DISCUSSION

This section is concerned with discussing the findings in the analysis in this chapter and relating to theories that are connected to the themes analysed. For this purpose four headlines, regional cleavages, enemy framing, misinformation and peacebuilding have been constructed through which the discussion will be presented.

4.6.1 Regional Cleavages

In this section two reports by each newspaper will be discussed, using the model developed by van Dijk (1985, 2001). The stories are ‘Dozens Killed in Jos LG Election Riot’, ‘Death Toll in Jos Riot Rises to 350’ (by THISDAY) and ‘Plateau: Scores killed in council polls violence’, ‘Death Toll Hits 400’ (by Daily Trust’s stable-mates Weekly and Sunday Trust). All four stories were earlier discussed briefly in the analysis but will be discussed in more detail here. A common trend identified in the entire reports studied over the period chosen was the tendency by each side to promote their interests over and above the collective or national interests and public good. In order to properly understand how this developed over the period the crisis was reported it is essential to draw our attention to some meanings of news. Babalola (2002: 404) has defined news “as any fresh thing reported in the various fields of human endeavour.” While Stephens (1988: 9) says news is “new information about a subject of some public interest that is shared with some portion of the public, or, in short, what is on a society’s mind.” The second definition brings out the issue of public interest,

which is of essence in this discussion. And Rosen (1993: 53) describes public (interest) journalism as “a theory and a practice that recognised the overriding importance of improving public life.” Mano (2005) also sheds more light on sociological discussions about the role of journalists in either sticking to serving public interest or not. Expounding argument about their (journalists) obvious contribution in the transformation of their society Mano (2005; citing McNair 1998) posits that the journalism profession is critiqued within the sociology of journalism through two concepts: the competitive and dominance paradigms. While the competitive is linked to “a more normative approach, an idealistic concern with how the media ought to be” (Mano 2005: 57), he argues that the dominance paradigm is more interested in the gaps between what is and what ought to be in journalism (that is real and ideal). Although Mano (2005) posits further that both schools overlap and are combined in reality, their main argument relevant to this discourse is the enunciation that journalists are servants of public interest by the competitive paradigm, while the dominance school sees them as representing the interests of the dominant, private, selfish interests of a society divided on the basis of class, gender and ethnicity among other issues. (Mano 2005: 58). Having these perspectives on mind it is essential to return back to how news/reporting was handled in the crisis.

As was mentioned earlier our analysis revealed how both newspapers seemed to have played into the cleavages in the society, allowing them to reflect in the news they reported during the crisis. For example THISDAY’s first report on the crisis (November 29, 2008) was titled ‘Dozens Killed in Jos LG Election Riots’ and stated:

Dozens of people were feared dead yesterday owing to skirmishes in the Jos North Local Government Area of Plateau State over the result of the council

polls widely believed to have been won by the candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Barrister Timothy Gyang Buba.

It is instructive to note the phrase “polls widely believed to have been won” despite attempts by the writer to hide their immersion in the story. The phrase, based on van Dijk’s (2001) model, suggests the use of both local meanings (to promote polarisation), ‘subtle’ formal structures, (to disguise the author’s immersion), and local context, consenting to or providing a platform for propaganda, (on behalf of a party in the conflict). This is so because a party had complained of manipulation of the polls result leading to protest, and all opposition parties had corroborated the claim. But the report, by implication, had denied all this. In the same report the paper wrote that the crisis was started by supporters of the opposition All Nigerian People’s Party (ANPP) because they realised “that their candidate whom they said was leading the PDP candidate was about to be declared the looser.” Again, apart from uninterrupted immersion in the story the reporter took side by, without an independent check, concluding who the aggressor/aggressed was. The paper mentioned an ‘eyewitness account’ as its source; the fact that it was a single source i.e. there was no further corroboration or police report on the allegation or reaction from the opposition party made the claim more suspect. This part of the story also appears to embed ‘topics’ (by drawing attention to), as well as polarisation and exaggeration (use of hyperbole).

