Using interviews conducted with Nigerian journalists, this article explores Nigerian journalists' understandings of investigative journalism, and whether they use it to investigate the allegations of corruption scandals against various public offi ceholders. The results show that Nigerian journalists have a fair understanding of investigative journalism. However, they do not fully agree that it is being practiced. The results also show that clientelism is a feature of journalism practice, and one of the factors that impedes the practice of investigative journalism. The research has identifi ed the challenges militating against the practice of investigating journalism in order to uncover the cases of corruption scandals. Such impediments include poor remuneration, bad working conditions, corruption within the media, and the relationship between publishers and politicians.

The violent insurgence in Northern Nigeria linked to the group ‘Jama’atu Ahlussunna Lidda’wati wal Jihad’, also known as ‘Boko Haram’, has since its outbreak in July 2009 attracted a lot of international media attention. Two notable media channels that have consistently reported it are CNN and Al Jazeera English. By applying the critical discourse analysis technique this article focuses on how these reputable media organizations often rely on parachute reporting – whereby correspondents are only dispatched to the scene of the conflict from their offices or beats abroad – and the consequences. This tradition has a tendency to raise questions on the credibility of the reports as the correspondents’ access to local sources is hindered and their understanding of the local terrain and context of the conflict could be problematic. This article, therefore, postulates that CNN and Al Jazeera reportage of the Boko Haram conflict using reporters not fully based in the affected areas leads to misunderstanding and misreporting the crisis and misinforming the audience. This type of reporting is also found to lead to inadvertent polarization of the conflict due to the use of assumptions and stereotypes in news reporting, which questions the media’s role as neutral observers/reporters of the conflict.

This article examines the reporting of corruption in the Nigerian press. The purpose of the article is to develop a thesis that explains the factors that influence the practice of journalism in Nigeria using the reporting of corruption as a yardstick. The article stems from in-depth interviews with Nigerian journalists in 2007 in which they were asked about the way they report corruption, and whether the regional divide in the country is apparent in reporting stories about corruption. Following the work of Hallin and Mancini (2004, Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press), this article suggests that what exists in Nigeria is regional parallelism, which implies a modification of Hallin and Mancini's framework of political parallelism. The findings of the research suggest that regionalism is a key factor in Nigerian journalism. However, it is much more complex than the simple assumption of north-south dichotomy; rather, there are intra-regional factors in the nature of ownership in the Nigerian press. The regional parallelism thesis identified six factors that explain the character of the Nigerian press. The article recommends that courses on corruption and the media should be introduced in Nigerian and other African universities teaching journalism and mass communications, so that future journalists will understand the challenges ahead. The article also recommends that an independent commission for the protection of journalists in Africa should be established.

No abstract

This article studies the social media reporting of the Norwegian attacks by Anders Breivik with specific focus on the user commentary of YouTube versions of the breaking story in four media organizations, namely CNN, BBC, NBC and PJTV. Within the context of Islamophobia, the article uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) to understand the thread of the reporting and user comments on the Norwegian attacks. It is important to combine the two theoretical approaches because Islamophobia, as discussed by Allen (2010), is rising in Europe, and the swift reaction of the media in attributing terror attacks to Muslims without scrutiny shows how crucial it is to situate the study within the Islamophobia paradigm, while CDA will help us to understand the Islamophobic themes that emerged in the reporting of the story, and how the user-generated comments can contribute to our understanding of the rise of Islamophobia in the West. The study found three key themes that dominated discussions among the users on YouTube: intolerance/violence/immigration associated with Muslims in Europe, conspiracy theories and counter or alternative views from the opinions expressed by some users. This article concludes by agreeing with the position of Freedman and Thussu (2012) that there is a need to address the way stories about Muslims are reported in the West, otherwise there could be serious consequences for society, including foreign policy mistakes that can be avoided.