Investigative journalism in the era of promotional politics: The case of Nigeria

Abstract

In the current democratic dispensation in Nigeria in particular, and Africa in general, the public reputation of politicians and people in authority has acquired a new higher premium on which the political context is fought. Citizens make use of available information and knowledge about the reputation of politicians to arrive at rational choices. In the context of the responsibility placed on journalism in a liberal democracy, the media is looked upon to guarantee citizenship by, among others, making politicians and people in authority accountable. The symbolism that Watergate bears and brings to modern journalism lies in monitoring power and authority in the service of the general interests of society. For those at the center of its practice, investigative journalism provides journalists with the right to detach from vested interests in society and the capacity to bark at power on behalf of the public. Using a historical research methodology, this paper explores the role of investigative journalism in making power accountable in the contemporary era of promotional politics. This paper concludes that the challenges confronting investigative journalism in Nigeria go beyond the hostile illiberal democratic environment within which journalists operate. Rather, journalists are confronted with structural, institutional and political challenges in making power accountable, as both the state and politicians employ various means, including the use of promotional intermediaries to launder their public image.

Keywords:

• Nigerian politics
• investigative journalism
• promotional politics
• democracy
• information subsidy
• symbolic capital

1. Introduction

Drawing from Watergate, investigative journalism has resonated around the free world as quintessential journalism, and is often contrasted with day-to-day reporting. For those at the center of its practice, investigative journalism provides journalists with the right to detach from vested interests and the loud voice to bark at power on behalf of the public (See Chambers, 2000, De Burgh, 2000; Houston, 2010).

Even though the Nigerian media landscape can boast of attempts and initiatives by journalists in making power accountable as well as unearthing the misuse of trust, public commentary seems overwhelmingly more about the abuse of trust that goes unreported and uninvestigated. Yet, in the current democratic dispensation in Nigeria, the public reputation of politicians and people in authority has acquired a new higher premium on which the political contest is fought. While calls for both alertness and vociferous barking from investigative journalism in the country are increasing, some structural, institutional, and political factors undermine these possibilities.

The symbolism that Watergate bears and brings to modern journalism lies in monitoring power and authority, and serving the general interests of society.

In its ascribed role as a fourth estate, journalism is called upon to guarantee citizenship.This broad task entails a few fundamentals, such as the provision of unhindered access to quality information on diverse shades of opinion that would equip citizens in making rational decisions and choices on matters crucial to national life. This includes information on the political parties, their manifestoes, and candidates. To guarantee citizenship, it is also necessary to hold leaders continuously accountable.

From the days of regime change by military coups to the days of regime change through ballot boxes and party defections in Nigeria, “corruption” has remained a recurring justification for the line of action taken by the principal actors. In their days, military leaders hinged their legitimacy on wanton corruption that had pervaded the country and their resolve to rid Nigeria of the malady. Politicians also unfold party manifestoes that hinge national development on accountable leadership that would fight corruption.

On this account, a national consensus is always galvanized around the need to eliminate corruption and its many evils. Thus, this research seeks to unravel the conundrum surrounding the practice of investigative journalism in Nigeria with the aid of the following questions: 1) How is investigative journalism threatened by the state in Nigeria, 2) In what ways is self-promotion becoming an obstacle to the practice of investigative journalism in Nigeria? 3) How does the economic climate surrounding Nigerian media hinder investigative journalism?

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: literature review, conceptual and theoretical framework, methodology, discussion and analysis, challenges to investigative journalism, and the conclusion.

2. Literature review

Nigerian journalism history, as is the case in many English-speaking countries with a colonial past, points to a crusader and investigative role for pioneer journalists. Names such as Nnamdi Azikiwe, Herbert Macauley, and Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana were associated with a brand of journalism that constantly challenged British colonialism. Journalism then brought public attention to oppressive colonial policies in taxation, commodity pricing, and the overall illegitimacy of colonialism itself. Therefore, the history of investigative journalism in Nigeria has always been traced to the role played by pioneer journalists in questioning the legitimacy of colonialism. Subsequently, in the post-independence era, the confrontation of power or the unearthing of corruption among public officers by journalists were both seen as measures of press independence and the practice of investigative journalism. However, the post-independence era itself is characterized by different political climates in Nigeria. From the period of independence in 1960, the military who ascended to power through coups governed the country for about 28 years, while civilians who came to power through popular elections governed the country for about 32 years. Consequently, scholars in Nigeria tend to argue that the practice of investigative journalism in the country is often a reflection of historical epochs in press freedom and the prevailing democratic climate (See Mohammed, 1996). But when we look closer at the various administrations in the country it becomes clear that threats to press freedom and the practice of investigative journalism have existed both in times of military dictatorships and times of civilian or democratic administrations in the country. For this reason, Waisboard (1966), as cited in Matheson, argued that the practice of investigative reporting encompasses economic, professional, and political factors beyond press freedom and democratic processes (Matheson, 2009).

To understand the complex mix of factors that mitigate investigative journalism in Nigeria, we need to look at some cases that represent the classic trade in the country at different times. During military dictatorships, a period in which the Nigerian press faced its fiercest challenges because of obstacles imposed by the suspension of constitutional rule, investigative reporting was ironically more noticed not because of its frequency but because of high-profile cases of government response to media criticism. The arrest and jailing of journalists, brutal murder of journalists, closure of media houses, etc. that threatened investigative reporting and media freedom occurred during the military regimes of Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, and Abacha. On the other hand, during democratically elected civilian administrations, arrests and detentions of journalists, closure of media houses, and seizure of publications have also been recorded.