Daily Trust (Weekly Trust November 29, 2008) also carried the same report but had its own version. According to the paper in its cover story titled: ‘Plateau: Scores killed in council polls violence’:

…trouble began at the counting centre when it became apparent that a candidate of one of the three major parties has secured an unassailable lead. At this point, a representative of one of the parties who thought his candidate

was losing the election announced that results from Tudun Wada ward was on the way but others protested, saying all results were in.

Like THISDAY, Daily Trust’s reporter was already part of the story from their use of such phrases as ‘it became apparent’ and ‘an unassailable lead’. They both suggest the reporter was convinced the candidate’s lead was irreversible and unquestionable. Yet, they did not mention a single credible source to support their claim nor did they mention doing an independent check but merely said “Weekly Trust gathered”. There appears to be the use of topics and macropropositions, (suggesting manipulation of polls results), local meanings, (polarising the conflict) and local context, lending itself to being a platform for propaganda. But unlike THISDAY’s this reporter did not attempt to veil their immersion in the story as the use of such strong words as ‘apparent’ and ‘unassailable’ arguably show. In the same cover story the paper, although they tried to balance by mentioning that both Churches (and Christians) and Mosques (and Muslims) were victims, emphatically used the example of Albayan Islamic school, which it said was attacked by rioters and many pupils affected. It is also pertinent to note that this is a Muslim school and by stressing its case the paper was both immersing itself and polarising the situation, like Muslim versus Christian.

THISDAY’s story of November 30, 2008 ‘Death Toll in Jos Riot Rises to 350’ needs to be discussed here too. The report began as follows:

The Plateau State Government has ordered security operatives comprising men of the Nigerian Army, Air Force, and Mobile Police to ‘shoot-on-sight’ anybody fomenting crisis or defying the curfew order imposed on the state capital. The order was the government’s latest response to end the riot in Jos, which death toll, as at yesterday evening, had risen to 350.

The first thing that might come to a reader’s mind is the high level of casualty i.e. death reported in the headline but missing in the opening sentence showing it was of less importance compared to the order by the government to use more brutal force to quell the riot that had cost hundreds of lives in a space of two days. The headline, itself, suggests the employment of van Dijk’s (2001) topics and macropropositions to quickly summarise the content, which although downplayed (litotes) in the intro, immediately draws the attention of a reader. The state government, through its response to the crisis, seems to also hyperbolise the entire picture and overreact by such a massive use of force as if full scale war had erupted and it needed to deploy the military (the Nigerian Army and Air Force – with armoured tanks and jet fighters) and Mobile Police force to mow down the perpetrators (enemy). THISDAY wrote further that the state government said “it would not sit back and watch thugs wreck (sic) more havoc on innocent citizens.” This part of report suggests both the government’s attempt to polarise the crisis (local meanings, labels) by drawing a battle line between the government (on behalf of the innocent, good citizens) and the defaulters (thugs) and justify their action, suggesting the society was better off without those thugs. In another part of the report the paper stated:

THISDAY also gathered that security operatives yesterday intercepted about 500 men armed with weapons on their way to Jos. THISDAY could not however independently verify the figure…The arrest was a sign that the warring groups are regrouping.

Here again three main features of van Dijk’s (2001) model appear present: local meanings (presupposition), specific linguistic realisations (use of hyperbole) and local context (promoting propaganda). The paper perhaps, by saying it gathered without disclosing an independent source (other than later mentioning the Governor’s Director of Press James

Mannok, who’s an interested party) consents to being used as a platform for propaganda. It also appears to help in exaggerating the situation by reporting the interception of “about 500 men armed with weapons on their way to Jos” although it confessed not independently verifying the figures (not the story), which implies it was sure of the veracity of the story. The use of the word “intercept” (like capture) has a military undercurrent and could exaggerate as if saying an enemy or a missile had been intercepted. It further shows a possible immersion in the story by stating, as if absolutely sure, that “The arrest was a sign that the warring groups are regrouping.”

