Rufai Oseni’s approach to television journalism has continued to generate debate, with critics often accusing the Arise Morning Show anchor of bias, aggression and unprofessional conduct.

But is strong questioning necessarily evidence of political bias? Or does Oseni sometimes simply allow his convictions and emotions to become too visible in interviews?

After I wrote an intervention on last week’s incident on the Arise Morning Show, a friend, who is one of the leaders of public relations practice in Nigeria, sent me a message asking for my professional assessment of Oseni.

I replied: “I think he’s bright, patriotic, and objective. But he gets too emotional and descends into the arena, sometimes doing more than a journalist should do.”

My friend, who said they had known Oseni personally for years, disagreed strongly.

“Really? He lacks every trait of a professional journalist!” they responded, suggesting that the television anchor required further professional training.

I did not pursue the argument for two reasons. First, I do not disagree that Oseni, like every other professional, requires continuous training and retraining. Professional education is never truly complete.

Second, I decided that the better response would be to explain my position more fully.

I will therefore admit from the outset that, while many Nigerians describe Rufai Oseni as biased, I do not share that assessment.

I understand why some people, particularly those on the receiving end of his sometimes vigorous and relentless interrogation of issues and personalities, may consider him partisan, arrogant or unprofessional.

But I do not see him that way.
And I say this as someone who follows the Arise Morning Show with considerable interest.

Over the years, I have observed that Oseni, alongside his colleagues, Dr Ruben Abati, Ayo Mairo-Ese and, occasionally, Vimbai Mutinhiri-Ekpenyong, generally hold their guests to similar standards of accountability, good governance and responsibility.

Oseni is, in my view, one of the most brilliant television journalists on Nigerian television today.

He is well-read, has an impressive command of facts and figures, and demonstrates a level of preparation that should arguably be a minimum requirement for anyone given the privilege of anchoring a morning programme on national television.

He remembers what public officials said months earlier. He retrieves figures.

He points out contradictions. He presses guests when they attempt to evade questions.

He is also visibly passionate about Nigeria.
That passion is evident in virtually every discussion.

I cannot imagine why a country should demand less of its journalists than knowledge, preparation, courage and a genuine concern for the public interest.

So, why does Oseni sometimes come across as biased or unprofessional to sections of the viewing public?

Part of the answer lies in understanding the format of the Arise Morning Show.

The programme’s principal anchors perform at least two different functions. They are journalists, but they are also analysts.

During some segments, particularly the opening discussions, they are not merely reporting what happened. They are interpreting developments, interrogating policies and examining political positions and public issues.

In that capacity, they can draw conclusions from political conduct and express their personal views.

The same principle applies to other segments of the programme, including The Brief with Rotus Odiri, World Brief, Newspapers Review by Akinfemi Adesanya, Sports and What’s Trending.

There is an important distinction between straight news reporting and other forms of broadcast journalism.

For example, the United Kingdom’s broadcast regulator, Ofcom, recognises that presenters outside news programmes, including personal-view programmes and discussion programmes, may express their views on matters of political controversy or current public policy, provided that alternative viewpoints are adequately represented and the presenter does not use their platform in a manner that compromises due impartiality.

There is therefore nothing inherently wrong with an analyst telling viewers what they think.
An analyst who is afraid to reach a conclusion or communicate it clearly may not be doing the job expected of an analyst.

If two positions contradict each other, the analyst should be able to say so.

If a policy appears incoherent, the analyst should explain why. If someone’s conduct raises questions about competence, integrity or consistency, those questions should be raised, provided the assessment is grounded in facts.
It should not matter whose political interest is affected.

The difficulty begins when an analyst fails to completely surrender that role when the programme moves into an interview.

That is where the distinction becomes important.

The interviewer has a different responsibility from the analyst.

An interviewer should not enter an interview determined to prove that his own opinion is correct.

The guest has been invited to answer questions and provide information to the audience.

The journalist’s responsibility is therefore to ask relevant questions, interrogate the answers, introduce contradictory evidence where necessary and give viewers enough information to reach their own conclusions.