During the military dictatorship of Buhari in 1984, in its attempt to gag the press and shield public officers from media scrutiny, the administration promulgated Decree No. 4 of 1984, which criminalized publishing false messages, rumors, reports, or statements that ridicule or disrespect the Federal Military Government or state or public officer. It also prohibits newspapers and wireless telegraphy stations in Nigeria from publishing or transmitting false information claiming corrupt practices or enrichment (Federal Rep. of Nigeria Supplement of Official Gazette Extraordinary, 1984).

The decree further empowered the military Head of State to proscribe or ban newspapers by revoking their licenses. Furthermore, military tribunals could try journalists or publishers and rulings could not be appealed in any court in the country. Tunde Thompson and Nduka Irabor, former journalists with “The Guardian” newspaper, were jailed under Decree 4 of 1984 (Public Officers Protection Against False Publications). The threat to investigative journalism and press freedom continued under the military administration of Ibrahim Babangida, which overthrew Buhari’s government through a military coup. In addition to the closure of media houses such as The Guardian and Newswatch during his time, Babangida’s regime was also remembered when the editor and publisher of Newswatch magazine Dele Giwa was violently murdered through a parcel bomb to stop the magazine’s investigation of high-level crime involving highly placed Nigerians. During Abacha’s regime between 1996–98, problems continued for press freedom and investigative journalism as both Guardian and Punch newspapers were shut down, while magazines such as Tell and The News, which were known for their tradition of investigative stories, went underground.

The return of popular democracy in Nigeria in 1998 did not end the plight of investigative journalism or press freedom. For instance, under the tenure of Goodluck Jonathan, in April 2013, two reporters from leadership newspapers Tony Amokeodo and Chibuzor Ukaibe were arrested, detained, and charged to court on charges of felony (Nwanne, 2014). Such cases of intimidation and harassment of reporters, common in military dictatorships, continued in democratically elected governments. The development prompted the Newspaper Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) to cry out when armed soldiers seized large volumes of newspapers published by major national media organizations such as Punch, Daily Trust, The Nation etc. in June 2014. In response to the outcry, the military defended its onslaught against the newspapers on the ground of intelligence reports that point to the movement of material with security implications using channel of “newsprint related consignment” (See Nwanne, 2014).

Investigative journalism has played a significant role in Nigeria, despite challenges such as government censorship and intimidation of journalists. Through their reporting, investigative journalists have exposed corruption, held government officials accountable, and informed the public about important issues. Premium Times, a Nigerian online newspaper, played a crucial role in exposing the corruption scandal involving the former National Security Adviser, Sambo Dasuki. The newspaper’s investigative reporting was the first to uncover the diversion of $2.1 billion meant for the purchase of arms to fight Boko Haram, which Dasuki was accused of masterminding. Premium Times’ reporting played a critical role in exposing the corruption and holding those responsible accountable (Premium Times, 2015). Another example is the reporting by Sahara Reporters, an online news platform, on the corruption scandal involving the former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Diezani Alison-Madueke. Sahara Reporters published a series of investigative reports that uncovered the embezzlement of billions of dollars from the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) under Alison-Madueke’s watch. The reports led to her indictment and prosecution by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) (Sahara Reporters, 2015).

The growing need for accountability and transparency in both public and private sectors creates favorable conditions for investigative journalism to flourish. The development of investigative journalism in Nigeria has been influenced by various factors such as political, economic, and technological transformations.

3. Conceptual and theoretical framework

This research is rooted in the nexus between mediatization and investigative journalism. Mediatization refers to the process by which various social institutions, including journalism, are influenced by the media and its logic (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014). Investigative journalism, on the other hand, involves in-depth reporting that aims to uncover wrongdoing, corruption, or other societal problems (Deuze, 2005). The link between mediatization and investigative journalism can be seen in several ways. Firstly, mediatization has influenced the way investigative journalism is conducted. With the rise of digital technologies and social media, investigative journalists have more tools and platforms to gather and disseminate information (Deuze, 2005). Secondly, the use of data mining, crowdsourcing, and other digital tools has enabled journalists to access and analyze data more efficiently and effectively. Thirdly, mediatization has also affected the audience for investigative journalism. As the media landscape becomes more fragmented, audiences are increasingly turning to niche sources of news and information (Esser & Strömbäck, 2014). Fourthly, Investigative journalism has found a new audience in these niche media outlets, which often focus on specific topics or issues. Finally, mediatization has also created new challenges for investigative journalism. As media organizations become more commercialized and dependent on advertising revenue, there is a risk that investigative journalism may be marginalized or abandoned altogether (Deuze, 2005). Additionally, the rise of fake news and disinformation has made it more difficult for investigative journalists to gain the trust of the public and to be seen as credible sources of information. In conclusion, the link between mediatization and investigative journalism is complex and multifaceted. While mediatization has created new opportunities for investigative journalism, it has also presented new challenges and risks.

The advent of social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook has enabled new modes of communication and organization among Nigerians, leading to the emergence of novel social movements and political figures. The traditional media in Nigeria, which reinforces power structures, inequalities, deficient diversity, and under-representation within the media industry, is being challenged, leading to an upending of the hegemonic order (Olaniyan & Akpojivi, 2021).

Diverse mediatization increases representation, media framing, and agenda setting. The media’s framing of political events and issues affects how citizens view politics, according to Strömbäck (2008). Stromback believes the media sets the political agenda, chooses which issues are important, and frames them. This affects citizens’ political views and actions. The media’s focus on scandal or conflict can damage political actors and institutions, while a focus on policy issues can improve public discourse.