In the case of Daily Trust its story of November 30, 2008 titled ‘Death Toll Hits 400’ started thus:

At least, 400 persons, most of them yet to be identified, have been killed as the violence over local government elections in Plateau State last Thursday entered its second day yesterday.

Although the introduction appears not to be subjective the same may not be said about later parts of the report like “…several eyewitness reports put the figures at well more than 400 persons who were killed from gunshots,” and “Our correspondent…in Jos, yesterday, said, he counted close to 400 bodies deposited at the Jos Central Mosque.” In both cases, unlike the introduction, it appears that the sort of neutrality earlier demonstrated was beginning to give way to subjectivity. For instance the paper mentioned several eyewitnesses saying most of the victims were killed by gunshots without elaborating. It did not say who shot them, thus, leaving the reader to assume either the conflicting parties had access to guns with which they fought each other or one side had been armed to carry out the killings or a third party, maybe military and police officers, had in the process of trying to

control the situation used excessive force as the report by HRW of December 21, 2008 had suggested. In the other statement identified the report seems to suggest that, by claiming its reporter counted nearly 400 corpses put in the Mosque, the victims were either killed in or around the Mosque or they were all Muslim, although in the opening paragraph it had claimed most of the victims were “yet to be identified”. This also reveals the possible attempt to draw meaning and polarise. In both quotations there appears the use of local meanings (vagueness, omission and presupposition), topics and macropropositions (drawing conclusions) and local context (acting to promote one side’s interest or position). In another part of the report the paper wrote:

Sunday Trust gathered last night that as a result of the scale of violence, the Inspector General of Police Mike Okiro confessed to President Umaru Musa Yar’adua that his men were overwhelmed and sought the intervention of the military.

While the above statement confirms the earlier suggestion that the situation was overpowering (very serious) it also gives credence to the argument for a robust handling warranting the deployment of the military as if it was a war situation. It, thus, appears to also hyperbolise, and by saying it gathered, the paper was omitting something and making the report questionable. Like THISDAY the paper mentioned that “about 500 persons have been arrested in connection with the crisis,” and “some of the suspects were arrested in fake military and police uniform”, but it contrasted THISDAY by saying its source was the Plateau State Commission for Justice Edward Pwajok, an executive member of the state and a likely interested party. There was no independent check. It did not, unlike THISDAY, mention the issue of arms allegedly found in the suspects’ possession. The implications are either of the

two or both papers are either exaggerating or peddling misinformation or concealing information or aiding the achievement of all three.

Recalling our earlier definition/explanations of news/journalism it is essential to ask, based on the analysis of these two newspapers’ reports, whether the qualities mentioned have been satisfied. In respect of furnishing the audience with fresh information, one might be able to say yes based on the regular updates provided. But given the issues raised it is difficult to say whether the information provided in all cases were accurate or factual, thus the test of objectivity and public interest journalism becomes suspect here. It is essential to also observe that Hallin and Mancini (2004) have argued that a feature of the media is their link to political parties or reflection of the divisions in the system. They have also asserted that “no analyst would argue that journalism anywhere in the world is literally neutral” (Hallin & Mancini 2004: 26). Based on the discussion in this section and, particularly, the illustrative quotes from each of the papers’ reports it is deducible that the positions of both Daily Trust34 and THISDAY35 newspapers can be explained in terms of their links to and reflection of the cleavages in Nigeria. Each was, probably, trying to defend the region/tribe and religious faith of its proprietors and audience and, despite attempts to be balanced, the cleavages were often obvious as was analysed in the discussion. In the process little efforts were made to satisfy ethical provisions (like objectivity and public interest journalism).

34

Daily Trust has been variously mentioned in this thesis as a newspaper belonging to Northern/Muslim proprietors and based in the North, and therefore seen as defending the North and Islam.

35

THISDAY is owned by a Christian from the South of Nigeria and considered protecting the interest of the South and Christians.

