Review of Lai Oso & Tunde Akanni (2018) “Democracy and the Digital Public Sphere”

By Raji Rasaq

The rise in information and communication technology (ICT) in Nigeria particularly in the early 1990s is a phenomenon that has really metamorphosed into social, political and economic weapon, wielded by old, young, male and female. In the world of information, publication and sharing, it has given media practice the necessary impetus so much that the new media, birthed by the ICT has redefined the traditional role of media of mass communication as watchdog and gatekeepers. Today, whereas mainstream media contribute greatly to the public sphere, the ICT-mediated digital media has taken a flight, redistributing power and roles, giving voice to the voiceless, and has empowered the powerless in the scheme of things.

The euphoria in the meantime, is that the hitherto mainstream media are overwhelmed by the multimedia digital space because the gate is no longer narrow, but wide and diverse. However, whether the marriage between media and technologically-enabled digital space, fostered by democracy has really engendered public participation and representation in and by the media, for the greatest good, is a major focus of an article co-authored by Lai Oso & Tunde Akanni (2018).

Based on the conviction of Herbamas’ “Theory of Public Sphere”, which espouses the idea of an “an open space where citizens can exchange views and ideas”, the authors identified media of mass communication, as an institution that provides an environment, “to discuss, debate issue, acquire information and knowledge” in the political and democratic space. The authors also establish the synchronization between media and technology; and, to them, the media, through technology should engender, not only the quality of debate, issues, discourse and ideas shared in a democracy, but also, facilitate the volume of public representation and participation.

Their main argument, thereof, is that, whereas mainstream media have striven to provide adequate and effective public representation and participation, the bane exists. There are inhibitions such as certain anti-media development, including social-economic, political, ethnic worldviews and bottlenecks; undue regulatory and statutory laws, ownership control and interest. Elaborating on this, the authors claimed that the insistence of “Bretton Woods Institutions in the 1980s during the era of the Structural Adjustment Program (SAP)” on democratizing, deregulation and privatization informed the President Babangida’s decree of 1992, paving the way for the establishment of the first private stations in Nigeria: Ray Power and African International Television (AIT), after which several others have been established.

Meanwhile, this deregulation, they claim, has posed a challenge. Rather than maintaining and strengthening public media corporation in Nigeria, state-run media were left to be run as commercials, as well as competing with privately owned media.

Another major claim by the authors is that, relating to the first claim, Nigerian mainstream media are class-biased, elitist, urban and almost anti-masses. Media have been hijacked by private interests and overshadowed by ‘mercantile logic’. Overall, “commercialization, privatization, deregulation, technological innovations, globalization” (168) have all narrowed the public sphere, limiting the space against the people at the margin such as women, persons with disabilities and the youths.

A typical example of this “narrowness” was reported by the Nigerian Democratic Report (NDR) where the outcome of a media monitoring exercise showed that “the voices of under-represented persons, particularly women, youth and persons living with disabilities (PLWDs), are still largely excluded from daily reportage. The media is still largely urban focus, neglecting the views of the rural majority”. (see http://www.ndr.org.ng/damning-outcomes-underscore-media-monitoring-reports/).

The third claim is, they argued that, with the development of technology, the public sphere has been widened, and that technologically-enhanced digital media has enabled many voices to get into the “airwaves through phone-in programs, e-mail, twitter and other new devices”. The use of digital media for public participation, they argued, did not just materialize. It is attributed to the herald of “democratic entities providing for free speech, free press and allied rights among others as enshrined in the renowned universal charter of rights” (pg. 160).  It’s their conviction that cyberspace, internet, or web had impacted on both traditional and new media.

Digital space is open, autonomous, democratic, and independent of both the state and the market. It is also self-generated in content, self-directed in emission, and self-selected in reception.

An offshoot of digital media is what the authors referred to as “Citizen Journalism”. They claimed “Citizen Journalism” has become a significant aspect of digital technologies in Nigeria. Citizen Journalism, apart from “eroding the gate keeping agenda-setting and framing power of media organizations, has the potential of opening up the public sphere, thus enhancing the discourse power of marginalized groups and challenging that of the power elite”. (pg. 183).

To justify these claims, the authors gave instances of how citizen journalism, through the cyberspace, has become a tool of democratic participation and representation beginning with 2011 and 2015 general elections. They cited how Independent and National Electoral Commission (INEC) and, a civil organisation, Enough-is-Enough, Nigeria (EiE,N) have collaborated for updating of records and ease of access to information. Also, Reclaim Naija, a website formed by a Lagos-based Community Life Project, enabled Citizens to report cases of electoral malpractices during 2011 and 2015 general elections.

