Role Perception of Nigerian Journalists: Watchdogs or Lapdogs?
Akinbajo Idris
11081929
Masters Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Masters programme Communication Science
Sophie Lecheler
Abstract
Our knowledge of the factors that influence journalism is central to the understanding of journalism, a profession essential for the survival of democracy. Research has shown that journalists role perception is a factor that influences journalistic products. This paper contributes to the discourse on role perceptions by providing a first empirical study of how journalists in Nigeria perceive their roles. To ensure local peculiarities are considered, the article also reviews the existence of development journalism as a role among Nigerian journalists. It also studies "brown envelope" journalism, the act of accepting cash and other gifts from sources during journalistic work, a practise common in many developing countries. The paper also reviews the relationship between journalists role perceptions and their attitude to brown envelope. A survey of Nigerian journalists (N = 160) shows that Nigerian journalists' role perceptions can be clustered into five categories; namely public interest, propagandist, watchdog, adversarial, and passive mirror role. The most favoured role is the watchdog role, closely followed by the public interest role. The least popular role is the adversarial role. The study also shows that a majority of the respondents have not only accepted brown envelope but do not see anything wrong in accepting it during the course of their work. It also shows that how Nigerian journalists conceptualise their roles does not influence their attitude to brown envelope. The findings of this study contribute to the understanding of journalists and journalism in Africa's largest democracy.
Role Perception of Nigerian Journalists: Watchdogs or Lapdogs?
In 2015, for the first time ever, Nigeria, Africa's largest democracy witnessed a ruling party lose elections and an opposition candidate sworn in as president. As democracy deepens in the West African country, the role of its media has also been a subject of academic discourse. Strömbäck (2005) highlights the symbiotic relationship between democracy and journalism. While independent media requires democracy to thrive freely, democracy needs journalism "for the flow of information, for public discussion and for a watchdog function" (p. 332). In Nigeria, even before its longest streak of democracy (from 1999 until today), journalism has played different roles at various stages of the country's history. From 1857, when the first newspaper was established, through the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern British Protectorate to form Nigeria in 1917, to the struggle for independence from the British, decades of military dictatorship and the current streak of democratic governance, the media has played differing roles in Africa's most populous country (Awoshakin, 2010; Olukoyun, 2004).
Studies on Western democracies have shown that media roles and expectations vary based on the type of democratic outlook one adopts (Strömbäck, 2005; Ferree, Gamson, Gerhards, & Rucht, 2002). For example, in a deliberative democracy, journalists are expected to create ideal situations to ensure discourse is accessible for all categories of people in a society. In a competitive democracy, however, journalists should function as dispassionate experts and provide information so citizens can make intelligent voting decisions (Strömbäck, 2005). In Nigeria, existing literature depicts the advocacy and watchdog roles played by the traditional Nigerian media, despite various challenges (Awoshakin, 2010; Olukoyun, 2004), while others have argued that traditional Nigerian media abandoned the watchdog role after 1999 and thereby lost the confidence of Nigerians who turned to Diaspora online media as
better alternatives (Kperogi, 2012). While these existing studies have theorised and analysed the role of the media in Nigeria, none has empirically tested how Nigerian media content producers, the journalists themselves, perceive their own roles. Yet, gaining knowledge on role perceptions is important, as previous studies have shown that journalists' perceptions of their roles influence their work (Graber, 2002; Shoemaker & Reese, 1996; Van Dalen, de Vreese, & Albæk, 2012; Skovsgaard, Albæk, Bro, & de Vreese, 2013). These studies have come up with standard definitions of different types of journalistic roles. For example, Weaver and Wilhoit (1986, 1996) identify four journalistic role clusters among American journalists, namely: the disseminator, interpretive, adversarial, and populist mobiliser.
