By Okey Ikechukwu
What does a journalist or the nation gain by procuring, spreading and generally propagating news and images that can only have a demoralizing effect on everyone? What does a responsible media practitioner gain by cheerfully advertising the worst possible piece of information about his country and the military personnel risking their lives to make that country secure for him to live in and practice his journalism?
Tensions had arisen in recent times, when media output by some specific individuals or organizations seemed to have taken the form of mischievous reportage, or outrightly deliberate attempts to cause disaffection. These instances, which actually deviate from the excellent work most media houses and media practitioners are doing in Nigeria, is perceived as irresponsible, inaccurate, sensational, or at least capable of undermining personnel moral and military and security operations.
Video clips, misinformation, disinformation or distorted data masquerading as honest and objective reports all undermine us in ways that I propose to raise here today. So, let us look at the challenges of irresponsible media behavior that our fighting forces have to deal with in the face of grave national security challenges.
A sound relationship between the media and the military is vital in any democratic society. The former informs the public, holds institutions of state accountable and avoids the spread of news or information that could create social tension or undermine national security. The later, on the other hand, is tasked with the very dangerous business of safeguarding, protecting and guaranteeing national security and maintaining the nation’s territorial integrity.
A few points to put on the table for the media before we go further. The first is that we really do not have enough officers and foot soldiers to man the massive geographical profile of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The second is that the army, in particular, is saddled with so many internal security issues that should ordinarily not be its business. The view has been expressed in some quarters that this is impacting negatively on the Service and actually “demobilizing” the army. The third point is that our fighting forces are overstretched, underequipped, underfunded and sometimes undermined by the irresponsible antics of politicians.
They are being made to look less professional, less patriotic and less competent than they really are by the challenges of the operating environment. These are issues the media can focus on, while also calling out the military whenever their conduct is remiss in any way. For instance, many media men who were complaining the loudest about our security problem and the growing attacks on military facilities and the killing of senior officers in combat were shocked to hear at a public civil forum, some three weeks ago, that only seven per cent of the 2026 budget of the army had been released to the Service.
The information was greeted with cries of outrage in the hall. The army cannot embark on a public campaign, or openly speak about these challenges, but the media can. So, when uniformed commentators venture into the public domain to speak authoritatively on matters they don’t understand, it is easy to see many of them overstepping the bounds completely, and conspicuously in ways that may be considered irresponsible.
The elements of irresponsible media behaviour we can speak of in recent times include the publishing of unverified or false information, sensationalization of security incidents for attention or profit, the disclosure of sensitive military operational details, and the use of inflammatory language that could heighten public panic or ethnic tensions. It also includes failing to provide balanced coverage, or reportage, for security issues – especially for political reasons.
The expansion of the media and journalism space by the growth of online journalism and social media, makes it easy for information and fake news to spreads very rapidly, allowing inaccurate reports and claims to reach large massive audiences in seconds before there is any opportunity for proper verification. This can, and does, compromise military operations, especially regarding troop movements, strategies for specific engagement and operational locations. That is why we teach budding journalist that national security information is not a media scoop and should not be treated as such; as this may assist and empower criminal groups, insurgents, and terrorists.
The further effects of repeated mischievous circulation of inaccurate reports can weaken public trust in the army and other security institutions, negatively affect the morale of soldiers operating under difficult conditions, and create confusion and panic among citizens. It does reinforce hostile propaganda, which can be exploited by terrorist and criminal groups to advance their objectives.
For the record, responsible journalism is not the same thing as the avoidance of criticism of the military, no! It is simply the commitment to the verification of facts before publication, consulting multiple sources on touchy issues, distinguishing clearly between facts and opinions, paying attention to national security considerations in every media output, and correcting errors promptly when discovered. It is only in this way that professional journalism can strengthen both democracy and national security.
And that brings us to the issues of “national interest journalism”. It means disseminating information in a manner that informs the public while safeguarding national security, social stability, national values and democracy. In a period of insurgency, terrorism, or armed conflict, such as we have in Nigeria today, government communicators and media practitioners face the common challenge of balancing the public’s right to know with the need to avoid aiding hostile actors with compromising information. They all need to abide by the fundamental ABC principles of public communication.
