When Tim Sebastian (the presenter of the BBC Hard Talk programme) interviewed the former Yugoslavian president’s wife, Mrs. Nvochavich, she could not sustain the pressure and responded, “You (Sebastian) are behaving like a haughty policeman; you are an unpleasant man. Had I known you would talk like this, I would not have accepted it.” Stephen Sackur said after his interview with the former president of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, that Obasanjo told him, “Stephen, tomorrow you will be hearing from my lawyers.”
Hard Talk of the BBC, Head to Head, and Upfront of Al Jazeera are no-go areas for unprepared politicians. Hard Talk presenters such as Tim Sebastian, Zeinab Badawi, Stephen Sackur, and Sarah Montague have become very prominent personalities across the globe. During the 20th anniversary of the programme in 2017, Zeinab Badawi said, “Leaders who submit themselves to Hard Talk interrogation get respect for doing that compared to those who refuse.” Look at how she put the words “submit themselves,” as if they were submitting themselves to the International Court of Justice in The Hague. That shows how powerful such programmes are and their impact on strengthening good governance and democratic principles. Such programmes serve as human rights defenders, and most dictators find them challenging.
Unfortunately, such platforms are very rare in developing countries for many reasons; however, there is some progress in Nigeria. During the 2019 election, Kadaria Ahmed, a Nigerian veteran journalist, created an interview programme in a town hall meeting full of opinionated audiences. She tried to ask questions that most Nigerian journalists may not have had the audacity to ask or may not have gotten a chance to ask…
These paragraphs are excerpts from a chapter titled Punditry and Political Journalism: Candid Corner in my book, Political Communication in the Post-truth Era*. I opened this piece with these paragraphs to demonstrate my support for hard-hitting, fearless journalism and journalists.
I decided to avoid the Madina Maishanu interview debate after writing my opinion on Thursday. I declined an interview with the media because some take the issue personally, and I didn’t want to hurt anyone. However, most of the comments I see contradict the thrust of my argument. Secondly, the issue is beyond Maishanu’s personality; it is a public debate about journalism practice.
I’m not in any way challenging Maishanu’s toughness. My argument is about her non-verbal interview cues, specifically facial expression. Like other commentators, I see Maishanu’s facial expression as a frowning face, although some see it as a straight face. This individual difference in the interpretation of facial expression is not new. Psychological and cultural theories like Universalist and Neurocultural theories explain this in detail. In a nutshell, culture, age, geography, and context are key determinants of facial expression. Therefore, it is normal to interpret Maishanu’s facial expression differently.
A frowning face is a moody face indicating displeasure, anger, or disapproval, while a straight face is a neutral and calm face indicating seriousness. The former is judgmental and emotional, while the latter signals concern and focus. Journalists are expected to be neutral based on the principles of objectivity, impartiality, and fairness. I’m not going into a debate about whether neutrality is a myth or reality and its moral judgment. I don’t think it is right to start explaining consequentialist or deontological theories in this piece. Let’s leave that for ƴan takarda.
Moreover, facial expression should match the tone and context of an interview. Maishanu maintained the same facial expression during her recent interviews with the Niger State Governor, the Minister of Defence, and the former Kano State governor, Dr. Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso. I don’t think these contexts require a similar facial expression.
Showing concern and asking tough questions does not mean being emotional. As one veteran journalist said, you can’t be emotional and professional. But I guess why Maishanu is acting this way. Partly, it is the BBC in her. I have two former BBC Hausa staff as my mentor, classmate, and boss: Idris Muhammad Amin and Mustapha Muhammad. On different occasions, both narrated to me how the BBC trains and guides its journalists to appear courageous in front of any public figure. Personally, I don’t know any person who hates corruption and corrupt people like Idris. His hatred is intense. He narrated his encounters with some big politicians and public figures in Nigeria. The stories are intriguing; I will share them one time. But they opened my eyes on how BBC journalists are different from others, specifically in Nigeria.
Secondly, Maishanu is taking a different path from her popular infotainment interviews to news interviews. Probably, she wants her audience to see a different face of her; that is why she is trying to be serious here. I think this makes her overdo the “facial expression transition.” Eye contact and a straight face do not mean a frowning face. And also, context matters.
As I said in my earlier Facebook post, Maishanu should focus more on the intellectual requirements of her transition instead of the facial expression (emotional) transition. For instance, she missed critical questions in her interview with Kwankwaso related to power abuse, nomination of commissioners and local government chairmen by Kwankwaso, and corruption issues such as Novomaid and foreign scholarship scandals. Paying attention to research as a critical interview skill would save her from missing such issues while supporting her asking evidence-driven questions.
My best contemporary journalist is Mehdi Hassan. Watching him is a hobby for me. And why should I discourage a young practitioner like me from doing what I love watching? I support you, Maishanu, and I pray for you. But consider our criticism as an opportunity to improve.
Allah knows best.
Isah Nasidi, is a mass communication lecturer and media consultant based in Abuja. He can be reached at isanyaya@gmail.com