Blumler and Kavanagh (1999) noted that the mediatization of politics has resulted in a “pluralization” of political communication, providing citizens with a greater variety of voices and perspectives. This has disrupted the hegemony of conventional political elites and facilitated novel avenues for civic involvement and engagement. The authors acknowledge that the integration of media and politics has presented novel obstacles to democratic governance, such as the growing significance of appearance and character as opposed to content, and the inclination of political figures to prioritize media manipulation over the formulation of policies.

Cervi et al. (2023) note that digital and social media have fundamentally changed Nigeria’s politics-media relationship, creating both opportunities and challenges for political actors. They emphasize media influence on public opinion and politics. They also argue that social media has disrupted Nigerian politics, allowing citizens to directly engage with political actors. They credit social media with mobilizing 2020 police brutality protests and influencing the 2015 and 2019 presidential elections. However, the mediatization of Nigerian politics has presented new challenges for political actors, particularly in managing their public image and responding to online criticism. They disclose that Nigerian politicians have responded by creating social media accounts and hiring digital media consultants.

The mediatization of Nigerian politics has complicated the media-politics relationship, according to Cervi et al. (2023). As new technologies and platforms emerge and political actors adapt to changing media environments, this relationship will evolve. Mediatization theory helps explain Nigerian society’s complex media impact. Media, politics, and culture can help researchers understand the nation’s rapidly changing social and political dynamics.

For the purpose of this research, promotional politics refers to the strategic use of promotional techniques, such as advertising, public relations, and marketing campaigns, by politicians and political parties to shape public opinion, gain support, and enhance their electoral prospects. It involves the deliberate manipulation of communication channels and messaging to convey a positive image of the politician or party and to persuade voters (Newman, 1994).

At the heart of the definition of investigative journalism is the self-autonomy or agency of journalists or reporters seeking to pursue a topic of public interest. Buttressing this point, Greene (1983, p. vii) defined investigative journalism as “the reporting, through one’s own work product and initiative, matters of importance which some persons or organizations wish to keep secret.”

While many journalists in both broadcast and print media routinely report on issues of public interest, they differ from investigative journalists who are specialists and may not be encumbered by traditional media. Hence, British media theorist De Burgh (2000, p. 22) states that: “An investigative journalist is a man or woman whose profession is to discover the truth and to identify lapses from it in whatever media may be available.” De Burgh (2000) distinguishes the work of the investigative journalist from similar work done by state or regulatory institutions such as law enforcement, lawyers, and auditors in the sense that “it is not limited as to target, not legally founded and closely connected to publicity (Ibid, p. 22).

Investigative journalism involves a deeper search and investigation that goes beyond the journalism of objectivity. An added dimension of “crusade” is undertaken for the interest and wellbeing of society. Thus, the purpose of investigative journalism is to uncover so as to inform in a way that would set agenda, often for disapproval or dissent regarding the unacceptable behavior or conduct of those in power.

Therefore, the challenges before journalism in unearthing the abuse of power are broadly twofold. The first set of challenges comes from news sources, the very people in power that the investigative reporter wants to render accountable. The second set of challenges is structural and informed by changes in the political economy of media organizations. These changes lead journalists to, instead of investigating corruption and abuse of power, rely on what we shall call information subsidy – disclosures willingly and deliberately provided by the news source in pursuance of some agenda. However, information subsidy is not confined to prepared, image-making, and public relations handouts from politicians, and other power elites. State institutions, corporate organizations, and legislative committees also issue press statements written by their media handlers. While the former could undermine investigative reporting because it was designed to manage perception, the latter could actually lead to further investigation by journalists. The Nigerian Police Force, Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), and Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) are all agencies of the state that investigate and prosecute state officials and politicians found guilty of corruption. When such agencies issue press releases through their media spokespersons, they provide useful links that could aid journalists’ investigations. To this end, not every information subsidy is dysfunctional for investigative reporting.

In the first set of constraints, Feldstein (2007) observes that, unlike regular reactive beat reporters on routine deadlines, the investigative journalist is proactive and has the luxury of time, resources, and independence to pursue a story in greater depth.

Through this, according to Protess et al. (1991) the investigative reporter impact on societal agendas and, consequently triggers “agenda-building process in order to produce reformist outcomes.” This represents the catalyst model of investigative reporting proposed by Feldstein. It is the model closest to the Watergate exemplar, in which media investigation alters public opinion in a way that forces a policy response from those in power. Feldstein’s second model in this muckraking typology is what he calls the dummy model, where policy changes or responses from those in power occur without public reaction, but as a result of collaboration and interaction between media elites and people in power. This is represented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Dummy model: Source: Feldstein (2007), p. 502.

Yet the challenge for investigative reporting as explained largely by Feldstein’s third model is what he labels “ventriloquist model.” In this model, the reporter did not initiate the investigation process. Instead, politicians and those in authority, the same people journalism is trying to make accountable, initiate the investigation from behind the scene. The model is represented in Figure 2 below. A well-covered story on party defection by a politician may also have been triggered by him/her so that by the time the public begins to react to the story, the same politician is well-positioned to come out with a planned response. In the era of promotional politics, this model poses a serious threat to investigative journalism through spin and image management, planting stories in the media, or even at the end of the process as a policy response.

Figure 2. Ventriloquist model: Source: Feldstein (2007), p. 503.

