By Francis Dufugha
There is an increasing misconception among politically exposed persons, government officials, political officeholders and their media advisers about the role of social media influencers and content creators in political communication. Many appear to have concluded that engaging influencers, paying content creators and sponsoring social media campaigns are sufficient strategies for communicating government policies, programmes, achievements and political activities to the public.
This thinking reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the media industry and the changing dynamics of modern journalism.
There is a huge difference between social networking platforms and conventional media organisations. Although both serve communication purposes and contribute to information dissemination, their institutional responsibilities, professional standards, editorial structures, reach, credibility and capacity to influence public discourse are not necessarily the same.
Facebook.com is a social networking platform, just as Niger Delta Herald is a conventional media organisation with a digital presence. The fact that both operate on the internet does not make them the same institution.
Facebook provides a platform where individuals, influencers, content creators, businesses, political groups and media organisations publish and distribute information. Niger Delta Herald, on the other hand, is a media organisation that gathers, verifies, processes, edits, publishes and distributes news and other journalistic content through established editorial processes.
This distinction is fundamental, yet many political actors appear not to appreciate it.
Technology Has Changed The Media, Not Eliminated It
The emergence of digital technology has fundamentally transformed the media landscape. Conventional media organisations are no longer restricted to newspapers, radio and television broadcasts. They have embraced digital publishing, multimedia journalism, online broadcasting, social networking platforms, podcasts, video streaming and other emerging communication technologies.
Today, virtually every serious media organisation is operating within an integrated digital environment.
Newspapers have websites, television stations publish online, radio stations stream their programmes, and news organisations distribute their reports through Facebook, X, Instagram, WhatsApp and YouTube.
This is what technological convergence has achieved: the integration of traditional media channels with digital communication platforms to facilitate faster, wider and more effective information dissemination.
Consequently, the argument that social media has replaced conventional media is fundamentally misplaced.
Rather, social media has become an important distribution channel through which conventional media organisations extend their reach beyond their traditional geographical boundaries.
A newspaper published in Yenagoa can be accessed in Abuja, Lagos, London, Washington, Johannesburg and elsewhere in the world through its website.
This is the power of the World Wide Web (WWW). It has removed many of the geographical limitations that previously restricted conventional newspaper circulation.
Therefore, when a government or political officeholder engages a conventional media organisation with a functional online presence, the patronage goes beyond the physical newspaper. It includes access to its website, digital readership, editorial resources, professional journalists and multiple distribution channels.
Content Creators And Professional Journalists Have Different Responsibilities
There is absolutely nothing wrong with engaging social media influencers and content creators. They have become important actors in contemporary communication, particularly in reaching specific audiences, creating awareness and generating online engagement.
However, their services should complement, not replace, professional journalism.
An influencer may produce a video about a governor’s project, share photographs of a government event or promote a political programme. But who independently verifies the claims? Who investigates the financial implications of the project? Who examines its social impact? Who asks difficult questions about implementation, accountability and public value?
These are among the responsibilities of professional journalists.
Journalism is not simply about uploading photographs, recording videos, sharing sponsored posts or generating likes, comments and followers. It involves investigation, verification, editorial judgment, public accountability, ethical responsibility and the obligation to inform society accurately.
Professional journalists are trained to distinguish between publicity and news, propaganda and public information, political claims and verifiable facts.
A content creator may be engaged to promote a particular narrative, but a professional media organisation has an institutional responsibility that extends beyond the interests of the individual or organisation providing its patronage.
That independence is one of the defining values of professional journalism.
POLITICAL PATRONAGE SHOULD NOT BE LIMITED TO SOCIAL MEDIA ENGAGEMENT
One disturbing development in our political environment is the tendency of some politically exposed persons to concentrate their media budgets on influencers and content creators while neglecting established newspapers, radio stations, television stations and credible online news organisations.
Some political officeholders believe that because a particular influencer has hundreds of thousands of followers, that individual automatically possesses greater media value than a professional media organisation.