This does not mean the interviewer should be timid.

Anyone, particularly a public official appearing on television, should expect difficult questions.
They should also expect follow-up questions.

If a guest evades a question, the interviewer should return to it.

If the guest contradicts an earlier statement, the journalist should point it out.

If the available facts differ from the guest’s claims, the journalist has a responsibility to challenge those claims.

That is not bias.

That is journalism.

This is where some of the criticism against Oseni misses the point.

Tough or relentless questioning is not necessarily evidence of bias.

Similarly, interruption is not automatically rude or unprofessional.

There are occasions when a journalist must interrupt because a guest is avoiding a question, taking disproportionate airtime or turning an interview into a promotional exercise.

But adversarial journalism is not the same thing as argumentative journalism.

The line between interrogating a guest’s argument and arguing with the guest during an interview is very thin.

Journalists must be careful not to cross it.
And Oseni does not always need to cross that line because he is usually sufficiently prepared.

In my opinion, the better prepared an interviewer is, the less he sometimes needs to say.

The interviewer should put the facts before the guest, ask the question and then have the discipline to listen.

If the guest prevaricates, repeat the question.
If the guest contradicts himself, ask him to reconcile the contradiction.

If he cannot, allow the audience to draw its own conclusion.

The journalist has already made the point.
The audience is not stupid.

It is capable of understanding what it has heard.
An interview should therefore not degenerate into a shouting match simply because the interviewer wants his own position to prevail.

The desire to prove that one’s opinion is right should be almost invisible during an interview.

This, in my view, is where Oseni occasionally gets into trouble with both guests and viewers.

Sometimes, he appears so emotionally invested in demonstrating that he is correct that the question becomes too long.

The supplementary question becomes an explanation.

The explanation becomes an argument.
And before long, viewers are watching two people struggling to establish who has the superior position instead of watching a journalist extract useful information from a guest.

At such moments, the audience can become confused rather than educated.
The spectacle can also become embarrassingly unedifying.

Despite these concerns, however, it would be difficult to sustain the charge that Oseni is politically biased based solely on his interviewing style.

A journalist’s strong views or aggressive questioning should not automatically be interpreted as allegiance to an opposing political tendency.

The more useful test of objectivity is consistency.

Does the interviewer subject claims to equivalent scrutiny regardless of who makes them?

Does he interrogate evasions from politicians he is presumed to favour with the same intensity with which he challenges those he is presumed to dislike?

Does he treat evidence with the same seriousness regardless of the political tendency of the person presenting it?

Those are fair questions for Oseni, his colleagues on the Arise Morning Show and, indeed, every journalist.

On these questions, I do not recall persuasive evidence that Oseni has used his platform to advance the electoral fortunes of one political tendency over another.

Rather, he repeatedly demands that government deliver for the people and insists that political candidates should go beyond making promises to explain how those promises will be achieved.

What I see is a journalist with a strong passion for seeing Nigeria work, but who occasionally allows his convictions to become too visible and dominate interviews with people whose views differ from his.

That may contradict the restraint expected of a journalist, but it is not necessarily proof of political bias.

The problem is that the average viewer may not always make that distinction.

And that is where professional restraint becomes critical.

Journalism derives much of its power from credibility, and credibility depends not only on what journalists intend but also on how their conduct is perceived.

When viewers believe they already know an interviewer’s position before a guest has even answered the first question, the journalist has a problem.

The perception may be unfair.

It may even be completely wrong.

But perception matters.

Oseni therefore needs restraint, just as every journalist does.

He also needs to clearly distinguish between his different roles when he moves between analyst and interviewer on the same programme.

Nigeria should never lack television interviewers who possess knowledge, courage and the willingness to ask difficult questions.

But courage must be accompanied by discipline.

A journalist must resist the temptation to complete an argument for a guest, win an argument against a guest or force personal opinions down the throats of viewers.

The journalist’s job is not to win.
It is to inform.

When that thin line is crossed, an interviewer risks creating an impression of partisanship even when he is not necessarily partisan.

And that, ultimately, is the burden of objectivity.