In this model, the initiative for investigation is undermined by the source to promote the agenda. The agenda could range from self-protection to cover-up, blackmail, or promotion of personal ambition. The classic example of the ventriloquist model on the international scene is the White House leakage to the New York Times about Weapons of Mass Destruction piled or developed by Saddam Hussein. After the news came out on the front page of the paper, President Bush went on the offensive as a policy response to a media disclosure that generated public irk. The defection of leading politicians in Nigeria such as the then Senate President, Bukola Saraki, and many state governors and national assembly members from the then-ruling Peoples’ Democratic Party (PDP) to All People’s Congress (APC) was preceded by “public rallies” of electorate members calling on the politicians to defect to the APC. On the day of the actual defection, politicians proclaimed that they were responding to popular calls from their electorate. This move is again built into symbolic capital that politicians are trying to build and promote for themselves.

4. Methodology

This research is rooted in the qualitative methodology of historical research defined as ““attempts to systematically recapture the complex nuances, the people, meanings, events, and even ideas of the past that have influenced and shaped the present” (Berg & Lune, 2012, p. 305). This method is appropriate for this research because we seek to delve into the historical trends of investigative journalism in Nigeria by examining how it has emerged and fared throughout Nigeria’s political evolution. As Nigeria has evolved from military to current civilian dispensation, the historical reference point for the research begins with the military regime of President Buhari from 1983 until the end of his civilian tenure in 2023. This represents a four-decade track record for a credible analysis. Consequently, primary data in the form of media-related decrees/laws, regulations, and restrictions from the aforementioned time period were examined. Other primary data examined included selected high-profile cases of threats to investigative journalists.

This is supplemented by secondary sources, such as second-hand accounts by independent Nigerian civil society members, domestic and international media reports, and scholarly publications about the experiences and challenges of investigative journalism in Nigeria within the period under review. The historical research methodology was utilized in this study because of the following advantages. First, it enables researchers to investigate phenomena that can be studied in no other manner. Second, it is the only methodology that can effectively study topics from the past while offering a contextual perspective for contemporary research. Third, the method is ideal for conducting trend analysis (Molde, 2017) which this study seeks to capture in the form of the evolution of investigative journalism in Nigeria.

5. Discussion and analysis

5.1. Democracy and promotional culture

Promotional practices have been used by individuals and organizations for many centuries. The only difference is that today, promotional culture has not only become more intensive but also a more central part of social relations.

Today, promotion is the means by which positive publicity is created about a product, service, organization, cause, party, or person such as politicians and celebrities in a way that will enhance their reputations or legitimize their actions. In modern society, certain occupations are directly associated with the act of promotion through their outputs. The industries of public relations, advertising, and marketing belong to the realm of the promotional industry, while their output is promotion and their employees, who are in the business of creating products, values and ideas, political and market trends, and democratic processes themselves (Davis, 2013) are promotional intermediaries.

Promotional culture will continue to shape the patterns and directions of society. Governments, corporations, and politicians all have stakes, either in selling products or in managing public perceptions. Understanding the art of promotion in this way will point to why promotion has been a sociocultural intervention in human society (See Wernick, 1991).

Various scholars contend that the promotional industry is most active in times of significant societal development (See Ewen, 1996; Jackall & Hirota, 2000; L’Etang, 2004 etc.). In Nigeria, there are quite a number of significant developments to support the claim that promotional activity will be ripe in our society. Some of these activities have direct global roots, while others can be localized. The end of the Cold War and the ascendance of the neo-liberal market system as a global social order ushered in deregulation and privatization in Nigeria and other African countries. This development, even though a global phenomenon, has meant intense promotional activity in Nigeria to legitimize the market system as a suitable and beneficial inevitability. Projects such as DFFRI, MAMSER, and SFEM in the mid-1980s to the 1990s were very well promoted by the Nigerian press and broadcast media. Other developments with unprecedented promotional elements but local in origin and dimensions include de-militarization of governance and return to party politics, the rise of NGOs, and security challenges in the country, especially the Boko Haram insurgence and banditry in the northern part of Nigeria, but with implications for the whole country and West African sub-region.

Political parties and politicians, corporations, NGOs, and institutions such as the military and even Boko Haram insurgents have set up in-built structures of promotion and perception management, as well as selling products and services in the case of corporations. This is how the landscape for promotion is broadened in contemporary Nigeria and how promotional culture is routinized and institutionalized. In our contemporary mediatized world, promotional work as observed by Aronzyk et al is more “communicative, performative and affective” with organizations constantly reshaping their identities and brands to maintain legitimacy in a changing environment (2017, p. 141).

In this regard, we are surrounded by and continuously experiencing promotion, whether as individuals or organizations. We are not only consumers of goods and services but also holders of beliefs and subscribers to the values and attitudes that shape our social existence (See Jackall & Hirota, 2000).

In his attempt to theorize democracy in 19th-century Europe, Jurgen Habermas (1989) argued that its sustenance depends on communicative action that can take place in a detached and unhindered space. His notion of the public sphere speaks to a utopian sphere of rational debate among citizens in a way that leads to the emergence of a consensus that would impact governance. To the extent that promotional work is communicative and performative, it can function in the survival of democracy. Modern media as channels of the promotional industry can provide a two-way communication mechanism through which citizens’ voices can be heard and through which the government can outline policies. When the media provides an unhindered platform for debate, communities of common interest could be built, including the formation of activist groups that are all essential to the functioning of democracy.

