Last week there were media reports that the famous America-based international cabled television channel, CNN, has continuously rejected political adverts from Nigeria. As the nation sails close to the 2015 general elections, many a politician would like to lavish millions for a few minutes advertorial on the CNN in a desperate bid to tell the world half-truths about what philosophy they represent, even though back at home the citizenry knows that such adverts are mere political gimmicks.
Consequently, CNN is telling our politicians that much as they could pay whatever amount to have their half-truths aired, the cabled channel’s management has a policy of going by the books and mindful of its corporate image as a news medium. Such adverts were reportedly roundly rejected. This development must have shocked several politicians who presumed that CNN would not mind accepting advertorials with overt political messages. And so, the tendency for Nigerian politicians to splash millions away in the name of campaigning in a foreign land met a stonewall in CNN.
A second look at the CNN policy would indicate a radical departure from what obtains in other climes, especially the developing world, where laxity in disciplined political spending has become the order of the day. The policy is a reflection of the respect for ethical practices in the media and a clear case of upholding decent commercial records. It also reflected serious-minded media investors’ determination not to compromise standards for commercial gain, a big contrast to the practice in today’s Nigerian media.
On lack of prudent management of campaign funds, an online news report said: “CNN adverts do not come cheap but many Nigerian companies and politicians typically value the prestige above the economic cost. This has also created a bandwagon effect, with many falling over one another to get on the international media.”
The reason for the rejection, according to a news report by Thecable, was partly because of the rules of Ofcom, the regulator of the broadcast industry in the UK, from where CNN International oversees its African operations. The report also quoted the account manager of CNN Ashley Hogan-Gancarz as saying, “CNN International never accepted political or religious advertising. This is due to Ofcom regulations. If you want to promote investment opportunities, etc. that would be fine but nothing to do with politics or the 2015 election.”
Significantly, the rejection by CNN of Nigerian aspirants’ money raise the posers: what stops them from patronising home-based media, by which the nation’s economy would get a boost, no matter how minute? Why spend thrice the amount they would need to place advert in the Nigerian media, outside the country’s shores? It is sad that the nation’s political class does not even see their patronage of foreign media as a form of capital flight with dire consequences on the nation’s economy.
The Nigerian political class should be mindful of how an act of commission or omission could have chilling effect on the economy of their fatherland. Ordinarily, such campaign adverts will be more relevant at home than abroad, after all the voters are right here. To an extent, not every Nigerian voter has access to the CNN – some do not even bother to watch the channels because there are hundreds of them and individuals have naturally differing choices of favourite channels. It is expected that some Nigerian politicians are used to impression management, such that an aspirant for governorship or House of Representatives may decide to take his campaign jingles to far away America, just to prove that his or her style is world class. This vanity is unnecessary.