However, in order to contribute to our understanding of Nigerian and indeed African journalism, common conceptualisations such as that of Weaver and Wilhoit must be extended. In particular, African journalism deals with different journalistic norms and practices that could influence the formation of role conceptions. For example, a number of studies reveal a prevalence of so-called "brown envelope" journalism in Nigeria (Nwabueze, 2010). Defined by Skjerdal (2010) as "journalistic activity which involves transfer of various types of rewards from sources to the reporter” (p. 369), this practice is common in Nigeria as well as in several other African countries. In different studies, several reasons such as low remuneration, societal culture, corruption, and journalists' orientation have been given as reasons for the prevalence of this kind of journalism (Nwabueze, 2010; Skjerdal, 2010). By testing the relationship between Nigerian journalists role perceptions and this brown envelope journalism, this study also reviews the argument that brown envelope journalism undermines journalistic norms and influences, which are passed on to the consumer within journalistic products.
What is more, there are also possible additions to common Western classifications of journalistic role perceptions when studying Africa. One such addition is development
journalism, which a number of scholars (Musa & Domatob, 2007; Ramaprasad, 2001) have argued is necessary in African countries and other societies emerging from colonialism. Development journalism describes the argument that journalists in post-colonial countries should use their works to promote the growth and development of their societies. Several empirical studies have since shown that some African journalists consider this role important (Rodny-Gumede, 2015; Ramaprasad 2001; Ngomba, 2010). Following this, this paper will also add to the debate on development journalism by introducing a first empirical study of Nigerian journalists on the subject.
Based on an online survey distributed to journalists across Nigeria, this paper thus investigates the factors that influence five professional journalistic roles extracted from previous studies (the disseminator, interpretive, adversarial, populist mobiliser, and national development). The outcome of this study makes three main contributions to journalism studies literature. Firstly, it illustrates how well pre-defined "Western" role perceptions fit Nigerian journalism. Secondly, it shows how Nigerian journalists perceive the development journalism role. Finally, it defines the relationship between these journalistic roles and "brown envelope".
Nigerian Journalism: A Historical Perspective
An understanding of Nigerian journalists' roles today necessitates a review of the role the media profession has played in the country's history. The media's historical role in Nigeria can be split into four stages: The first stage (1859 to the 1930s) was characterised by what Awoshakin (2010) described as "evangelical journalism" (p. 50). The first newspaper, Iwe Irohin, established by the British missionary, Reverend Henry Townsend, in 1859, focused on conveying the message of the church and colonial government to the people. News like births, deaths, the movements of religious ministers, politics, and economic matters were the
focus of the paper (Salawu, 2015). The paper, and similar ones that followed, also critiqued some government policies (Olukoyun, 2004) leading to the first anti-media law, the Newspaper Act of 1903, which enabled governmental regulation and regimentation of the press (Awoshakin, 2010).
The evangelical journalism phase was closely followed by a second period in Nigerian media, which was mirrored in many other African countries: a period when journalism played a major role in the independence movement (1930s to 1960s). These independent newspapers were mainly owned by Nigerians, who were educated in Europe and the US, before returning to their native country. Newspapers such as The Daily Comet and the West African Pilot (both now defunct) mobilised Nigerians to demand independence from British rule (Olukoyun, 2004). The high political parallelism of the period also meant that the newspapers took partisan positions, sometimes along regional and ethnic lines. But they nevertheless closed ranks in their demand for accountable governance and subsequent independence (Olukoyun, 2004; Yusha'u, 2010). Nigeria eventually became independent in 1960 and the founder of the West African Pilot emerged as its first President. Awoshakin (2010) described the role played by the media in this phase as "nationalistic journalism" (p. 50).