On the economic side, it could also be pointed out that the media as promotional tools in themselves, as well as channels for the other arms of the industry, such as advertising and public relations, could create product and service publicity that would stimulate demand and stimulate movement of goods and services that would lead to economic growth. Dating back to the period of the industrial revolution, the need to connect producers with consumers in an emergent and competitive market necessitated the rise of the promotional industry. In Nigeria, both the period of decolonization and the aftermath of the civil war were characterized by huge re-construction, investment inflow, and rise in productivity, which necessitated the rise of the promotional industry. The integration of the country into the capitalist colonial order that started with British colonialism and consolidated during the period of globalization of that social order in the 20^th century is central to the domestication of capitalist modernity in the country, including capitalist democracy that is currently in place in Nigeria. Several accounts have pointed to the role of promotional industry as an essential ingredient in the development of both markets and democracies, even in Western societies (See Baker, 1996; Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Davis noted that as commercial markets expanded, democracies matured, and new communication mediums fueled the emergence of promotional professions, which are tightly related to capitalist democracies (Davis, 2007).

When we try to extend the proposition advanced by Davis, one can argue that as communication media grow and expand, it will be healthy for democracy because there will be an expansion in platforms for discourse among citizens, through which communities of common interest could be developed that would lead to the cultivation of social networks as social capital that can form a basis for a healthy public sphere (Habermas, 1989) (See Aronczyk, 2013).

When a community of activists as in the “Bring Back Our Girls” movement in Nigeria is putting pressure on the government to rescue kidnapped Chibok girls, or citizens picketing the national assembly in Abuja to protest the mega salaries and allowances paid to legislators etc., these are instances of social activism that evolved from communicative action that was started by the media as a promotional industry.

5.2. Investigative journalism and promotional politics: implications for democracy

It is widely recognized that electoral democracy requires a two-way flow of quality information for it to be sustainable. The mass media as an institution is equally recognized as central, through the production and dissemination of symbolic goods, in making a two-way flow of information possible. Within media institutions, journalism is the occupation for both communication and performance that produces and disseminates information as symbolic goods that citizens require to make sense of society and arrive at crucial decisions. Bourdieu (!984, p. 359) refers to them as cultural intermediaries, and these are people who work “in all institutions providing symbolic goods and services—- and in cultural production and organization.” As opposed to industrial intermediaries who produce physical goods, journalists as cultural intermediaries produce goods in words, images, sound still, and moving pictures that are symbolic rather than physical.

In very specific ways, journalism and the media are ingredients for the viability of democracy because of the specific functions that are deemed to guarantee citizenship. These are: Providing citizens with quality information about political parties, political actors, and the political process in a way that would guide them in making critical choices, and, making power accountable.

However, if we put these two crucial functions of journalism in the context of Habermas’s (1989) utopian ideal, it will be required that these functions be actualized through unhindered access to the information disseminated by the media and that the media institutions themselves must be free and detached from vested interests in society.

For journalism to be able to provide the quality information required by citizens and make power accountable, it must dig and interrogate sources. Such muck-raking activity, on the other hand, can be capital-intensive and time-consuming. However, here lies the importance of investigative reporting to journalism and democracy, that is, its capacity to put a searchlight on power. That is the legacy that Watergate bequeathed and served as an exemplar of modern-day journalism. The fourth estate ideal in the Anglo-American liberal tradition is predicated on the capacity of journalism to unearth the abuse of power.

However, the reality of electoral democracy in Nigeria and the world over is that it is a game of contestation among and between politicians and political parties. The contest for recognition and acceptability is a battle over people’s or citizens’ minds, and to that end, public opinion takes center stage in both the contest among parties as well as voter support. Such a contest for public support and visibility among political actors and political parties is often fought on the basis of reputation. Scandals, corruption, mismanagement, and other culturally deviant conduct can damage reputation. The more public opinion becomes a determinant of the outcome of political content, the more political actors employ promotional strategies to tilt the balance in their favor. As Corner (2007) observes, publicity and promotion strategies are used by political managers to maintain control over information in a more politically visible environment. This is important because even censorship and direct coercion may have limited impact and effectiveness.

Good reputation has always been an essential symbolic cultural capital in Nigeria, so members of certain professions are often entrusted with public responsibilities on that basis. In the days of military regimes, for instance, members of the academic community, health, and legal professions tend to constitute a significant percentage of the cabinet because of their public reputations at the time, as less tainted by corrupt practices. Sanders and Canel (2006) contend that reputation functions as symbolic capital in politics, facilitating the establishment of legitimacy and the cultivation of trust among diverse publics. Politicians utilize symbolic power to consistently persuade, confront, and influence actions and beliefs.

With Nigeria ranking low in the global transparency index in the past few decades, owing largely to corrupt practices among public officers, politicians, and corporate executives, much of the concern with investigative journalism in the country is the expectation of its performance in uncovering corruption among these categories of people. Corruption has a very high premium for symbolic capital. The pertinent question that arises at this stage is the extent to which promotional culture affects investigative journalism. While the promotional industry is largely recruited by and in the service of political actors to promote their image in society, investigative journalism is out to uncover and share with citizens or audiences what politicians and those in authority would otherwise keep hidden. Even though we have previously highlighted the role of the promotional industry in enhancing both market and democracy through the creation of a two-way communication flow, the mention of promotion as reputation and symbolic capital points to a problematic relationship between investigative journalism and promotional culture.

