Rufai Oseni, Anietie Ukpe, Thomas Thomas and the Middle Road

Rufai Oseni, Anietie Ukpe, Thomas Thomas and the Middle Road

By Clement Warrie

The Nigerian psyche is a study in extreme behavior, walahi! Polarity is our lifeblood. This must make us, in the voice of Odumeje, “a danjolos” people. No arguments there. It must either be a flaw in our DNA or like Shakespeare feared “a fault in our stars” Evidence boku everywhere.

Our natal constitution is evidently averse to fence-sitting or taking the middle road. I ask, humbly, how did we earn the rights to such bipolar aggressions? Why are there less pacifiers and and middle-roaders in this country? How can being neutral in a rofurofu an uncomfortable thing for the Nigerian?

We take sides in every fight, and regardless of the sides we are on, we fight “danjolosly”. Apologies again to Odumeje.

Yesterday, on the social media, I didn’t hear word. My head was literally full with noise and half-noise. From sharp wit to bitter words, Journalists turned on each other with pitchforks and scalpels, anything they could lay their hands on was legal.

Bemused bystanders only went for a feast. And what a feast it was and still is!

Maybe the social media is to blame for our polarity. In the past not everyone had an opinion. This was the exclusive preserve of just a handful of individuals who wrote them mostly in the back of newspapers. And you only got to read them if you had the dough.

One wonders what these sort of posturing is meant to achieve. An improved social standing in the hive, perhaps? Who can shed lights on this?

So deeply ingrained is our love for extreme behaviors that some estragglers, and even the mild-tempered inheritors of the earth, still defer to groupthink. No one is exempt. Pastor are not immune, tax collectors, journalists, professors and politicians are all caught up in the quagmire.

It’s a really long thing, but let’s dig in. The fierce exchange between Rufai Oseni and Minister David Umahi on a live TV recently is a prime example of how our extreme, disgraceful behaviors have evolved.

And the bedlam that ensued the morning after in Social Media, needless to say, only just added a disfiguring twist to the scandal.

Take, for instance, the darts from Anietie Ukpe’s racy read “The Anatomy of a Microscopic Interview” and Thomas Thomas’s jagged riposte “The Anatomy of Petty Envy,” Both entries are classic themes on a 1000 Ways to avoid the middle ground. A dangerous example in pen mastery.

To be honest, both writers are guilty of the same paradoxical sin: deconstruction of narratives. For Ukpe, Oseni is a bumbling butcher; for Thomas, he is an immaculate saint. The truth, as it almost always does, lies in the nuanced middle, a territory both authors were determined to avoid.

In their frenzy of satirical warfare, both writers succeeded only in portraying extreme views, completely abandoning fair critique. And that is where they missed the point altogether. That is my whole point.

Beyond being a breezy and entertaining read, Anietie Ukpe’s piece—a structured attempt to undermine a journalist by reducing his methodology to his academic background in Animal Anatomy—is not a clever satire. it is a cheap and irrelevant shot that ridicule rather than reason. It’s for this reason, I detest some satirists, for the same reason I abhor 419ers, seeing that both are tricksters.

While Ukpe’s critique of Oseni’s use of phrases like “I put it to you” and “empirical evidence” raises valid points about journalistic style and semantic deployments, those points are lost in his contemptuous tone. One cannot huff and puff over a problem of tone while unleashing far more virulent one in the exact same breath. It’s called double standards.

Thomas Thomas’s rejoinder is no better. Alluding to Ukpe’s criticism as an attack on journalism is to miss the point completely. While his efforts at turning a defensive play into a decisive attack is at once impressive and discombobulating, his portrayal of Oseni as a fearless “conscience of democracy” is a terrible analogy. It creates a dangerous narrative. This is where I depart from his logic. The Oseni on the job is anything but an idol. He is insolent, reckless, debates only with his bare fists, garnished with just a sprinkle of wit. I digress. Thomas’s article discusses concerns about professional decorum, calling it “the disease of the timid.” This is not nice. It is an attempt to hoodwink people into false idol worshiping. Oseni needs to improve his “broadcraft” to be considered deserving of a mention in the broadcast media hall of fame.

Again, Thomas’s call to hold power accountable, while spot on, also wrongly suggests that accountability and civility are mutually exclusive.

On the substance and the right to interrogate, Thomas Thomas is correct on one fundamental point: a journalist’s primary duty is to hold power accountable. Minister Umahi, as a custodian of public funds and trust, should have been prepared to answer tough, and detailed questions about government projects and policy. The public has a right to know, and journalists like Oseni are right to demand answers.

That brings our interrogation to a journalist’s presentation style and approach. Here, I concede a point to Anietie Ukpe. There is a big difference between being firm and being combative. An interview is not a courtroom cross-examination, nor should it be. An interviewer must be civil in engagement, or risk transmogrification from a watchdog to an attack dog.

In the end, the true need of the Nigerian public is for journalists who balances rigor with respect. The public require journalists who, unlike Oseni at his most aggressive, avoid harassment and territorial bullying, but who, in agreement with Thomas’s rejoinder, remain fearless in speaking truth to power. Most importantly, anyone who sits on a national TV, whether as a guest or presenter, should understand they have a moral duty to go forth as society’s leading light.

Clement Warrie writes from
Nsit Ubium