Rufai, Lere, Unending Roforofo & Gbewudani Journalism, By Simbo Olorunfemi

It started yesterday on the same show. I once talked about the dysfunctionality in the relationship between the control room and the studio on the Morning Show on Arise TV. What played out yesterday was another function of that dysfunctionality.

When Lere Olayinka was announced at the beginning of the programme as a Guest to exercise the right of reply to the wotowoto dished out to his Boss, the FCT Minister and his party’s Presidential Candidate on the Morning Show table the previous day, two things came to my mind – either that there had been a backroom discussion about what played out and an arrangement had been reached to clean up the mess to avoid a possible legal battle.

But then it occurred to me that, as was the case in the past, it must have been a case of exercise of right of reply by executive fiat and that the presentation crew might not have had a say in it.

With what eventually played out, it’s apparent that the latter suspicion was more like it. Another validation of my thesis about the all-round less than par professional handling of the programme, which reflects in the sub-par professional conduct on the part of some of the Anchors of the show, the open exchange of words between Anchors, between Anchor and Director, and the repeated yanking off Anchors mid-speech.

It is the absence or disregard of professional guardrails on that programme that has apparently normalised the Gbewudani kind of journalism that has turned interviews and analyses around certain people and subjects into street fights, where the loudest voices with the crudest of expressions declare themselves winners.

One would have thought that there is a difference between an interview and interrogation and that the essence of the interview is not to force the interviewee to adopt the position of the interviewer, but where the objective becomes one of Gbewudani, where the interviewer has to remove his shirt, hand it over to the one seated next to him, or throws it in the air, to descend into the arena with a fist of words, then it becomes a Gbewudani show rather than a journalistic platform, street fight rather than a moderated combat, a free-for-all, with no guardrails for interviewers, interviewees, producers and the TV Station itself.

What makes this genre of adversarial journalism intrigtriguing is that with a particular set of guests and topics, it becomes a cosy, polite and warm caressing of feet, with the session dominated by leading questions, sans the aggressive and condescending tone, but with another set, the session becomes one of aggressive interrogation and provocation with the interviewer mocking the guest, insulting people in the name of analysis and gleefully announcing on air that he deliberately led the interviewee down the rabbit hole.

It is only with the Gbewudani kind of journalism, that the Anchor, either in interviewing guests or sparring with co-Anchors repeatedly becomes the story, often for the wrong reasons.

People have said that the show itself is contrived to elicit controversy, as that drives traffic and attention. But I doubt that the business of broadcasting in Nigeria benefits more from the attention economy as it does from patronage by those in high offices.

It remains to be seen how long this Gbewudani kind of Broadcast Journalism, which obviously cannot make a distinction between language and conduct that might thrive on social media and one meant for a medium governed by the Broadcasting code.

With adherence to professionalism, there might have been either a blanket ban on appearance for Lere Olayinka on the station, or with the station obviously feeling obligated by other considerations to continue to do business with Lere, the Management would have stepped in to sort out what has obviously become an embarrassingly unending public spectacle between Lere and Rufai.

Not excusing the well-documented excesses and uneven aggressive tendency on the part of Rufai, I consider it unfair and unprofessional to force upon him a situation where he has to interview someone with whom he has unresolved issues. To me, it comes across more like an ambush from which he has little room for escape.

Even if management had directed a right of reply by executive fiat, the Producer could have still stepped in before the programme started to moderate an arrangement between the Guest and the Anchors, douse the tension, agree on Dos and Don’ts before going on air.

The body language of the Guest and Anchors does not suggest to me that there was such a meeting, which to be fair, could be had and yet what was agreed upon could still be breached. But with what I saw, I doubt that such a meeting was held.

I often wonder too if they hold pre-production and post-production meetings. I restate the point that so much of what plays out on that programme suggests to me a rather dysfunctional relationship.

It’s time for the Management to step in, broker peace between Lere and Rufai, smoothen the rough edges and curb the excesses that have come to be the trademark of that programme.