Obtaining reliable data on newspaper circulation figures or broadcast audience ratings is quite difficult in Nigeria, but it is safe to say that both the press and broadcast are experiencing a downward trend. A number of national newspapers that had readership across Nigeria, such as Democrat, National Concord, and Standard etc. have folded, indicating that the operating environment is financially challenging. Both the rise of niche cable television and the spread of broadband internet have lowered audience sizes and shrunk advertising revenues for mainstream broadcasters. The implication of this development is that news organizations resort to ready-made materials, such as press releases and government circulars for inclusion in regular news. In this case, instead of news being a product of investigation, the public is fed promotional material that serves as an information subsidy.

In Nigeria, advertising revenues required for the sustenance of the media largely come from the government and corporate organizations, as the two largest advertisers and, therefore, sources of revenue. However, governments and corporations enjoy minimum public trust on corruption and social responsibility in the country. The threat to advertising revenue from these two could force investigative journalism to look away or withdraw searchlights on them. Deuze (2005) warns that the commercialization and reliance on advertising revenue in media organizations may lead to the marginalization or abandonment of investigative journalism.

The pressure that advertising could exert on investigative reporting in Nigeria could therefore be structural when one considers the link between media sustainability on the one hand, and governmental and corporate grip on the direction of advertising flow on the other (See Chomsky, 1999; Curran, 2002). The other threat that governmental power exerts on the survival of investigative journalism borders on coercion, as the unresolved murder of investigative journalists Dele Giwa and Bagauda Kaltho remain indelible in people’s minds.

Another important aspect of the promotional industry that impinges on investigative journalism in Nigeria is public relations. Public relations could undermine investigative journalism by what it sends out on behalf of news sources in the government and the private sector, as well as by its strategic blockage of journalists’ access to such news sources. The number of spokespersons, media liaisons, and press officers as they are differently called in Nigeria, who are employed in the service of politicians in the two arms of government, that is, executive and legislature, and playing the role and function of PR officers has risen significantly between 1999 and 2019. They often dish out prepared statements to journalists on important policy matters or other issues of public interest on behalf of politicians and government functionaries and stop any direct access to such politicians or functionaries (See Barnett & Gaber, 2001; Kurtz, 1998). Such blockages are especially imposed on reporters deemed to be “unfriendly” to news sources or who tend to focus on very serious issues or subjects that could injure reputations. In Nigeria, over 80% of media spokespersons for politicians and government functionaries were previously journalists and easily “spin” stories on behalf of their employees. Most of the spokespersons to the President, state governors, and other politicians are former journalists.

A trending promotional initiative that compromises news agenda in Nigeria is the rise of what Davis calls “astro-turf” or “third party” campaign organizations. Such groups emerge under different kinds of names, such as “Progressive Youth Alliance, Citizens for Justice, Women for Development,” etc., with covert links to media minders of politicians. Such source- or party-funded groups stage public demonstrations in support of the course of politicians and their campaigns (See also Ewen, 1996; Stauber & Rampton, 1997).

Both a fall in newspaper subscriptions and dwindling advert revenues due to increasing competition among news organizations have led a number of them to downsize by reducing the number of journalists. Those first to be laid off are those considered risky or often unwelcomed by news sources, in this case, investigative journalists. After losing their jobs, having acquired experience, and establishing a name and reputation, these former investigative journalists end up taking new jobs as media spokespersons for politicians and firms. At this time, they use their established media networks to promote the image of politicians through media statements or launder corporate image. This development partly explains the apparent decline in the media news content in Nigeria. While there have been several cases and allegations of corrupt politicians or public officers, most have never reached a conclusion. According to Bennett and Entman (2000 the media’s focus on the visual and the dramatic has transformed politics into a form of show business, in which the emphasis is on spectacle rather than substance. This, in turn, has led to a decline in the quality of political discourse, with politicians and journalists alike more concerned with creating and sustaining media-friendly narratives than engaging in substantive debate.

As advertising-based business models of news organizations are increasingly threatened, they are also coming up with new ways of sourcing funding. Media organizations in Nigeria have come up with the initiative of organizing performance-based awards for politicians where, based on assessments of their performance in office by the media outfit, politicians are presented with awards of achievement at an elaborate, high-profile public ceremony that becomes a promotional act in itself. Politicians who are recipients of awards use it to raise their reputation and public standing, as well as their standing in relation to other politicians and within their political parties. Several award winners made huge financial donations to the media organizations that organized the event. The award itself also shapes the news agenda and undermines investigative reporting as recipients parade the award as endorsement of their success in office. Both This Day and Leadership newspapers are national in spread and coverage, and are known for staging annual award presentations. Figure 3 shows a pictorial announcement of “ThisDay” Awards recipients as published by the newspaper in January 2020.

Figure 3. Screenshot of this day awards recipients.

Source: This Day Newspaper (January 2020).

In Nigeria, some promotional practices are incorporated into governance. For instance, sown clothes with an imprinted portrait of politicians are regularly worn by followers after campaigns and elections. The red cap worn by a former state governor became a symbol of his followership so that his followers as well as public officers adore themselves in red caps to display their belonging and commitment to the politician and his political ideology. The newly elected President Bola Tinubu’s uniquely designed cap is now a unifying and rallying symbol among his followers. In the end, politics in Nigeria are played through mere allegiance to politicians and personality cults, which are both products of promotional strategies and not political parties or policies. Davis (2013) submits that elevating political leaders based on their personalities, rather than their policies or skills, can emerge as a significant political strategy. The focus on the promotional and symbolic aspects of material goods, cultural products, and individuals often exceeds our consideration of their practical functionality or fundamental personal values and skills.

