JamzNG Latest News, Gist, Entertainment in Nigeria
By: Folorunso Fatai Adisa
It has been terribly heartbreaking to read a number of comments on social media, particularly from individuals who should know better, media-savvy political actors and self-styled analysts. What is striking in many of these reactions is not just disagreement, but a worrying mix of intellectual arrogance and informational poverty. For some, any analysis that does not flatter their political preferences should automatically be labeled unprofessional, biased, or sponsored. This reflection alone says a lot about the poverty of our public discourse.
From all indications, I have encountered at least two commentators from my own home state, whose criticisms strongly suggest that they neither know who Mehdi Hasan is nor have meaningfully observed his work. Hasan is not an obscure media figure. He built his reputation through sharp, questioning journalism on platforms such as the BBC, Sky News, Al Jazeera English and later MSNBC.
His interviews, many of which routinely attract millions of views online, are studied in journalism schools precisely for their forensic structure and evidentiary discipline. His 2023 book, Win Every Argument: The Art of Debating, Persuading, and Public Speaking, quickly became a widely discussed primer on modern argumentative strategy.
What some critics react to is not misconduct but unfamiliarity. They are accustomed to the culture of mushroom-style interviews and kangaroo courts that is unfortunately ubiquitous on many Nigerian television platforms, formats in which the questions are coyly deferential or theatrically partisan.
Audiences in several emerging media markets are increasingly wary of partisan broadcasts precisely because they blur the lines between journalism and political advocacy, according to the Reuters Institute’s 2024 Digital News Report. However, in Nigeria, segments of the media ecosystem still operate within this binary: a journalist is either for a party or against it. Nuance is treated as a betrayal.
As a result, when the public encounters an interviewer who practices the craft as taught in advanced media systems (evidence-driven, archival-backed, and rhetorically surgical), they misinterpret professionalism as hostility. A neutral interrogator becomes, in their imagination, an enemy agent.
Hence the predictable refrain: the interview was sponsored, the host is biased, the program is a fabrication. This is precisely the intellectual reflex that greeted the exchange between Hasan and Daniel Bwala.
Journalism has evolved far beyond the crude “all-comers” model that still dominates parts of Nigerian television culture. Around the world, the craft now relies on rigorous fact-checking, archive retrieval and disciplined questioning designed to test the credibility of public officials. Hasan’s interview method falls squarely into that professional tradition.
Therefore the challenge is simple. Those who have written nonsense in an attempt to belittle Mehdi Hasan should present, with evidence rather than sentiment, a currently active Nigerian television host whose interview pedigree, global reach and evidentiary control surpass his. Until such a demonstration is made, the wisest course would be intellectual humility rather than strong certainty.
Given the number of crazy articles I’ve seen written about Mehdi Hasan, as if he were acting as an opposition figure, the reaction is quite galling. The program is called Head-to-Head for a reason. It is designed to be probing, direct and contradictory in a professional sense.
Pro-Bwala supporters should relax. There was no calculated attempt by the host to take him down. At the same time, anti-Bwala critics should also temper their conclusions. Daniel Bwala didn’t expressly act sad either. It was, quite simply, a tough interview conducted within the normal conventions of rigorous broadcast journalism.
Daniele did his best. Yet at no point did Mehdi Hasan show any hostility towards him. What many interpreted as aggression was, in reality, the disciplined severity of professional interviews.
Our problem is deeper. We are an overly sentimental people. Too often we confuse tough questioning with a personal attack. This reflection may be common in our local media culture, but exporting such habits into global conversations does us no credit. Journalism, everywhere in the world, is based on scrutiny, evidence and accountability. When we reach this standard, we should engage it intellectually rather than reject it emotionally. Difficult questions hurt feelings and rigor is never hostility!
Folorunso Fatai Adisa is a communications strategist and columnist. He holds an MA in Media and Communications from the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, and writes from the UK.
‘Want to share a story with us? Do you want to advertise with us? Do you need advertising for a product, service or event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348183319097 Email: platformtimes@gmail.com
We are committed to impactful investigative journalism for human interest and social justice. Your donation will help us tell more stories. Please donate any amount HERE