Following the first military coup in 1965, various military rulers led the country until 1999, with only a brief civilian government between 1979 and 1983, and a few months in 1993. As the military governments clamped down on the media with various draconian rules, a new form of "guerrilla journalism" emerged (Awoshakin, 2010; Dare, 2007; Olukoyun, 2004). State-owned broadcast and print media continued to spew government propaganda while many journalists working for independent newspapers were jailed and persecuted for performing their roles. Some went into exile and others were killed. This adversarial role of journalism became more pronounced during this period (Olukoyun, 2004; Kperogi, 2012) as
the media increasingly saw the military government as adversaries. It was in the later part of this period, 1992, that the broadcast media were liberalised and the first private radio station commenced operation in 1993, with the first private TV channel starting a year later. When Nigeria became democratic in 1999, some journalists who were still in jail were released and the country's media entered a new phase.
While most Nigerian scholars (Olukoyun, 2004; Kperogi, 2012; Awoshakin, 2010) agree that the adversarial role played by the media during the military rule has waned, there is no consensus about how the media's current role can be characterised. Some have argued that factors like the location and ownership mean there is no true Nigerian media but only ethnic/regional media (Adebanwi, 2000; Olukoyun, 2004). Also, Kperogi (2012) argues that the traditional media abandoned the watchdog function after 1999, and that the advent of more robust Diaspora online media "vigorously undermine[s] the credibility of homeland newspapers" (p.447). However, to contribute to the debate about the role of the journalism in Nigerian democracy, there is a need to understand the factors that influence media reporting. As stated earlier, journalistic role perceptions are one of the most important factors along these lines, and will therefore allow me to accurately describe contemporary Nigerian journalism and democracy.
Journalistic Role Perceptions
A role is not just a repeated format, but a format to be followed and a guide (Coyne, 1984). Coyne adds that "to enact a role is, wittingly or unwittingly, to invite expectations of further conformity" (p. 260). A role is therefore a set of principles that guides how an individual or group should operate. Journalistic role perceptions, thus, amount to informal rules for how the news media ought to function (Weaver, Beam, Brownlee, Voakes, & Wilhoit, 2007).
Existing literature is characterised by a number of differing classifications on journalistic role perceptions (Mellado, 2011). As will be shown later, even though the classifications appear somewhat different, they are epistemologically related. Early studies by Cohen (1963) as well as Johnstone, Slawski, and Bowman (1976) identified two journalistic role conceptions: neutral and participant. While the first describes a belief in detachment and allowing the story to tell itself, the participant role focuses on how the journalist controls the story. Johnstone et al.'s (1976) study of American journalists found that more journalists favoured the participant role to that of neutral observer. About 14 years later, Weaver and Wilhoit (1986), using Johnstone et al.'s study as a fulcrum, surveyed American journalists and clustered them into three categories: interpreter, disseminator, and adversarial. Although the adversarial, which describes the journalist as being constantly skeptical of government and businesses, was a minority, it was still considered important by 17% of the respondents. The interpreter role—being a watchdog and investigating governmental actions—was closest to Johnstone et al's (1976) participant role, and was most popular among American journalists. A decade later, Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) found the interpretive role to still be most prevalent, but identified a new cluster, the so-called populist mobiliser. In a very optimistic view, Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) stated that the populist mobiliser, which involves journalists having a consideration for the public's needs and wants, "may be the harbinger of change" (p. 140), as it provides evidence that public journalism is having a foothold among some American journalists. A review of the individual survey items that make up both the adversarial and the populist mobiliser clusters, however, shows they can be classified broadly into Johnstone's ‘participant’ category.
Importantly, one consistent finding by Weaver and Wilhoit, as well as by other studies (Ramaprasad, 2001; Mwesige, 2004; Mellado, 2011), is that journalists adopt a
pluralistic view. That is, most journalists adopt more than one of the above roles although, usually, one stands out above the others.
To connect to the existing literature, this paper will test, among Nigerian journalists, the above described individual role perceptions, as identified Weaver and Wilhoit (1996), as well as by Skovsgaard et al. (2013) in their study of Danish journalists and Ramaprasad (2001) in his study of Tanzanian journalists. The first research question thus reads:
RQ1: Which role perceptions do Nigerian journalists have?