Thus, building a personality cult through promotional strategies has reduced the importance of political parties and manifestos as legal requirements for eligibility in elections. As a result, leading politicians in Nigeria from a one-time President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senators and State Governors, etc., all decamped from the political parties under which they were elected to office. Whichever political party produces the next president, is most likely to receive decamping opposition politicians, so they could be close to power and the privileges it confers.

The increasing failure of the advertising-based media model of news production is not accompanied by a reduction in the space or time for news. News programs and their duration on both the public-owned network Nigerian Television Authority (NTA), as well as private television networks like Channels, AIT Arise TV etc., have also increased. News spaces in most national dailies have increased. While it is difficult to know the percentage of public relations material that finds its way into regular news of conventional media, the pressure of the reduced workforce to produce so much news makes the latter resort to the use of prepared material coming from spokespersons of politicians and captains of industry as an information subsidy.

6. Challenges to the growth of investigative journalism

Despite the normative importance of investigative journalism in Nigeria, it is fraught with challenges that hinder growth. These challenges can be categorized as structural, institutional and political challenges, as discussed in the next section.

6.1. Structural factors in the decline of investigative journalism

The ascendancy of the market system as a dominant social order has seen African countries such as Nigeria at the receiving end of the blueprint from International Finance Institutions (IFI), such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Such a blueprint meant to be a roadmap for the resolution of the unfolding fiscal crisis, and general problems of underdevelopment were also pathways to the consolidation of capitalist modernity in Nigeria and Africa. Consequently, both the Structural Adjustment Program and electoral democracy were created to attract much-needed Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) to inject dynamism in the economy (See Asiedu, 2002; Morisset, 2000; Salisu, 2001). One of the outcomes of this is the deregulation of the media sector in Nigeria, where the government used to be a monopoly in broadcasting and a major newspaper player. The private ownership of private media is largely tied to business interests, thereby imposing a challenge on investigative journalists in making corporate power accountable.

In addition, government control over media outlets leads to a lack of independence and forces employees to comply or risk losing their positions. The alternative is the private media which lacks the skill, size, and prestige to make a meaningful impact and often compromises to survive in a challenging economic environment (Ekpu, 1990; Ojo, 2003).

Furthermore, the media environment in Nigeria can also be hostile to investigative journalism. Many media outlets are owned by wealthy individuals or politicians who have a vested interest in suppressing critical reporting. As a result, journalists who report on corruption or other sensitive issues may face pressure from their editors or owners to tone down their reporting. Furthermore, Journalists may avoid reporting on sensitive issues or self-censor their reporting to avoid government harassment or pressure from their editors or owners. This can lead to a lack of critical reporting on important issues, undermining the role of the media in holding those in power accountable.

The introduction of electoral democracy and party politics brought electoral contests among politicians, thereby raising the premium on reputation and its promotion. As highlighted earlier, promotion in itself undermines efforts to investigate directly or indirectly. However, media deregulation, which brought increasing competition that threatened the advert lifeline, happened at a time of another important development. The rising global consensus of Nigeria’s very low ranking in world corruption index published by Transparency International in the last decade or so (see tarnsparecncy.org-Corruption Perception Index), has added pressure on successive governments to be seen to be fighting corruption. In response, agencies such as EFCC, ICPC, and some anti-money laundering agencies were set up to aid the fight against corruption in the country. In addition, the current government of Muhammadu Buhari announced what it described as a new measure in its anti-corruption crusade called “whistleblowing.”

The concept is a sports metaphor where a referee blows the whistle to signal the commission of a foul or violation of the rules of the game. Transparency International (2012, p. 2) defines whistleblowing as “disclosure of information about perceived wrongdoing in an organization, or the risk thereof to individuals or entities believed to be able to effect action.” Thus, on 21 December 2016, the Federal Ministry of Finance of Nigeria adopted a whistleblower policy to combat financial crimes and corruption. This policy helps anti-corruption agents find and reclaim stolen government funds. Whistleblowers are promised rewards and protection to accomplish this (Gholami & Salihu, 2019).

What this development is pointing to are: First, reputation and transparency in the running of state and public affairs are gaining increasing importance. Second, it points to the fact that investigation is becoming integral to governance, as epitomized by agencies of investigation, financial probity, and whistleblowing policy. With this development, journalists occupy the bottom of the investigation continuum and have become secondary definers of corruption and scandals. As a conduit through which news about corruption is released by any anti-corruption agency or whistleblower, journalism becomes the stage at which developments are unfolded.

There have been instances in Nigeria where bags full of cash alleged to be coming from the presidency as bribery to the national assembly were displayed before television cameras. Recently, in 2020 the head of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) Joi Nunieh read out the names of politicians who were awarded contracts by the commission, paid mobilization fees in huge sums, but never executed the contract. There are also allegations of serving senators who are said to be wanted in relation to crimes overseas, as well as others paraded on social media platforms in bed with women alleged to be prostitutes. The media in Nigeria did not investigate these matters beyond providing the stage on which the drama was played for the entertainment of the public. Rather than investigating a diet of politainment is offered to the public. Matheson further opines that such a role is not an investigation, but performance as journalism is now a theatre where audiences are entertained.

However, the important point for us here is that this performative role of journalism in providing the stage for scandals to unfold serves the functional purpose of attracting audiences. Dwindling numbers and low circulation for broadcasting and newspapers in Nigeria have affected the financial bottom line, so that the change in fortunes through politainment promises improvement at the expense of ethical responsibility.

