By Muiz Banire
In the last two weeks, the wave of violence in the country, be it terrorism, kidnapping, or banditry, has become a disturbing phenomenon. While the reality validates this position, the rate of sensationalism and hyperbole involved in the reportage of these incidents is, however, worrisome.
As Nigerians wake up daily, they are confronted with depressing headlines of violence. It seems to me that journalists, particularly editors, take joy in such news items and reportage.
In as much as I concede that in Nigeria, readers appear to be largely more interested in negative news than in positive developments, I do not agree that we must flow with the craze. I know that there are positive ways in which such events, even where true, can be calibrated so as not to continually give joy to the perpetrators while still achieving the same objective. It is to this extent that it has become increasingly vital to interrogate the role of the Nigerian press in shaping national understanding of terrorism, banditry, and the rising scourge of kidnapping.
For a profession whose foundational pillars are public enlightenment, agenda-setting, and the defence of the public interest, a disturbing posture has emerged in recent years, one that neither strengthens national security nor deepens public confidence.
Instead, it fosters confusion, amplifies fear, and sometimes unwittingly emboldens the very criminal networks threatening the soul of the nation. As is known, we have both the traditional media and the social media. While I concede that social media usage in Nigeria has become uncontrollable, notwithstanding the efforts of law enforcement agencies to curb its excesses, the same cannot be said of the conventional media, both print and electronic.
There are sufficient legislations guiding their activities, as well as a formidable number of regulators. In spite of these, multiple and endless breaches still exist.
The question then arises: who will tame the media? But perhaps more importantly today, who will tame the perpetrators? The media, by its calling, is the watchdog of society. But when the watchdog becomes frightened, compromised, sensational, uncoordinated, or excessively politicised, even the wolves become emboldened. The Nigerian press today stands at this dangerous crossroads. The manner and pattern of reportage is gradually exhibiting misplaced priorities.
Most headlines are becoming hazardous. One of the recurring problems is the sensational framing of security incidents. A kidnapping scare in one village becomes “Nigeria Under Siege” in banner headlines; a single bandit attack becomes “Government Losing Control”; unverified body counts become gospel truth. Such alarmist reporting, while commercially attractive, creates a climate of heightened fear, undermines investor confidence, and corrodes public trust in state institutions.
In battling terrorism, the greatest weapon of the enemy is psychological warfare. When journalists unintentionally amplify terror by dramatizing atrocities, repeating the propaganda of criminal groups, or presenting unverified claims as fact, they become conduits for the very intimidation terrorists seek to achieve.
The press must understand that every headline carries consequences. In a nation already struggling with fragility, words can inflame tensions or calm a troubled populace. It is my hope that the press generally appreciates the dangers of the unverified information often peddled. Thus, another troubling posture of the Nigerian press is the persistent circulation of unverified reports, especially in fast-moving security crises. In the rush to “break the news,” accuracy is often sacrificed.
How many times have we seen fabricated communiqués attributed to military formations? How regularly are casualty figures inflated without official confirmation? How often does the press rely on anonymous villagers, self-appointed “security experts,” or social media accounts to interpret complex insurgency operations? Terrorist groups thrive on misinformation.
A single false report can undermine ongoing covert operations, endanger victims of kidnapping, or sabotage negotiations intended to secure the release of abductees. In moments of national security emergency, misinformation is not merely irresponsible, it is life-threatening.
Perhaps the most dangerous posture is the politicisation of insecurity. Terrorism, banditry, and kidnapping are non-partisan national tragedies, yet media narratives increasingly reflect political allegiances. Every attack becomes an opportunity for partisan score-settling. For instance, if a state government is in the opposition, the incident becomes evidence of federal failure. If the federal government is from one party, the media framing may shield or amplify criticisms depending on ideological alignment. Editorial lines become attack tools rather than instruments for national healing and cohesion. The sad commentary is that those who claim to be leaders, or even potential leaders, colour these atrocities in political garb. One would have thought that as leaders or aspiring leaders, their thoughts would be nationalistic and patriotic, devoid of sentiments. Unfortunately, this has not been the nature of an average Nigerian politician.
They tend to see everything from political perspectives only. Their greed and selfish interests seem to override their reasoning. They often forget that this politicisation undermines the collaborative spirit required for national security management. Terrorists do not care about party colours. Bandits respect no political manifesto. Kidnappers do not abduct based on political affiliation.
When the press mirrors political battlegrounds instead of upholding the collective interest, the country loses the united front necessary to confront existential threats. Through this misguided reportage, the press also tends to glorify criminals.
A distasteful trend is the romanticisation of bandit leaders and kidnap kingpins, an undue humanisation of criminals. Certain media reports provide unnecessary biographical detail, painting criminals as victims of circumstance or misunderstood “local champions.” Interviews are conducted to project their grievances. Their images are displayed repeatedly, giving them celebrity status. This inadvertently elevates criminals into figures of perverse inspiration for disillusioned youth. A nation cannot preach lawfulness while its press provides free publicity to merchants of death.