Determinants of Journalistic Role Perception in Nigeria
Different studies have theorised on the various factors that influence journalism. One of the most prominent models is the hierarchy of influence model, where Shoemaker and Reese (1996) identified five nested levels of influence: individual, media routines, organizational, extra-media, and ideological. In another model, McManus (1995) uses economic logic to identify four inter-related markets between parties involved in news production. The first is between the audience and the media organisation, the second between sources and reporters, the third between advertisers and potential customers and the fourth between owners/investors seeking shares in profit or growth of organisation. Although both Shoemaker and Reese (1996) and McManus (1995) focused on influence of these factors on actual news production, some of the factors have also been shown to influence journalists' role perception (Mellado, 2011; Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986; Ramaprasad, 2001).
However, while there are conceptual differences between these two models, they both identify at least three basic levels of influence on journalism: the micro, meso, and macro level (Mellado, 2011). The micro level is the individual level of the journalist, which includes factors such as a journalist's age, years of experience, gender, income, political orientation and whether the journalist is a reporter or an editor. The meso level involves organisational factors like media ownership, size, and type of media while the macro involves country
specific factors. This study will focus on the influence of the micro and meso level factors on journalists role perceptions as well as on journalists attitude to brown envelopes.
Individual Factors
Although, Weaver et al. (2007) found that as a cluster, the individual factors "did not predict role conceptions to any great degree" (pp. 149-50; see also Zhu, Weaver, Lo, Chen & Wu, 1997; and Ramaprasad, 2001), some individual factors have been shown to significantly predict specific role conceptions. In terms of education, Hanitzsch (2005) found that journalists who have attended professional journalism training have less support for 'opinion-oriented news journalism" while Weaver et al. (2007) found that journalists with higher education tend to endorse the interpretive role. In terms of income, Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) found that journalists with larger income had more support for the interpretive role, although their study a decade later (Weaver et al. 2007, p. 147) showed income no longer had effect on role perception. In terms of gender, Cassidy (2008) found that "women perceive the disseminator role conception as significantly more important than do men" (p. 105). Since research has shown that education, income, and gender can influence role perception, I intend to test if Nigerian journalists role perceptions can also be influenced by these factors.
Also, although Mwesige (2004) found that journalists' age and years of experience had no effect on their role perceptions, these factors will be tested due to the fact that older Nigerians journalists who worked as journalists before 1999 experienced military dictatorship when adversarial journalism was rife and so might have a different perception of journalistic roles. In terms of political orientation, Weaver et al. (2007) found that "the more liberal the journalist, the more likely he or she was to embrace the interpretive, adversarial, and populist mobilizer functions" (p. 150). However, despite research showing political orientation can influence role perception, this study excludes any question on political orientation because of local Nigerian peculiarities where politics is not defined by ideology or orientation but by
other factors like ethnicity and religion (Gunther & Diamond, 2003). Therefore, my individual characteristics will be education, income, gender, age, and years of experience leading to my second research question.
RQ2: What influence do individual characteristics, such as age, years of experience, educational qualification, gender, and income have on journalistic role perceptions in Nigeria?
Organisational Factors
Several studies have shown the influence of organisational factors on journalists role perceptions. In terms of ownership, Ramaprasad (2001) showed that journalists in private media rated the information/analysis function more important than their counterparts in government media. In terms of media size, Voakes (1999) showed that journalists working for small media support public journalism more than their counterparts in large media organisations while Weaver et al. (2007) found that journalists working for large organisations embrace the interpretive and adversarial role while those working for small news organisations embrace the populist mobilise role. For media type, Mellado (2011) found that TV journalists give more support to consumer-oriented journalism while Cassidy (2005) showed that print journalists found the interpretive role as significantly more important than online journalists. Also, Weaver et al. (2007) found that journalists working in print media "tended to endorse the adversarial and populist mobilizer roles) p. 147. In terms of editorial responsibility, Mellado (2011) found that journalists with more editorial responsibility have more support for the watchdog role while Weaver and Wilhoit (1986) found that reporters were more likely to support the interpretive and adversarial roles. In Nigeria, like in most part of the world, news organisations also vary in size, type, and ownership while journalists can also be broadly be divided into reporters and editors. As previous research show the effects of
these organisational characteristics on role perception, this leads to my third research question.
