret calls for moderation as an attempt to silence him.

On the contrary, the most influential journalists constantly evolve and adapt to the ever-changing media landscape. There is nothing wrong with being adversarial.

Democracy needs journalists who will challenge power, but adversarial journalism should be evidence-driven, persistent and fearless – not needlessly antagonistic.

The best interviewer is not necessarily the one who talks the loudest or wins the argument – it is the one who asks the question that the guest cannot escape. That is the Rufai Oseni I would like to see more often. Keep the courage, ask the difficult questions, blend facts and commentary, and continue to press for specifics.

Rufai should keep holding power to account, but at the same time moderate his style. That is precisely what your friends – not your enemies – should constantly tell you.

As for Lere Olayinka, he should remember an equally important principle: if you accept the microphone, you must also accept the questions. Public communication is not a menu from which you select only the questions you like.

Also read: Presidency Rejects Speculation on Tinubu FBI Files

Both journalism and public service demand accountability, and the media must hold power accountable. Journalists must also be accountable for how they exercise their power.