By Francis Dufugha
One of the most disturbing administrative practices in many organisations, communities, institutions and even government establishments is the growing tendency to place media and public information management under the control of individuals who lack professional training, experience and the requisite understanding of mass communication.
This practice, which has become increasingly common, raises serious questions about the value society places on journalism, strategic communication, public relations and information management. It also exposes the media profession to unnecessary conflicts, administrative distortions and, in some cases, the dangerous consequences of misinformation and poorly managed public communication.
The management of information is not an ordinary administrative assignment that should be casually handed over to anyone simply because such an individual enjoys the confidence of an organisation’s leadership. It is a specialised professional responsibility that requires knowledge, training, experience, sound judgment and a clear understanding of the principles and ethics of communication.
Unfortunately, many organisations appear not to appreciate this distinction.
Consider the structure of some community organisations, particularly Community Development Committees (CDCs). While a lawyer may be appointed as Legal Adviser because of his professional competence, the position of Publicity Secretary is sometimes treated as an ordinary political or administrative appointment that can be occupied by anybody, irrespective of professional background.
The irony is difficult to ignore. Nobody would ordinarily question the need to appoint a qualified legal practitioner to provide legal advice to a community development body. Yet, when it comes to public information, media relations and communication strategy, the same organisation may consider professional training unnecessary.
This contradiction reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the media profession.
Publicity is not merely about taking photographs, posting messages on social media, issuing statements or forwarding information to journalists. Effective publicity involves research, information verification, message development, audience analysis, communication planning, media relations, crisis communication and the evaluation of communication outcomes.
These are specialised areas of knowledge. They cannot be reduced to the ability to operate a smartphone, maintain a Facebook account or write a few paragraphs for public consumption.
The situation is not different in government institutions. There are instances where individuals from unrelated professional backgrounds are appointed to head information and communication departments or supervise professional media practitioners. A nurse, tailor, teacher or other professional may be appointed to oversee an information ministry or media establishment without the requisite communication background.
The argument here is not that individuals from other professions lack intelligence, leadership capacity or administrative competence. Indeed, many are accomplished professionals in their respective fields. The question, however, is whether competence in one profession automatically translates into professional competence in another.
Would a journalist ordinarily be appointed Attorney-General and Minister of Justice simply because of his understanding of public affairs? Would a tailor be appointed Commissioner for Health to supervise medical professionals without the requisite medical or health-sector competence? Would an accountant automatically qualify to head an engineering department?
These questions expose the inconsistency in the way media and communication responsibilities are treated.
There is a difference between political leadership, general administration and professional supervision. While governments and organisations may have legitimate reasons for appointing political heads from different backgrounds, the professional management of communication institutions should be guided by established qualifications, relevant experience and professional standards.
When this distinction is ignored, the consequences can be damaging.
One of the immediate dangers is the emergence of avoidable conflicts between professional practitioners and their non-professional superiors. A trained journalist or communication specialist may understand the ethical implications of a particular statement, the need for verification, the consequences of publishing unsubstantiated allegations and the importance of maintaining professional independence.
However, when such a practitioner operates under a superior who lacks the requisite professional understanding, decisions may be influenced by personal preferences, political considerations, sentiments or the desire to please those in authority.
In such circumstances, professional advice may be ignored, sound editorial judgment may be compromised, and the communication department may become an instrument for personal glorification, political propaganda or the suppression of inconvenient information.
The problem becomes even more serious during crises.
Information is a powerful instrument of social stability. In moments of communal disagreement, political tension, insecurity, industrial disputes, environmental disasters or conflicts between communities and institutions, the quality of information management can determine whether a situation is contained or escalates.
Wrong information management is a dangerous weapon, particularly in a society where social media has made the circulation of unverified information almost instantaneous.
An inaccurate statement, a poorly worded press release, an unverified allegation or a misleading official announcement can inflame tensions, damage reputations, provoke public hostility and create misunderstandings that may be difficult to reverse.
In some circumstances, the damage caused by irresponsible communication may be more extensive than the original problem that prompted the communication.
This is why professional communication management must never be treated with disdain or administrative indifference.