RQ3: What influence do organisational factors such as media size, media ownership, media type and editorial responsibility have on journalistic role perceptions in Nigeria?
Journalistic Role Perceptions: A Western Concept?
Some African scholars have questioned whether the journalistic roles defined by Weaver & Wilhoit (1996) and other Western researchers are universal or should be accepted by journalists in other parts of the world. Ramaprasad (2001, p. 539) described them as "Western journalistic functions", which he distinguishes from the "African function" (p. 546). Kasoma (1996) described it as a "tragedy" (p. 95) that African journalists have "closely imitated the professional norms of the (west)". These scholars have argued that the different cultural and historical factors in African countries should guide or have an influence on how journalists on the continent see their roles. One of such recommended roles for African journalists is development journalism.
Development Journalism
Ramaprasad (2001) described the African role as that of National Development. He defines it as "socialization of the press to cover domestic people, events and issues positively" (p. 546). McQuail (2000) explained that this so-called development journalism theory stemmed from the fact that "societies undergoing transition from underdevelopment and colonialism to independence often lack the money, infrastructure, skills, and audiences to sustain an extensive free-market media system" (p. 155). Also, Musa and Domatob (2007) argue that journalists in post-colonial countries experience a tension "between the commitment to integrity and social responsibility, shared by journalists worldwide, and the contextual interpretation and application of these principles" (p. 315). They argue that
development journalism needs to be seen as a separate journalistic role especially in post-colonial countries.
Variants of development journalism have been found in empirical studies in African countries such as South Africa (Rodny-Gumede, 2015), Tanzania (Ramaprasad 2001), Cameroon (Ngomba, 2010) as well as non-African post-colonial countries like Indonesia (Hanitzsch, 2005) and Chile (Mellado, 2011). One can situate the arguments of proponents of development journalism in the statements of Strömbäck (2005) and Ferree et al. (2002) that the roles and expectations of the media differ according to the state of democracy in a country. Although both Strömbäck and Ferree et al. classified their democracies and media roles based on Western countries, their basic argument of non-universality of journalism's role can be extended to the call for development journalism. In that case, national development role serves as an additional concept, which can be added to the four role perceptions identified by Weaver and Wilhoit (1996), to include the particularities of African journalism.
However, what needs to be noted is that the characterisation of a dichotomy between "Western" and "African" journalism roles has also been criticised by some African scholars. Mwesige (2004) cautions against creating such distinctions, arguing: "Why should it be a problem that just like their western counterparts, African journalists cherish the role of disseminating information quickly to the public, investigating government claims, analyzing and interpreting or discussing national policy before it is developed?" (p. 86). Mwesige's assertion is based on the fact that except for a few, most empirical studies on role conceptions of journalists in Africa as well as in other post-colonial countries have shown a predominant support for those "Western" functions.
Therefore, while empirical studies on journalistic role perceptions in many Western countries did not include questions relating to development journalism, those in many
post-colonial countries do. One common finding to all the study, however, is that while development journalism exists as a role perception in all, in none of the countries is it considered as very important by majority of the journalists. This leads to my first hypothesis: H1: Nigerian journalists do not consider development journalism as a very important journalistic role.