Here is the simple framework, or ABC, of responsible communication and reporting in the present times. The A stands for Accuracy, as the foundation of credible communication and journalism. Without accuracy, journalism can cause public panic and fear, spread misinformation and rumors, undermine confidence in security institutions and offer propaganda opportunities and platforms for insurgent groups. The only counter to this, in the service of accuracy, is to always verify facts through multiple (and reliable) sources, especially casualty figures before publication. Avoid speculation and unverified claims, admit and correct errors promptly and transparently.
The B in the ABC of responsible journalism practice stands for Balance. This means presenting information fairly and objectively, allowing for different perspectives, while maintaining commitment to professional integrity. It means weighing all output on the scale of fairness, verifiability and broad national interests, while avoiding sensationalism and emotional manipulation of facts. It is such balanced reporting that prevents polarization and contributes to national cohesion during periods of insecurity.
Concerning the C in the ABC of responsible journalism, it is all about caution and discretion in determining what should go out and what should not. Caution is essential when dealing with sensitive security information, because you cannot reveal troop movements or operational plans. To publish information that is detrimental to national security, endangers Service personnel or creates social tension among the civilian populace is actually an attempt to undermine the state. This can be put on the same pedestal as treason in certain circumstances
While caution does not mean censorship, it involves exercising sound professional judgment to ensure that information dissemination does not inadvertently assist those seeking to destabilize society. It is a form of self, and institutional, censorship for a higher purpose, rather than just concealment. The media has the duty of informing citizens about security developments, countering misinformation and fake news, encouraging public vigilance and resilience, promoting national unity and peaceful coexistence, while strengthening democracy by supporting informed public discourse.
These principles of Accuracy, Balance, and Caution (ABC). enable journalists, government communicators, and security agencies provide the public with reliable information while protecting national security and preserving democratic values. When properly applied, the framework contributes to informed citizenship, social stability, and the collective effort to overcome security challenges. In this way, the media retains its central role as the watchdog for gathering, processing, and disseminating information to the public in a responsively way.
In this era of terrorism, cyber threats, insurgency, and rapid digital communication, the media’s role intersects very closely, and very dramatically, with national information security. The challenge here lies in balancing the public’s right to know with the need to protect sensitive information that could threaten national security. The Freedom of Information Act, which is sometimes touted by some journalist with limited understanding of its full implications, does not override the overarching provisions of the constitution and other laws designed to safeguard the integrity of the state against any acts, plans, publications or intendments that may undermine, or overawe, it.
Concerns about national information security obliges the journalist to protect and prevent the dissemination of any piece of information that could undermine national interests in any form. This implies the protection of information, communication systems, sensitive data or other such material that could compromise national security from unauthorized access, manipulation, disclosure, or destruction. It also encompasses the protection of classified government information, security of military and intelligence operations, cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection, refusal to promote misinformation and disinformation campaigns, and respect for citizens’ personal and national data.
The responsible journalist informs the Public without ignoring the law against character defamation, libel and public scandals. It means helping to verify facts, debunk rumors, and prevent the circulation of misleading narratives that may threaten national stability.
This task of the media also involves promoting public awareness of security obligations, educating the citizens about cyber security risks, subtle terrorism radicalization mechanisms and the fundamentals of national resilience. Knowledge of manipulated images and videos, coordinated disinformation campaigns, cybersecurity threats and online fraud are to be taken for granted for practitioners who are guided by the principles for Responsible Media Practice.
As a way out of the more recent excrescences in the media regarding the army, the following points should be noted: (1) Access to military facilities does not translate into the right to abuse established military traditions, (2) Journalists should consider the potential security implications of sensitive reports in their hands. (3) Coverage should present facts objectively and avoid inflammatory or stigmatizing language, (4) Media professionals should respect professional standards and avoid spreading rumors or propaganda, (5) Constructive engagement between media organizations and security institutions will improve information sharing while respecting press freedom.
The media is a critical stakeholder in national information security. Through accurate reporting, fact-checking, public education, and responsible journalism, the media contributes significantly to national stability and resilience. Irresponsible reporting, misinformation, and disclosure of sensitive information do not conduce to a balanced relationship between media freedom and national security considerations.