Taking a critical look at the authors’ position on “public sphere”, it is quite interesting, as it is akin to what communication scholars call “Vox Populi” (vɒks ˈpɒpjuːli, -laɪ/ VOKS POP-yoo-lee, -lye) which is a Latin phrase that literally means "voice of the people" and we agree with them (authors), having observed that “…The public sphere is characterized by equal access and participation by all citizens”. This in agreement with the perspective expressed by Prof. Nosa’s (of Caleb University, Nigeria) on “affirmative action” on gender participation. To him, everything about affirmative action is all about “participation”.

I believe that the authors’ position on the significant edge attributed to digital or multimedia space is quite fantastic. In fact, the new media have challenged the mainstream, particularly in the area of public participation in news production, sharing and consumption.

Almost all the media of mass communication now design their programmes with the public in mind. As the authors have observed, audience’ voice is captured in “Mynews.co,” owned by The Punch. That’s, readers comment on their social media account are published directly in the newspaper. Also, in “I-report” account by the Channels TV, and other stations, audience are requested to send in their own account of events, through phone-in programmes, text messages, as well as WhatsApp messages.

In fact, citizens now get involved directly in the production of media programmes through various accounts, owned by media outfits on facebook, twitter and other social media platforms. There is no doubt, the internet has almost obliterated the dichotomy between what is traditional and new media.

I also agree with the authors on the claim that citizen journalism is “eroding the gate keeping agenda-setting and framing power of media organizations”. With the position strongly held that “the online media as exemplified by Premium Times, Cable and Sahara Reporters have revived investigative journalism in the country” (188), this assertion is accurate. For instance, some of the revelations published in the media recently on cases of corruption and certificate scandals were first burst by social media such as twitter and Facebook channels which were promptly latched onto by online media such as Sahara Reporters, The Cable and Premium Times.

At least up till now, Premium Times still maintains on its platform, a count down on #ShittuGate: “Since Minister Shittu was exposed for skipping NYSC.Buhari fails to take ACTION!” This is indeed, investigative journalism.

Findings have also shown how online media have stepped up their investigative journalism through what is called “Fact-Checking” journalism. For instance, Premium Times on December 20th, 2018, published a report, tagged: “FACT-CHECK: Verifying President Muhammadu Buhari’s claims in 2019 budget speech”. This is one of the ways to show journalism of integrity online.

 Also, The Cable online published another Fact Checking on December 5th, 2018, tagged: “FACT CHECK: Is Lauretta Onochie’s picture of Atiku’s Sokoto rally fake?” The report was to prove that the presidential aide’s news against Atiku Abubakar’s rally was fake.

On the concerns raised by the authors over threat to cyber space and digital media in Nigeria, I also share the same, particularly as it concerns the introduction of the Nigerian Cyber Crime Law (2015), the first internet-related law in the country. Other stakeholders also do. An instance of this concern is observed in a press statement by Peju Akande of the TMTR Training Room, recently in Lagos, where she said “The cybercrime act is one of the most insidious pieces of anti-press legislation ever and we want Nigeria journalists to be aware of its provisions and it affects their practice”.

Again, I agree with the authors on another threat to digital media which has to do with “the susceptibility of the transmitted and retransmitted information materials to manipulation. The end result of this is the increasing incidence of fake news”. Is this really happening? Yes, it is. In fact, Thandi Smith expresses the same concern in a post published by Media Monitoring Africa, South Africa (https://www.mediamonitoringafrica.org/from-media-freedom-to-the-real-impact-of-fake-news), where it was observed that “…perhaps, one of the greatest emerging threats to our media freedom is that posed by fake news...To be clear, fake news is not new. People spreading lies dressed as news or using dramatic headlines to sell are old strategies. What is new is our digital reality and social media where it is easy to invent spread and promote fake news…”

Overall, the points raised by the authors in the article are all salient and to a very large exhaustive. The objectivity is most noticed in their positions on the media convergence and how digital media is opening a new frontier in the production, sharing and consumption of media content.

However, where I have a problem lies with the authors’ conclusion, warning that “public sphere must not just be spaces for ethnic, religious and oppositional politics. This has been the main bane of the conventional media in Nigeria” (198). This position is akin to what is termed “Crisis Zone Framing”.

As explained by Moira O’neil (2012), Crisis-Zone framing’ underscores how issues are “structured by an overwhelming sense of impending crisis”. In this kind of framing, discussion(s) around particular problems “encourages the public’s pessimism about reform (as to what can we really do?).  

That admonition, to me, may be the beginning of public resentment, shaping evil agenda against new media. So my position in this regard is centered on the fact that, drawing attention to the bane of the conventional media in relation to the new media, is unfortunately, like being pessimistic about the future of the new frontier. As indicated in the newly revised “The Nigerian Media Code of Election Coverage” (2018), there are currently about fifty-six online media in Nigeria (see pgs. 33-34) and still counting. The truth is digital media is the future of the information age of our time and beyond. I will not want to associate it with the past dooms.