The world is obviously very diverse with states in different parts practising different types of systems of governance. In previous discussion of political culture it was noted that social scientists were concerned about the reasons for these differences and sought to explain by carrying out studies in various parts of the world. David Almond and Sidney Verba (1965) were foremost in this search for answers. In the same vein the media in different parts of the world are very different since the sort of freedom those under liberal democracies enjoy in the course of doing their job is not the same as those under dictatorship, communism or monarchy enjoy. The variations stem from the different systems of governance and willingness/unwillingness of rulers to grant much freedom, which they fear might undermine their hold on power. In order to sufficiently understand how they operate we,
therefore, are not able to apply a uniform strategy or theory for studying them in different places under different conditions.
Acknowledging this difficulty arising from the differences mentioned, in their book The Crisis of Public Communication Jay G. Blumler and Michael Gurevitch (1995: 60) note that:
Clearly the relationship of mass media institutions to political institutions is assumed in all states to have consequences of major import and is never left to chance. All political systems must one way or another regulate the performance of media institutions in the political field.
In order to get round the problem of comparative cross-national analysis of media systems they suggest the adoption of certain methodologies, which they refer to as:
…a framework, consisting of four dimensions that include: degree of state control over mass media organisations; degree of mass media partisanship; degree of media-political élite integration; and the nature of the legitimising creed of media institutions. (Blumler & Gurevitch 1995: 61)
It is important to note at this point that while Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) are concerned with trans-border studies of media system hence this framework, our study is specifically within the precincts of the geo-political entity called Nigeria. It is therefore not a cross-national research even though a wide level of diversity exists among the constituent units of the federation. In terms of comparison, this study intends looking at the media operating in the two main regions North and South (West and East). However, before expounding this further it is essential to also introduce the work of Daniel C. Hallin and Paolo Mancini Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics (2004). In it
they seek to expand and simplify the work of Blumler and Gurevitch (1995). They admit that theirs is only an attempt to:
…build on previous work, refining it based on our attempt to make sense of the patterns of difference and similarity we have found among countries covered here, and to link these patterns to the social and political context in which they evolved. (Hallin & Mancini 2004: 21)
Against the above backdrop Hallin and Mancini (2004: 21) propose a framework for comparing media systems in Western Europe and North America which consists of: development of media markets, with particular emphasis on the strong or weak development of a mass circulation press; political parallelism that is, the degree and nature of the links between the media and political parties or, more broadly, the extent to which the media system reflects the major political divisions in society; the development of journalistic professionalism; and the degree and nature of state intervention in the media system.
Again, we are back to the issue raised in relations to the strategy earlier recommended by Blumler and Gurevitch (1995) as this one also is based on cross-national analysis and might not be easily applicable to our specific situation without modification. It is pertinent to take into cognisance the political history of Nigeria particularly the pre- colonial separateness of the people that were forcibly united under colonialism and compelled to continue to live a sort of marriage of convenience. It is also essential to consider the manner in which the media emerged and the lop-sidedness that characterised that emergence. It is equally important to note how the media have been part and parcel of the cleavages in the system and might be keen on promoting those. Oyobvaire (2001) has noted the transition from dichotomy (North versus South) to trichotomy (North/West/East)
and finally multichotomy (36 states). Yet the same old North versus South politics has continued to dominate the thinking of the people and the media see themselves and are seen from this perspective too. It is also very helpful to understand Toyin Falola’s (2009) assertion that Nigeria’s political culture is essentially violence due to the nature of its constitution by Britain using force and how that legacy has been bequeathed to the people. In addition, other factors have been discussed, like corruption and tribalism, combining to make up the country’s political culture. All this will explain how the media have attempted to play their watch-dog role in a massively expanding (in terms of population) country like Nigeria. It will also help in understanding what roles the media have played in the inter- religious violence in the country which reached its climax on the Plateau (Jos and other towns and villages).
Finally, it is essential to explain that the main theoretical framework adopted for this study is the qualitative phenomenological approach, under which the researcher hopes to (based on their own background experience), investigate and interpret the phenomenon through the views/experiences of participants in the study. But, since this study also involves examining newspaper reports Hallin and Mancini’s (2004) framework for comparing the media systems in Western Europe and North America will be contextualised and appropriately cited in discussions. Other theories, like the media effects model and critical political economy approach, might also be referred to in the course of the discourses. However, they will by no means be allowed to influence the emergence of themes or direction of discourses. Participants’ phenomenology will be allowed to subjectively determine the course of discussions and data representation of their phenomenology will be appropriately illustrated wherever required.