6.2. Institutional factors in the decline of investigative journalism

Factors within media organizations themselves, as well as others outside them, have contributed to the weakening of the symbolic power of investigative journalism in Nigeria. Investigative journalism requires time, money, and expertise. However, many media outlets in Nigeria lack the resources to support investigative journalism. As a result, journalists often work under difficult conditions, with limited resources and support (Egwu & Wogu, 2019). The general economic downturn of the early 1980s, exacerbated by structural adjustments in Nigeria and many other African countries, has led to the folding of several businesses, including newspaper businesses that were faced with dwindling fortunes.

In 1980, the total circulation figure of the ten leading newspapers in Nigeria was 631,000 (Ugboajah, 1980), and by 1995, it had reached 1,065,000 (Maja-Pearce, 1995). However, by the beginning of 2000, the decline has set in. Marcel Mbamalu, news editor in a leading Nigerian newspaper The Guardian, discloses that ‘In the last five years the circulation of newspapers in Nigeria has dropped by as much as 60% (Odutola, 2020). While the country has a population of over 180 million, it is said that there are no newspapers with a circulation figure above 300,000 compared to the UK, where five newspapers boast of daily circulation of over one million copies even when the country’s population is a third of Nigeria’s. The predicament faced by the newspapers in Nigeria is such that in October 2016, Leadership and The Punch, two leading national papers, laid off more than 100 journalists between them (Oxford Business Group, 2017). While advertising is the main source of sustenance for newspapers, it is said that newspaper advertisements attract less than 20% of the total advertising revenue in Nigeria. Idris (2000) notes that in order to survive, some outlets had to form political alliances and business partnerships to maintain advertising revenue. This ensures revenue but compromises journalistic independence.

The emerging institutional economic pressures faced by the press in Nigeria undermine media freedom and investigative journalism as financial resources required for long investigation are no longer available, the journalists required for the task are gradually laid off, or those that remain find themselves subordinated to the power that they meant to make accountable in various ways. Yusha’u (2009) highlighted how journalists who are owed salaries for months become vulnerable to financial inducements from news sources.

Faced with practical challenges imposed by the economic environment in which investigative journalism is practiced, the focus of journalists and media owners has begun to change. The concern with the bottom line is coming at a time of emerging trends in Western Journalism, where the media are now transformed and have garnered power as a stage on which politics itself is played. Rather than investigating power journalism provides a platform on which such power is played out. The multiple incidents of physical combat among members of the National Assembly, display of alleged cash from the executive on the floor of the assembly as inducement for bills to be passed, and the revelation of multi-million-dollar financial misappropriation by the Niger Delta Commission (NNDC) are shown on national television and on pages of newspapers as spectacles to be enjoyed. Commenting on this performative role of the media, rather than investigation Ekstrom and Johansson (2008) observe that the news media work hard to create conditions for such controversies, ideally in front of the photographers’ cameras so they may be displayed live. The media shifts from revealing to staging transgressions.

Despite these challenges, investigative journalists in Nigeria are working to overcome them. Some journalists have formed investigative reporting teams to pool resources and expertise. Others have turned to crowdfunding to support their work. Social media platforms have also provided a new avenue for investigative reporting, allowing journalists to reach a wider audience and mobilize public support (Egwu & Wogu, 2019).

6.3. Political factors in the decline of investigative journalism

Political challenges are also a major obstacle to investigative journalism in Nigeria. The country has a history of government censorship, and journalists who report on sensitive issues can face harassment, imprisonment, or even violence. For example, in 2019, journalist Jones Abiri was arrested and detained for two years without trial for his reporting on corruption in Nigeria’s oil industry (Human Rights Watch, 2019).

Finally, legal challenges can also pose a significant risk to investigative journalists in Nigeria. The country has a number of laws that can be used to restrict freedom of the press, including laws against defamation and sedition. These laws can be used to silence journalists or to force them to reveal their sources (Committee to Protect Journalists, 2021). This was the case in 2019, when journalist Agba Jalingo was arrested and charged with terrorism for reporting on the alleged diversion of N500 million by the Cross River State government. His arrest sparked outrage and calls for press freedom in Nigeria (The Guardian, 2019).

7. Conclusion

The survival and consolidation of democracy require robust media that can provide access to diverse shades of opinions to citizens as well as make power accountable. A country like Nigeria requires more of this than anywhere else, given its legendary status on the world corruption index revealed annually by Transparency International as well as acknowledged by national leaders. The fate of leaders in South Africa, Brazil, South Korea, etc., in recent times, is evidence that investigative reporting can be a catalyst for social change as politicians are made to be accountable. Citizens’ rights to be adequately informed are dependent on the activities of journalism’s most independent actors, the investigative reporters. However, in the era of promotional politics, the capacity for investigative reporting to make politicians and power accountable is directly proportional to the capacity for intervention by power in a way that may render journalism a ventriloquist, rather than a catalyst for social

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Muhammed Musa

Muhammed Musa is an Associate Professor of Communication at the Department of Media and Creative Industries, United Arab Emirates University. He has previously taught at the University Canterbury in New Zealand. Muhammed has authored dozens of book chapters and journal articles and serves on the editorial boards of scholarly journals. He has supervised and examined several Masters and Ph.D. theses. His teaching and research interests are in the Political economy of the media, journalism studies and media and social change in developing societies.

Osman Antwi-Boateng

Osman Antwi-Boateng serves as an Associate Professor of Political Science and international relations at United Arab Emirates University. He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science and International Relations from University of Delaware and holds two Masters’ degrees in International Security from Georgetown University and in International Affairs (communication and development) from Ohio University-Athens respectively. His research interests are in international relations, international development, international security, comparative political institutions and African politics.