This is a narrow understanding of media influence.
Social media followers do not necessarily translate into verified readership, public trust, sustained visibility or credible news coverage. Online popularity is not the same as journalistic authority.
A sponsored video may generate thousands of views today and disappear from public attention tomorrow. A properly reported and published newspaper story, however, can remain accessible on a media organisation’s website, be indexed by search engines, referenced by other publications and consulted long after the event has taken place.
The digital archives of conventional media organisations provide lasting documentation of political activities, public policies, government decisions and historical developments.
Political actors who understand the importance of public communication must recognise that media patronage should be strategic, inclusive and professionally balanced.
Government communication should not be reduced to paying influencers to sing praises or produce favourable videos about public officeholders.
There is a need to invest in the institutions that sustain professional journalism.
The Website Is The Newspaper’s Expanded Front Page
Another misconception is the assumption that patronising a conventional newspaper means buying space in its printed edition alone.
That understanding belongs to an earlier era of publishing.
The contemporary newspaper organisation is a multimedia institution. Its website is an extension of its newsroom, its digital platform is an additional distribution channel, and its social media accounts are instruments for extending the circulation of its editorial content.
When a newspaper publishes a report on its website, that report can reach readers far beyond the state or country where the newspaper is physically produced.
Search engines, digital subscriptions, social media sharing and other online distribution channels have expanded the potential reach of conventional journalism.
This means that patronising a newspaper organisation today can provide multiple communication opportunities through a single institutional relationship.
The newspaper can publish the report, distribute it through its digital channels, share it across social networks and preserve it in its online archives.
That is a significant advantage which should not be overlooked by political communication managers.
The Danger Of Confusing Publicity With Public Communication
Political officeholders must understand that publicity and journalism are related but different professional activities.
Publicity seeks to promote an individual, institution, programme or political interest. Journalism, on the other hand, seeks to inform the public, investigate issues, provide context and hold institutions accountable.
A government that only wants praise may find influencers convenient. But a government that wants its policies, programmes and achievements properly documented, interrogated and communicated to the public must engage the professional media.
The media should not be viewed merely as a collection of individuals who can be paid to upload photographs and write flattering captions.
It is an industry with established institutions, trained personnel, investments, infrastructure and professional obligations.
Media organisations employ reporters, editors, photographers, graphic designers, production staff, digital publishers and administrative personnel. They maintain offices, websites, equipment, editorial systems and other operational structures.
Their survival depends, in part, on advertising, subscriptions, sponsorships, circulation and other legitimate commercial engagements.
When political actors deliberately ignore these institutions in favour of individual online personalities, they weaken the very professional structures that guarantee credible information dissemination.
A Call For A New Understanding Of Media Patronage
This is not an argument against social media influencers or content creators. It is a call for a proper understanding of the media ecosystem.
Influencers have their place. Content creators have their place. Professional journalists and conventional media organisations also have their place.
The three can work together, but they are not interchangeable.
Political officeholders, government agencies, public relations advisers and corporate communication managers must develop a more comprehensive media engagement strategy that recognises the contributions of conventional media organisations alongside digital content creators.
If the objective is to communicate government policies, promote development programmes, document public achievements and reach audiences across geographical boundaries, then established media organisations with functional digital platforms must be part of the communication strategy.
The question should not be whether to patronise social media influencers or conventional media. The question should be how to build a balanced media partnership that utilises the strengths of both.
Ultimately, political actors who neglect conventional media because they believe influencers have taken over the communication space are not necessarily demonstrating an understanding of modern media technology. In many cases, they are confusing the platform with the institution.
Facebook is not a newspaper. A social media account is not a newsroom. Having followers is not the same as practising journalism. And generating online engagement is not necessarily the same as informing the public.
The media landscape has evolved, but professional journalism remains indispensable to democracy, public accountability and responsible governance.
It is time for politically exposed persons to understand this distinction and accord conventional media organisations the patronage, respect and institutional recognition they deserve.