The emergence of social media has further complicated the situation. Today, virtually everybody can publish information, but not everybody possesses the professional competence to manage information responsibly. The ability to post content does not confer the expertise required to manage institutional communication.
There is a fundamental difference between being active on social media and being a professional communicator.
A community publicity officer, for instance, is not merely a spokesperson whose responsibility is to defend the leadership of a CDC or promote the interests of its chairman. Such an officer must also understand the principles of responsible reporting, accuracy, balance, confidentiality, public accountability and the management of sensitive information.
Similarly, an information manager in government must understand that public communication is not exclusively about projecting the image of the governor, commissioner or political administration. It is also about communicating government policies, explaining public programmes, correcting misinformation, providing accurate information and sustaining public confidence in government institutions.
The public has a right to reliable information, and government communication officers have a responsibility to uphold that obligation.
There is also the question of professional ethics and institutional accountability. Communication practitioners are trained to understand the implications of what they publish and the responsibilities attached to public information. Where non-professionals occupy positions of authority over trained practitioners, there may be conflicting expectations about what constitutes acceptable communication.
The professional may insist on verification, balance and ethical standards, while the non-professional superior may prioritise speed, political convenience or personal loyalty. Such differences can create an unhealthy working environment in which professional competence becomes subordinate to administrative authority.
This situation deserves serious attention from professional associations, media advocacy organisations, journalism educators, communication scholars and relevant regulatory institutions.
The time has come for the media profession to move beyond complaints about professional marginalisation and begin a deliberate campaign for institutional recognition and protection.
Media advocacy groups should consider pushing for appropriate constitutional and legislative safeguards that recognise mass communication, journalism and strategic communication as specialised professional fields deserving of professional standards in public institutions.
Such advocacy should seek to establish clear qualification requirements for heads of information ministries, public communication departments, government media organisations and other institutions whose primary responsibilities involve professional communication management.
At the community level, CDCs, town unions, traditional institutions, development associations and other organised bodies should be encouraged to appoint qualified communication practitioners as Publicity Secretaries, Public Relations Officers or heads of their media departments.
Where professional practitioners are unavailable, organisations should consider appropriate training and professional development rather than assuming that publicity is an assignment requiring no specialised knowledge.
At the government level, there should be a clear distinction between the appointment of political officeholders and the professional administration of information and communication departments. A political appointee may provide policy direction, but trained communication professionals should have meaningful authority over professional operations, subject to lawful administrative structures.
This advocacy must, however, be approached with a clear understanding of constitutional principles, freedom of expression and the legitimate authority of elected governments. Professional protection should not become a mechanism for restricting access to public communication positions or creating unnecessary professional monopolies. Rather, it should promote competence, accountability, ethical practice and institutional effectiveness.
The National Assembly, state legislatures, media professional associations, the Nigerian Union of Journalists (NUJ), the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations (NIPR), journalism training institutions and other stakeholders should initiate a national conversation on this subject.
The objective should be to develop a framework that protects professional standards without undermining democratic governance, administrative flexibility or the constitutional rights of citizens.
It is important to emphasise that the media profession is not seeking unnecessary privileges or exclusive ownership of public information. It is demanding recognition of the specialised knowledge and responsibilities associated with the management of information.
Just as society recognises the need for qualified lawyers in legal practice, medical professionals in healthcare and engineers in specialised engineering assignments, it should equally recognise the importance of trained communication professionals in the management of institutional information and public relations.
The consequences of getting information management wrong are too serious to be ignored.
In an era where misinformation, disinformation, political manipulation and social media-induced tensions pose significant threats to public confidence and social cohesion, the management of information must be treated as a matter of professional responsibility and national importance.
Organisations and governments must understand that placing media institutions under unqualified professional supervision is not merely an internal administrative arrangement. It can undermine institutional credibility, weaken public trust and create conditions for avoidable crises.
Information is power, but the irresponsible management of information can become a source of danger.
The media profession must therefore rise to this challenge. Professional associations must advocate, governments must recognise professional competence, and communities must understand that publicity is not a reward for loyalty or a convenient political appointment.
It is a responsibility that demands knowledge, discipline, ethics and professional experience.
The management of public information is too important to be left to administrative convenience. It must be entrusted to competence, guided by professional ethics and protected by appropriate institutional safeguards.