It is no crime in journalism to publish a story with no attribution, no dateline and no byline. However, the general assumption about such stuff by readers, as well as journalism watchers, is that the source volunteers the opinion on the basis of anonymity; in which case he does not leave any evidential trace such as press release. For this reason, the resultant news is variously called “cloaked news” or “anonymous news” or “pseudo news” and thus ascribed to sources or a source close to…

Make no mistake about it, cloaked news or pseudo news has beneficial uses in journalism, because it fills a critical gap in the mass communication process when officials keep sealed lips, especially in times of crisis. Professor Douglass Carter, a journalism teacher and one time White House aide, once highlighted the essence of cloaked news. According to him, “if handled in a responsible way, cloaked news can help prevent the orgy of wild rumour that occurs when official government spokesmen grow silent.” Yet, a clear disadvantage of cloaked news is that it is open to abuse by journalists, and I am afraid the so-called “Jonathan shocker” story that made headlines on Friday, March 26, 2010 in seven papers: Sun, Nation, Vanguard, Compass, Independent, Leadership and Tribune sadly cannot pass the acid test of professional journalism, being so riddled as it was with holes that raised more questions than answers.

According to the story credited to “a highly placed presidency source” whose name was not mentioned, and who was said to have briefed some “select journalists” during a chat, there was “unquantifiable shock in the camps” of three former governors: Achike Udenwa, Victor Attah and Sam Egwu, as a result of their failure to make Acting President Goodluck Jonathan’s ministerial list. The source went further to explain to the “select journalists” the details about the “shock” in those camps. Take excerpts from the controversial story:

One, “expectedly, aides and supporters of the former chief executives are tracing their principal’s failure to the politics of the respective states and the permutations for 2011.” Is this what a “presidency source” would tell a press conference? Hold your breath. Two, “in Akwa Ibom, there  were said to be jubilations, although muffled, across the length and breadth of the state over the nomination of Hon. Nduese Essien as minister, even though the celebrations seemed to be more for the failure of the immediate past governor Attah to clinch the state’s ministerial slot?” Hmm!

Three, “the former governor had wanted the ministerial appointment as a springboard to gain his lost political relevance in the state, re-launch the governorship campaign of his political son (who is also related to him by marriage) in 2011. If everything had gone according to plan, the ministerial slot was also to help the ex-governor take another shot at the presidency, an ambition which he had been nursing since 2007.”

The most curious, to my mind, is item three which appeared practically word for word in Sun, Compass and Leadership. How come? Now the posers!. Number one, is it possible that any “presidency source”, whether highly place or lowly placed, would find it expedient or worth his while to assemble “a select journalists” only to discuss with them a topic as ridiculous, flimsy, trivial and inconsequential as “shock” and “rage” in the camps of some three ex-governors who apparently failed to make ministerial nomination list? Number two, why would any of Goodluck Jonathan’s officals be interested in picking out a particular ex-governor, invite press men and begin to educate them on how the man had “wanted to use the slot of a minister to gain his lost political relevance” in his home state and how the same man had wanted to take undue advantage of two things: his and Jonathan’s former membership of the governors’ forum and the privilege of having once sincerely advocated the enthronement of Jonathan as acting president? Endless puzzle!                      

My guess: Counterfeit simplicita. Otherwise, since no anonymous source would hand out any written matter, why is it that a particular paragraph in the controversial story containing about forty words appeared word for word in at least three of the newspapers simultaneously? Note that Sun consistently gave the impression that the story originated in Abuja and, crediting it to an anonymous presidency source, gave it neither a byline nor a dateline; whereas Independent and Vanguard credited the same story to named reporters based in Lagos and Enugu, respectively. Now come to think of it, did the “highly placed presidency source” chat and hand out a written copy from where those forty or so words were copied? Again, did the source grow wings and fly to Enugu and Lagos to address another group of newsmen or did he use a powerful handset to brief reporters in those places? What about the “jubilations” in Akwa Ibom state? Won’t it take an omni-present presidency source to speak with reporters in Abuja, Enugu and Lagos simultaneously while also gathering intelligence on jubilations in Akwa Ibom at the same time? I am aware that some of the newspapers cleverly buried the pseudo stuff under some real beautiful stories.

As a journalist, I feel worried. To translate a written one-sided political opinion of an ambitious politician into badly crafted cloaked news and attribute it to “a presidency source” ridicules the profession. Incidentally, this controversial story appeared barely a week after the Palladium column on the back page of The Nation (21-3-2010) raised a poignant but momentous question as to whether journalism is in danger.
 

As lately as May 27, 1996 an American public figure Mr. Robert McFarlane writing in Time Magazine admitted that journalists are central to our ability to establish and maintain a high standard of ethical behavior in public officials. But they bear an acute responsibility in making judgment about fairness…” McFarlane went further to declare that the pressures Journalists face in making these judgments are severe and of grave consequences to society. According to him, “in recent years, for whatever reasons—commercial pressure, or simply haste—the standard has been lowered. And the cost is immeasurable. The reluctance of the most qualified candidates to enter public life and the widespread indifference among the next generation toward government service are the most obvious,” What McFarlane and everyone else have been hammering on is that in discharging their primary responsibility of keeping the public informed, journalists have been prone to avoidable lapses.

I hold no brief for Udenwa, Egwu and Attah. Nevertheless, I make bold to say that Attah is a humble, principled, soft-spoken and highly responsible politician whose only goal in politics seems to be the development of his state in particular and Nigeria in general. In 2007, the PDP would have given him a senatorial ticket for the mere asking, but Attah would none of that. As a governorship candidate in 1999 Attah distributed his manifesto in which he said to his people “come, let us build together.” And as a fellow who grew up in the Moore Plantation, Ibadan, during Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s premiership, Attah went about governance of his state in the style of the Ikenne Oracle and like the Oracle, Attah left indelible mark. And leaving, he said to his highly grateful people: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.” Today, a young energetic, charismatic and able hand who was commissioner under him for six years succeeds him. How would such a political gem feel now reading all the jaundiced, concocted and nauseating stuff like the so-called Jonathan shocker?  Won’t he be wondering whether journalism has gone haywire?

Nzeakah, a former editor of Sunday Punch, writes in from Lagos.