Brown Envelope Journalism
Research has shown the prevalence of brown envelope journalism in Nigeria and many other African and post-colonial countries (Nwabueze, 2010; Skjerdal, 2010). Nwabueze defines it as "the practice of accepting gratifications for performing journalistic tasks" (p. 138). It is referred to by its name because when given in cash, it is often placed in an envelope, which is usually brown to conceal its content. This practice in its basic form has three basic characteristics: individuality, confidentiality and informal contract (Skjerdal, 2010). Individuality implies it is often given to individual journalists, confidentiality implies it is given in confidence often without public or official declaration, while it also serves as an informal contract between the giver and the journalist with the least expectation being coverage of the event. Brown envelopes, which can mean cash or other forms of gratification like gifts and paid holidays, have assumed different local acronyms in various countries where it prevalent. It is referred to as soli in Ghana (Hasty 1999), gombo in Cameroon (Ndangam, 2009) and in Nigeria by various names such as kwa, jewu, and kola based on ethnicity (Nwabueze, 2010; Adebanwi, 2008). The practice is, however, not limited to African countries. In Cambodia, 84% of journalists said it was normal (McDaniel, 2007 as cited in Kjerdal, 2010) while in Indonesia, 46.2% of journalists admitted accepting brown envelopes during their work (Hanitzsch, 2005). In Nigeria, 84% of journalists admitted receiving it regularly (Nwabueze, 2010).
In the discussion on the history of brown envelope journalism, Nwabueze (2010) postulates that its origin "could be rooted in the culture of presenting kola nuts to visitors, a hospitality practice common in many African societies" (p. 498). This may explain why it is sometimes called ‘kola’ by Nigerian journalists. Uko (2004 as cited in Skjerdal, 2010) stated that the brown envelope was prevalent in Nigeria during a four-year democratic period between 1979 and 1983 when ministers had to bribe journalists to ensure their stories were published. Bamiro (1997) traced its origin to Ghana saying it “originated from the practice among Ghanaians to discreetly enclose bribe money in envelopes, not necessarily brown ones, rather than exposing it" (p. 110). In his review of the various historical narratives of the term 'brown envelope', Skjerdal (2010) concluded that "it makes sense that the term stems from West Africa" (p. 374).
Beyond this historical disagreement, scholars also disagree on whether brown envelope constitutes bribery or corruption. Agbanu (2009 as cited in Skjerdal, 2010) argues that, unlike bribery, brown envelope is not bargained and can be given with no strings attached. Also, Wasserman (2008) argues that instead of labelling brown envelope as "bribery and simply condemning it” (p.82), it can be reviewed from a “hybrid ethical framework” which allows combining global journalistic frameworks with the socio-economic conditions under which African journalists work. Conversely, many researchers like Nwabueze (2010) and Retief, (2002) have condemned the act, with Nwabueze calling for an "anti-brown envelope campaign"(p. 516) in Nigeria.
Research has shown several reasons for the prevalence of brown envelope journalism. These include poor pay, journalists' individual beliefs, and societal prevalence of corruption (Nwabueze, 2010; Kjerdal, 2010). Nwabueze also found that most Nigerian journalists (78%) do not perceive their acceptance of brown envelopes as affecting their journalistic work, and
that a slight majority (51%) do not see it as unethical. This leads to my fourth research question.
RQ4: What perception of brown envelope do Nigerian journalists have?
This also opens the question of how the practice of brown envelope is related to journalistic role perceptions. Is it possible that journalists who support watchdog functions and are more inclined to investigate government statements have less support for brown envelopes and believe more that it influences a journalist's story. Alternatively, is it possible that journalists who support the development role of positive portrayal of the government are more inclined to support brown envelope and believe it has little or no influence on journalism. So far, there have been no empirical studies on role perception of Nigerian journalists, which means there have also been no studies comparing role perceptions to attitudes toward the practice of brown envelopes. This leads to a fourth research question. RQ5: What effects do Nigerian journalists role conceptions have on their perceptions of the influence of brown envelope on journalism?
Apart from role perceptions, what other factors can possibly influence Nigerian journalists attitude to brown envelopes? In previous research, journalists have blamed low income for the prevalence of brown envelope (Nwabueze, 2010). However, no previous research has taken a comprehensive review of the impact of individual and organisational characteristics on journalists attitude to brown envelope. In terms of individual factors, do better educated journalists perceive the influence of brown envelopes on journalism better than non-educated ones; or are better paid journalists less tolerant of brown envelope. Also, in terms of organisational characteristics, are journalists working for private media less critical of brown envelopes than their public media counterparts. This leads to my fifth and sixth research questions.
