Lere Olayinka was not afraid of a question; he was objecting to a style of questioning and a language he considered disrespectful. There is a difference between being subjected to tough journalism and being invited into an atmosphere where political discourse degenerates into personal provocation. His decision not to engage Rufai Oseni should therefore not be hastily interpreted as cowardice or an inability to defend his principal.
The issue of “Gbewudani” cannot simply be brushed aside as harmless television banter. Rufai Oseni used the Yoruba expression while discussing the PDP presidential candidate. He explained “Gbewudani” as meaning “hold my clothes”—an expression commonly used when someone metaphorically stands aside while another person engages in a fight. In the political context in which it was used, the description was plainly capable of being humiliating and belittling to the person being referred to.
More importantly, Reuben Abati himself immediately raised an objection to the language. Abati cautioned Rufai and warned that he could face a lawsuit, stressing that the integrity of people should not be damaged. That intervention is significant because it came from Rufai’s own colleague on the same programme. If Abati could recognise that there was a line that should not be crossed, then Lere Olayinka cannot be condemned simply for taking exception to the same kind of language.
This is precisely why Lere’s reaction deserves to be understood in context. A journalist has the right to ask difficult questions, challenge politicians and expose contradictions. But that right does not confer an unlimited licence to use language that may demean, ridicule or humiliate the people being discussed. Journalism should be fearless, but it must also be responsible.
And then comes the conduct of Ayo Mairo-Ese, who brought the interview to an abrupt end. She reminded Lere that he had agreed to appear before the three anchors and subsequently told him that the interview would end because he was unwilling to answer Rufai’s questions.
For the sake of fairness and justice, however, her action also deserves scrutiny. Was it really in the best interest of justice and balanced journalism to terminate the interview at that particular moment, rather than allow Lere to explain why he objected to Rufai’s language and perhaps allow the conversation to return to the substantive political issue? Ayo Mairo-Ese was entitled to protect the integrity of the programme, but fairness should not mean shutting down one side of a disagreement before the audience has heard that side fully.
If an interviewee objects to the language used by an interviewer, the proper response should not necessarily be to terminate the interview immediately. The interviewer and the guest should be allowed, within reasonable professional boundaries, to address the objection and return to the substance of the matter. That would have served the audience better.
Lere Olayinka may have chosen a confrontational response, but his complaint did not emerge from nowhere. There was already a public controversy over the use of “Gbewudani,” and Abati had expressly cautioned Rufai about the potential consequences of such language. Therefore, when Lere objected, he was responding to an issue that had already been raised by another senior journalist on the same platform.
The lesson here is simple: tough journalism is not the same thing as humiliating journalism. Interviewers can interrogate, challenge, disagree and demand answers without reducing their guests or the people they discuss to degrading labels.
Rufai Oseni is entitled to his style of journalism, but he must also understand that words have consequences. The microphone gives an interviewer enormous influence, and that influence demands restraint. If Abati could caution him that words such as “Gbewudani” could damage someone’s integrity, then the warning should not be dismissed.
And Ayo Mairo-Ese, as one of the programme’s anchors, should equally understand that the responsibility of fairness does not end with defending a fellow presenter. It extends to ensuring that a guest is treated fairly even when the guest is difficult, angry or unwilling to engage with one particular interviewer.
The audience deserves the truth, not a contest of egos. The guest deserves the opportunity to defend his position. And the interviewer deserves the freedom to ask difficult questions. All three can coexist without humiliation.
Lere Olayinka may have refused to face the hawk, but perhaps the chicken knew the hawk well enough to understand that entering the fight on the hawk’s terms would achieve nothing.
The greater lesson for broadcast journalism is therefore this: interviewers must be careful with the language they use in describing their guests and the people about whom they ask questions. Ask the hard questions. Challenge political claims. Demand accountability. But do not cross the line into language that humiliates, ridicules or unnecessarily damages the dignity of those being discussed.
“The microphone may belong to the interviewer, but the dignity of the person sitting on the other side of the table does not.”
Osabinu Olufemi