A critical analysis of media reporting and empaneling, especially on issues that they consider to be scandalous, exposes an incredible level of media bias.

Their decision to empanel persons whose views they already know on a matter without fully disclosing the same to their unsuspecting audiences is not just disingenuous but unethical, prejudicial, and unfair to the individuals and companies involved. This piece delves into such instances. This is to help my readers broaden their scope and become more critical when consuming media contents. This is necessary, as especially a section of the media does not seem to appreciate how this trend is affecting fair and balanced media representation.

The Power of the Media:

There are three different schools of thought regarding the power of the media. There are those who believe that the power of the media is overwhelming and direct. These people subscribe to theories like the hypodermic needle theory, which construes the media’s hold on people as being direct, such as the hypodermic needle.

On the middle grounds are those who believe that the role of the media is moderated by other important intervening factors, including opinion leaders, influencers, other social intervening agencies, including religion, and socio-cultural institutions. These people are more open to the two-step flow theory in media communications, which assumes that some of these intervening factors act as filters on media contents and effects on people.

At the extreme end are people who believe that the media is limited in so many scores. These people are not just skeptical about the media; they do not believe that the media could influence their decisions and choices, like how society and culture do. No matter where you stand in this, the media, in my view, is impactful. That is why their actions and inactions must be of interest to all.

Media Framing:

A greater part of what we do as Media practitioners and Communicators is framing. The framing theory, which is closely used alongside agenda setting, explains how issues are presented and captured. In media engineering and agenda setting, framing strategies are used to determine how issues are assessed, evaluated, and presented to the audience.

Framing is expressed in so many ways, including diction, headline use, questioning technique, postproduction editing, and the and the type of pictures accompanying a story, among a host of others. Truly, framing and agenda setting are why the media remains powerful. Malcom X knew this when he mentioned that the media could make an innocent man look guilty and a guilty man innocent. In my view, the Ghanaian media has mastered the art of framing issues. Broadcast media especially achieve their framing and agenda-setting objectives chiefly through the people they assemble to speak on a matter, empaneling.

Observations:

On matters that the media consider scandalous, the people that they empanel are predictable. The same people who parade as representing CSOs are the same people who are rotated across the leading media. Such has been the case with the sale of SSNIT Hotels and the GRA-SML contract. A content analysis of these issues exposes a trend where the people that some leading media outlets have interviewed on these issues have almost been the same. This is not just unfair, but it equally does not broaden the frontiers of media conversations. The richness of the media is compromised with this narrow way of using the same panel and persons on issues, especially when their positions are already known or
could be reasonably predicted. Even more bizarre is how newsrooms have framed the issues.

For example, if there is breaking news on a potentially scandalous matter and the media begin to interview a barrage of anti-corruption crusaders on the said matter, does this practice not reduce the entire issue to corruption? Sadly, this has been the case with many of the so-called scandals that have been reported. Even before these persons and companies mount a defense, their case is framed as being within the sphere of corruption or impropriety through media empanelment. This, in my estimation, is the highest level of unethical, unbalanced, and disingenuous journalism.

Case of six CSOS against SML, GRA, Ken Ofori-Atta and Attorney-General:

When the SML story broke, some leading media outlets reduced the entire narrative to corruption and impropriety. Before they would make their own independent checks with the company and understand their operations, they prejudiced the entire narrative by lining up individuals who disguised as independent commentators and anti-corruption campaigners.

All along, these individuals had been paraded separately in the media as independent people, when the contrary is the case. Anyone who does not understand media framing will not see how sheer paneling of these people impacted the whole narrative in SML’s disfavor.

Given that these CSOs have jointly filed a suit in court against the SML-GRA contract, will it not be fair to suggest that, from the outset, they have been working together? Will it not be plausible to also suggest that the decision of some section of the media to represent these individuals separately reinforced a prejudiced view against the GRA-SML contract?

It amazes me that their lead lawyer, Martin Kpebu, who is an avowed critique of the current regime, will still be empaneled to make the following prejudicial comments ahead of the hearing in court: “We’ve sued SML. I’ve led ACEP, CDD-Ghana and many other CSOs. We’ve sued SML and Ken Ofori-Atta for the recovery of those billions of cedis that have been paid to them. We’ve sued in the High Court so Ofori-Atta will be served. He should come and explain the breaches of the law, the way he breached the law for SML to get those contracts; he will come to court to testify."

“I told you the timing is very important. We sued at a time when this government is going out of power so that there won’t be any chances that they’ll go and, like, Godfred Dame, go and see judges privately, so that there will be no chance that he can go and do such things,” he disclosed.

Truly, SML is not alone in this. Most notable media reports involving the reputation of companies have suffered the same fate.

Conclusion: The Need for Full disclosures:

In this piece, I have argued that the practice where the media assembles and empanels people who have made prejudicial comments about an issue to discuss the same is in breach of ethical, fair, and balanced media standards. This practice reinforces and perpetuates a biased stand against individuals and companies involved. This approach presumes individuals and companies guilty before they have every opportunity to exact their innocence, which contradicts the precepts of the law of natural justice. It does not only foster a culture of impunity and ingenuity, but it also inspires a reputational crisis in individuals and companies, even before the issues are fully addressed.

Such journalism best fits the bill of media terrorism, which an appeal’s court cleverly coined. Before assembling people to speak on a matter, I recommend that the media disclose any known or perceived views those persons have already held on the matter. At best, the media could choose individuals who are truly neutral or whose positions do not compel them to make prejudicial and unfair views on a matter. Full media disclosures will prove invaluable in this fight. In a
In a nutshell, the media must not be prejudicial, unbalanced, and unfair in their framing of matters.