4.6.2 Enemy Framing

In furtherance of the argument that the media cannot be totally neutral, as advanced by Hallin & Mancini (2004) and explained in various ways by van Dijk (2001) and Fairclough (1995), there will be attempts to explain how neutrality might have been jettisoned, leading to the possible use of enemy images and stereotypes. Two articles, one each by THISDAY, ‘How the Plateau Became a Tinderbox of Ethno-Religious Strife’, and Daily Trust, ‘Dear son of the soil’, will be discussed. They had both been mentioned briefly in earlier analysis. In the meantime, the terms enemy images36 and stereotypes37 will be explained briefly. Enemy images consist of painting a meek picture of a rival party’s “motivations in both substantive and normative terms,” (Alexander, Brewer & Richard 1999: 78). Also, Green (1993: 327) explains that once the enemy is constructed as an outsider, they are then imagined as devoid of humanity, more of an animal clothed in human skin. Lippmann (1922; cited in Hall 1997: 258) explains that stereotypes:

…get hold of the few simple, vivid, memorable, easily grasped, and widely recognised characters about a person, reduce everything about the person to those traits, exaggerate and simplify them, and fix them without change or development to eternity.

In order to comprehend the use of both terms in this discussion articles/reports by THISDAY and Daily Trust will be analysed here too, bringing out specific use of manipulation in each case using van Dijk’s theory. First, Daily Trust columnist Bala Muhammad’s ‘Dear son of the soil’ (Weekly Trust December 6, 2008) began with:

36

Enemy images are to be used in more detail in discussions in Chapter Seven.

37

Last week in Jos, as ‘sons of the soil’ marauded around Gangare and Dilimi downtown on a murderous rampage, they were communicating with each other in Hausa, the language of their victims, the ‘settler’. Again, listening to the rulers of Plateau State, speaking in almost fluent Hausa on the media, the massive irony of it all is lost only on the most naive.

In that opening statement, including the headline, at least four of van Dijk’s features could be noticed. There appears the use of topics and macropropositions (reference to marauders), local meanings (presupposition, labelling and polarising), hyperbole (marauding, murderous rampage), litotes (using stereotypes to demean) and formal structures (rhetoric, uncontrollable mood/opinion). As was earlier mentioned, it was an excellently written article in which satire was used with precision, yet the mood and tone of the author could still be noticed. The headline, itself, suggests a degree of mockery and labelling, since the ‘indigenes’ often used the Hausa term ‘dankasa’ (literarily meaning son of the soil) to refer to themselves, although it means indigenes or aborigines. So, the term was used in the piece to possibly label and mock them. The word ‘marauded’ must have been coined from marauder (meaning a raider, looter or an intruder - enemy images) to paint a negative picture of the ‘son of the soil’. It therefore seems both degrading and hyperbolising. There was stereotyping as the entire people were presented at murderers, raiders intent on raiding and, perhaps, exterminating their victims, the Hausa. The hallmark of it all is that the article could easily polarise and leave a deep impression (negative) of the other. Following a complete analysis of the article it was realised the author used negative terms in the forms of labels/enemy images/stereotypes etc 41 times. They are as follows:

son of the soil (9), settler/settled/migrant (24), rulers (1), so-called Middle Belt (1), indigene/indigenous (6).

As for THISDAY the article authored by its correspondent in Jos on December 5, 2008 will be discussed in the same way here. Under the headline ‘How the Plateau Became a Tinderbox of Ethno-Religious Strife’ three separate quotes are considered below:

Mercenaries from Kebbi, Katsina, Sokoto and Niger Republic turned out in large numbers to kill citizens of the state...

Over eighty houses...belonging to the Igbos and other citizens were razed down.

…and members of the PDP who felt that the Hausa-Fulani had no locus standi, as they are not originally from Jos-North, and indeed not from Plateau State.

In this case too there were the use of topics and macropropositions (mercenaries, kill citizens), local meanings (labels, not original, no locus standi), ‘subtle’ formal structures (uncontrollable feeling/tone), hyperbole (mercenaries in large number), litotes (not original, no locus standi) etc. The headline appears intended to create a grave picture and the use of hard enemy imaging like ‘mercenaries’ helps in making a success of that. There is also veiled