The Nigerian media is facing a credibility crisis, one that is deepening by the day and threatening its historic role as the conscience of society. Nowhere is this more evident than in the excessive and often distorted coverage of the impeachment crisis in Rivers State. What should have been reported as a serious constitutional and political development has instead become a marketplace of narratives, where cash inducements, sponsored “media chats,” and paid-for sympathies are increasingly shaping what Nigerians read, hear, and watch.
Ordinarily, the politics of Rivers State, no matter how dramatic, should not dominate the national media space to the extent it has in the last week and continues to do so currently. Yet the sheer volume and tone of reporting suggest that editorial judgment has been overtaken by pecuniary interests. The result is not merely an imbalance; it is outright corruption.
At the centre of this media saturation is Nyesom Wike, the Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, who, under the guise of “media chats,” invites media houses and their most recognisable personalities, funds the logistics, and sets the agenda. Even where coverage appears critical or neutral, the subliminal messaging unmistakably makes him (Wike) the dominant political figure, deliberately making him worthy of constant national attention. In such circumstances, the delicate balance between objectivity and profit motive collapses. The media may insist it is merely doing its job, but the public sees something else: a paid amplification of power.
On the other hand, the pendulum swings, and suddenly stories begin to tilt in favour of Siminalayi Fubara, the Governor of Rivers State, often with an emotional appeal crafted to win public sympathy for him during the impeachment process. The speed and coordination of these counter-narratives raise legitimate questions about whether editorial reassessments are driven by new facts or new flows of money. When inducements directly or indirectly influence the tone and emphasis of news reporting and interactive engagements during news bulletins, authenticity is compromised. What remains is propaganda dressed as journalism.
This pattern is not new in Nigeria, as I have often cited the example of corrupt judges who accept bribes in the secrecy of their chambers, sometimes in the presence of only one Senior Advocate of Nigeria or a trusted friend. What such judges forget is that the money they receive is not conjured from thin air, but it is pooled by political party bigwigs who understand precisely what it is meant to buy. Once the judge delivers the desired outcome, the power of the bribe is confirmed. It did not take long for the Nigerian judiciary to acquire a reputation for corruption in the public eye, as those who gave the bribes were also the ones who advertised them.
The media is now walking the same dangerous path. When editors, producers, and media managers collect cash to swing stories and news production, they may enjoy short-term gains, but the long-term consequence is reputational ruin. Ironically, it is often the same politicians who pay for favourable coverage that later turn around to publicly denounce the media as corrupt. By then, the damage is done, and the public trust has been eroded.
As Nigeria approaches the 2027 general elections, the implications are grave. A media landscape widely perceived as corruptly influenced by politicians becomes a weapon against democracy. Citizens can no longer distinguish fact from paid fiction. Electoral choices are distorted, accountability is weakened, and cynicism replaces civic engagement. In such an environment, elections risk becoming contests not of ideas or competence, but of who can better bankroll the media narrative.
There is also a troubling practice that must be confronted head-on. It is about guests who secretly pay or sponsor their own appearances on political and news programmes, disguising these transactions as professional editorial decisions. This undermines the very foundation of broadcast ethics. The decision to invite a guest should be driven solely by the importance and currency of the issue, the quality of the personality, and by the independent judgment of producers and not by envelopes passed under tables or “logistics” quietly settled.
The situation becomes more tragic when media houses, aware of these corrupt tendencies, attempt to incentivise professionalism by offering highly competitive salaries to their staff, especially top managers, in an effort to discourage corruption. However, many unscrupulous media staff are still unable to resist the enticing inducements from these desperate political actors and their PR contractors. Media staff under such influence quickly discard their loyalty to their media owners for short-term monetary gains, while still expecting salaries from the same media owners at the end of the month. This typifies how a once major, trending African television station broadcasting from Nigeria was brought down and now operates as a shadow of its former days of dominance. That particular media owner of blessed memory was aware of and witnessed how his staff were earning money through media malpractice and resolved not to pay them salaries anymore for many months, claiming the station’s ID cards were sufficient meal tickets for them. What a sad development!
If the Nigerian media is to reclaim its credibility, it must draw a firm line. Sponsored content must be clearly labelled. Media chats funded by politicians should be treated with caution, in the context of transparency. Above all, newsrooms and their managers must rediscover the courage to say no to money that compromises judgment and access granted to undeserving guests to appear because of money, which often comes at the price of integrity. The business of mainstream media is highly capital intensive and extremely expensive, therefore media owners expect a high degree of professionalism and loyalty from their staff to maintain a higher return on their investment and prevent revenue leakage.
Rivers State politics will pass, as all political crises do, but if the media continues down this road of compromise and corruption, the loss of credibility may be permanent. A corrupt media, like a corrupt judiciary, can neither serve the public interest nor promote a stable democracy. It can only serve power or money and, in doing so, betray the very society it exists to inform.
Frank Tietie
Lawyer & Executive Director
Citizens Advocacy for Social & Economic Rights (CASER)
Gatekeepers News is not liable for opinions expressed in this article; they’re strictly the writer’s
