The role of the media and their impact on public opinion

It has been a while since I got around to updating this blog, but something happened recently to prompt me. I have followed the coverage of the Heathrow Terminal 5 problems and have sympathy for all the people affected by the embarrassment that has replaced the excitement during its opening.

The rider to the report started with a fairly harsh assessment of the situation. Then a CNN reporter questioned a couple about their experience and the first comments from the couple were overwhelmingly negative. Then, the reporter made a comment sympathising with BA and then asked the couple how they had been treated and suddenly, their tone changed - they were very understanding of the airline's situation and even made positive comments about how they had been treated.

This surprised me and I wondered whether the reporter had in some way influenced the response from the couple. From subsequent coverage, I am inclined to think so. It just seemed like the media primed people for a stinging critique with their initial harsh assessment. Now I am not suggesting that BA/BAA didn't deserve this - I suspect I would be harsher if I had a similar experience. However, I still wonder: is the press' role one of informing on the basic facts or of expressing their opinions?

In 2005, I had an email exchange with Mr Simon Kolawole of ThisDay newspapers. At the height of the external debt forgiveness/repayment work one by the last administration, he had written (what I considered) an unbalanced criticism of the government's policy. I sent him an (I admit, very critical) response and he sent an incredible response. I reproduce both my email and his response here because it seemed to me again evidence of the media getting personally involved in situations that their profession only requires them to express factual views!

My original email:

Dear Sir,

I have read through your article in ThisDay (11 July 2005) and am quite surprised by your logic. At first, I thought it was just another case of journalists writing rubbish (and it wouldn't be the first time in your newspaper's history) but later, I realised that it really has to either be poor understanding of the concepts or just a plain desire to be different in a way that draws attention to oneself.

The first (and fundamental) concept is that when you borrow money, you have an obligation to repay under the terms as agreed. It really is that simple. We can debate the morality of rich nations collecting money that would have been applied to developing poorer nations, but if you loaned me money, you would expect me to pay back with the agreed interest. The fact that the lender peddles the loan or encourages the borrower to get indebted is insignificant. Your article suggests that Nigeria has the option of repudiating its debts (in agreement with our legislators' opinion) but this is really not true. While countries would not declare war on Nigeria for that reason alone, there are significant implications: to Nigeria and Nigerians. Just as an indication, I was unable to borrow money from UK banks to pay my school fees at a top business school because Nigeria has been classified as NCCT by OECD's money laundering assessment. Things like that can be more damaging than a simple refusal to advance Nigeria more loans.

The second concept is the time value of money. You say Nigeria has paid $1 billion yearly and should continue to do so. Well, do you believe that our total indebtedness will increase or reduce during that time with that payment schedule? By exiting the loan market at this time is our unique opportunity to relieve future generations of the burden of debt servicing. If you think about it, most governments (including the US government) prefer to borrow today, and let future generations repay. This government's departure is quite unusual. While I can not reasonably determine if it is altruistic, it is most un-African.

A third point to consider is: where is the $12 billion coming from? This is a truly unique time in Nigeria 's history where we have significant revenues arising from high oil prices. What has become of this sort of windfall in the past? And can you be sure that whoever our next set of leaders are (post 2007) will not simply "blow" our treasury chest? I think the government is doing the right thing by applying those resources now to give us a future clean slate.

The most disappointing part of your article is your slur on Mrs Okonjo-Iweala. I have always felt amazed when people who have not done a single identifiable thing for their country stand back and slander others who have put their hands and intellect into doing something for their fatherland. I see it all the time: journalists say nonsense about footballers, yet they have never put themselves forward to excel in any area on behalf of their country! Now here we have a true lady who has literally given everything she has to achieve this one objective for her nation and you suggest that she is sabotaging her nation’s interest for the sake of the World Bank. I believe that is lower than even a journalist would go. You can say she is misguided, you may even believe she is incompetent. But saying she is serving the interests of the World Bank is ridiculous.

In the end, every great leader seeks a legacy for itself. Obasanjo has achieved his in removing the debt burden from our country. We may remain poor, but we do not owe anyone. You may disagree with the terms, but removing $ 18 – 20 billion is a considerable feat (considering the scepticism of the international community to Nigeria ’s ‘plight’). Think about it.

Kind regards,

Gbenga

Mr Kolawole's response:

Thank you so much for your mail. I never knew I write so much rubbish until your very enlightening letter. I wish I had gone to a better school. Can you blame me? I lost my father at the age of 4 and I became a burden on my extended family immediately. You can understand my plight.

Despite my poor understanding of issues, however, you appeared not to have read my piece, or maybe you were a little bit drunk so early on Monday morning. If you take a loan, you must pay, yes? What of Iraq that has its debts cancelled? What of the Tsunami-infested countries? What of Argentina that repudiated its debt? I doubt if you are aware of anything that goes on in the world, beyong Ajegunle.

Time value for money? You don't seem to understand simple logic. If we invest $12 billion excess crude in the future of our children, what the hell is time value of money for creditors? Which will serve 135 million Nigerians better, $12 billion to Paris Club or to infrastructural development?
As for Okonjo-Iweala, you think she can do anything that will HURT the interest of World Bank and IMF? You must be an idiot to think that World Bank will send somebody to Obasanjo's government to do anything contrary to their interest. Soon, fuel price will be increased, according to the dictates of World Bank, which has been arguing that we remove subsidy on petroleum products for ages, yet US and Europe subsidise agriculture to the tune of 80% every year and the WB is ok with that. We can pay Paris Club $12 billion, but we can't subsidise fuel with less that $1billion.

You wrote: "I have always felt amazed when people who have not done a single identifiable thing for their country stand back and slander others who have put their hands and intellect into doing something for their fatherland..." I have no response to that, except that I'm sure you understand plurality of opinion in a democracy. Even under Abacha, we criticised him and his ministers.

By the way, do you know what my tomorrow may be? Who knows if I can contribute something to my fatherland too? Not what you think - I am not a politician and I will never accept political appointment. But as a journalist, I can stimulate debate, not this one-way praise-singing of a so-called debt relief that will hand over our oil fortune to a club of shylocks who have made too much money from our debts.

I sign off, Mr Wiseman.