By Dan Manjang
It takes courage to speak the truth within one’s own professional constituency, especially on a matter as sensitive and consequential as conflict reporting. Rather than an attack on journalists, his position is a sober reflection—a call to conscience that seeks to strengthen, not diminish, the noble ideals of the profession.
At the heart of Ishaku’s argument is a fundamental truth: journalism is not merely about reporting events; it is about shaping understanding and driving accountability. In conflict environments like Jos, the role of the media transcends headlines and casualty figures. It becomes a critical instrument for public safety, institutional scrutiny, and long-term peacebuilding. On this score, his critique is not only valid but urgent.
limits of episodic reporting
There is no denying the bravery of journalists who operate under difficult and often dangerous conditions in Plateau State. Many have risked their lives to bring stories to the public domain. However, as Ishaku rightly points out, courage alone is not enough. Professional responsibility demands depth, consistency, and a commitment to uncovering the underlying dynamics that sustain cycles of violence.
The pattern he describes—violence, reportage, and then silence—is a troubling one. It reflects a form of episodic journalism that captures moments but misses the continuum. In doing so, it inadvertently allows critical issues to fade from public discourse, thereby weakening the pressure on both state and non-state actors to act responsibly and decisively.
Particularly compelling is his emphasis on the “missing middle”—the period between crises where preventive journalism should thrive. This is where the media can make the greatest impact: by tracking threats, interrogating intelligence gaps, and amplifying early warning signals from communities. When this space is neglected, society is left vulnerable, and violence becomes cyclical rather than exceptional.
Accountability, institutions, governance
Ishaku’s observations about the lack of sustained investigative reporting into security operations and government interventions deserve serious attention. Institutions such as Operation Safe Haven and various commissions of inquiry represent significant public investments. Yet, without consistent media scrutiny, their effectiveness remains opaque, and their shortcomings unaddressed.
Equally important is the need for the media to interrogate political leadership across administrations. From past to present, governments have made promises, initiated policies, and received federal support aimed at restoring peace in Plateau State. The absence of rigorous follow-up by the media creates a vacuum where accountability is weakened and performance is rarely measured against outcomes.
His critique also extends to the digital space, where threats and incitements often surface long before violence erupts. The failure to systematically monitor and investigate such signals represents a missed opportunity for preventive reporting. In an era where information flows rapidly, the media must evolve to meet the demands of real-time intelligence and verification.
Towards a more proactive media
Furthermore, Ishaku’s call for data-driven and community-embedded journalism aligns with global best practices in conflict reporting. Understanding patterns, mapping incidents, and maintaining a presence within affected communities can significantly enhance the quality and impact of reportage. It shifts journalism from reactive storytelling to proactive engagement.
The broader implication of his argument is clear: when the media falls short of its watchdog role, governance suffers. Policies become symbolic, interventions lose traction, and citizens are left without a reliable mechanism to demand accountability. In such an environment, insecurity thrives not only because of armed actors but also because of systemic silence.
It is also worth noting that his position does not absolve the state of its primary responsibility to protect lives and property. Rather, it reinforces the idea that a vigilant and proactive media is an essential complement to effective governance. The relationship between the two should be one of constructive tension, where scrutiny drives improvement.
In supporting Jonathan Ishaku’s position, one must therefore see this not as criticism for its own sake, but as a pathway to reform. The media in Plateau State—and indeed across Nigeria—must embrace this moment as an opportunity to recalibrate its priorities and methods. The stakes are too high for complacency.
Ultimately, the choice before the media is stark but clear: to remain a recorder of recurring tragedy or to become an active force in breaking the cycle of violence. Ishaku has issued a challenge, and history will judge how it is answered.
Manjang, mnipr, MDiv, former Plateau State Commissioner of Information and Communication, writes via dmanjang@gmail.com