Post-war Civil War Propaganda Techniques and Media Spins in Nigeria and Journalism Practice

Abstract

In public relations and political communication, a spin is a form of propaganda achieved through knowingly presenting a biased interpretation of an event or issues. It is also the act of presenting narratives to influence public opinion about events, people or and ideas. In war time, various forms of spins are employed by antagonists to wear out the opponents and push their brigades to victory. During the Nigerian civil war, quite a number of these spins were dominant – for example GOWON (Go On With One Nigeria); “On Aburi We Stand”, “O Le Ku Ija Ore”. Post-war years presented different spins and fifty years after the war, different spins continue to push emerging narratives (e.g. “marginalization”, “restructuring”). This paper investigates and analyzes the different propaganda techniques and spins in the narratives of the Nigerian civil in the past five years through a content analysis of three national newspapers: The Nigerian Tribune, Daily Trust and Sun Newspapers. Findings confirm that propaganda and spins are not limited to war time, but are actively deployed in peace time. This development places additional challenge on journalists to uphold the canons of balance, truth and fairness in reporting sensitive national issues. The authors extend postulations that propaganda techniques, generally considered to be limited to war situations, are increasingly being used in post-war situations. Specifically, they highlight that journalists are becoming more susceptible to propaganda spins and this could affect the level of their compliance to the ethics of journalism.

Media framing and construction of socio-political issues in Nigeria: (Dis)connection between theory and professional ethics?

“…Previous findings on the two issues (Abdulbaqi & Ariemu, 2017;Akanni & Ibraheem, 2018;Amenaghawon, 2017;Folayan et al, 2021;Gever & Essien, 2019;Igwebuike, 2020;Kolawole, 2021;Nwabueze & Ezebuenyi, 2019;Osisanwo & Iyoha, 2020) show a media system that throws away its code of practice and leans towards episodic and thematic framing (more negative, less positive) as well as identity construction of the conflict actors-herders (most whom are of Fulani tribe), pastoral farmers and IPOB members/agitators. As such, labeling an entire ethnic group or profiling them as criminals, armed invaders, armed agitators, saboteurs, terrorists, murderers, rapists, among other negative frames and identities by the media because very few of them commit certain crimes is both unethical and capable of escalating conflicts, hatred and stereotypes of the ethnic group/movement being hastily profiled and labeled (Adeyanju, 2018;Dunu et al, 2018) in the media.…”

“…One, the first voice, which comes from the government through newspapers' reports demonizes IPOB as "armed agitators, abductors, murderers, terrorists, criminal agitators, militants, and separatists" (Akanni & Ibraheem, 2018;Chiluwa, 2018;Ezu, 2019;Folayan et al, 2021;Jimoh & Abdul-Hameed, 2017;Nwabueze & Ezebuenyi, 2019). These negative generic labels raise the salience/prominence of IPOB in manners that portray every IPOB member as an armed and criminal agitator, murderer, terrorist and militant, even if only few of its members are criminals.…”

“…The IPOB members were also framed as enemies of Nigeria (Osisanwo & Iyoha, 2020) whose agitations are to make money (Chiluwa, 2018) and sabotage the nation's economy (Amenaghawon, 2017;Osisanwo & Iyoha, 2020). The same voice described the movement as an illegal and unlawful gathering of "secessionists, separatists, terrorist, and discredited organization" (Folayan et al, 2021). If we are to also argue with Andén-Papadopoulos and Pantti's (2013) submission on the place of journalists' ideology in reporting opinions of newsmakers, we will realise that majority of the newspapers that framed IPOB using the government's voices are domiciled outside the Eastern Nigerian regions where Biafra agitation is prominent.…”

“…One, the negative episodic and thematic frames the newspapers presented, using their own voices and those of government officials, create some sort of "othering" and "bad omen" around all IPOB members, whether the criminal or the peaceful ones. The peaceful ones among IPOB members will feel oppressed and stereotyped if the media keep referring to all IPOB members as "economic saboteurs, criminals, terrorists, militants" and the country's enemies (Amenaghawon, 2017;Chiluwa, 2018;Folayan et al, 2021;Osisanwo & Iyoha, 2020). As most humans are psychologically emotional (Ovejero, 2000), it is therefore expected that the peaceful IPOB members who have been demonized, together with the violent ones, will abhor the country's political elite, the voices of whom the non-Eastern newspapers represent while reporting stories related to Biafra secession.…”