RQ6: What effects do individual characteristics such as age, years of experience, educational qualification, gender, and income have on journalists perception of the influence of brown envelope on journalism?
RQ7: What effects do organisational factors such as media size, media ownership, and media type have on journalists perception of the influence of brown envelope on journalism?
Methods
Design
To understand the role perceptions of Nigerian journalists and their attitudes to brown envelope, I conduct an online survey. The use of survey to test journalistic role perceptions is in tandem with previous studies on the topic (Weaver & Wilhoit, 1986; Mwesige 2011; Ramaprasad, 2001). The survey provides flexibility in allowing large numbers and different orders of questions, and is considered the best method for a social researcher "interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to observe directly" (Babbie, 2005, p. 252) This study defines a journalist to be anyone who has editorial responsibility for the preparation or transmission of news stories or other information published in a platform registered legally as a news media (see Weaver & Wilhoit,1991, p. 219).
Sample
A database of journalists from the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) and newsrooms that belonged to the relatively new Guide of Corporate Online Publishers was used to construct the sample. Eleven journalists also sought permission to redistribute the questionnaire to a total of 55 other journalists. In all, the link to the questionnaire, which passed the ethical review of the University of Amsterdam (see Appendix 2), was sent to a total of 1,078 journalists in a six-week period between March 29 and May 11, 2016. As the survey was only meant for Nigerian journalists working in Nigeria, the welcome statement
allowed recipients to opt out if they did not fall into that group. This resulted in a dropout rate of 7% (n = 75).
After sending five reminders within the period of the survey, a total of 201 responses were received, indicating a response rate of 18.6%. The data was cleaned to exclude those who did not answer all the role perception questions and thus did not complete the survey. This left a total of 160 responses used for the data analysis. Relevant descriptives of the obtained sample are reported below in the results section.
Measures
Role perceptions. The journalists were asked a battery of 16 role perception questions (for all items see Appendix 1, questions 11 to 27). Eleven of them were adapted from Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) and Skovsgaard et al. (2013). Three of the 11 are part of Weaver and Wilhoit's disseminator role, three part of the interpretive role, three of the populist mobiliser role, and the last two made up the adversarial role. Five additional questions, related to development journalism, were adapted from Ramaprasad (2001). The journalists were asked how important they perceive the different media functions on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 being "Not at all Important" to 7 being "Extremely Important". For example, one of the interpretive role questions was how important it was for journalists to "provide analysis and interpretation of complex problems," while one of the development journalism statements was that journalists should "actively support government's national development programs".
A scale reliability test of Weaver and Wilhoit's (1996) four role conceptions (disseminator, interpretive, adversarial and populist mobiliser) showed that only the adversarial role had a tolerable result in terms of reliability (α = .762). The disseminator (α =
.226), interpretive (α = .508), and populist mobiliser role (α = .438) all had low reliability. Therefore, these clusters were not used for the further analysis.
Rather, the 16 role perception items were subjected to a Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation. This produced five new role categories (see Table 1), which produced a cumulative variance of 58.425%. I labelled these factors the public interest role (M = 6.138, SD = 1.199, α = .647), the propagandist role (M = 3.62, SD = 1.719, α = .735), the watchdog role (M = 6.42, SD = 1.025, α = .611), and the adversarial role (M = 3.36, SD = 2.062, α = .762). The last factor, the passive mirror role, contained only one item (M = 5.55, SD = 2.027). The five clusters were self labelled based on the individual components contained, except for the adversarial role which contained the same two components as in Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) and thus retained the name.
The public interest role was so labelled, because its five items were mainly about giving consideration to what the public wants and needs. The propagandist role was so labelled because its three items focus on positive portrayal of someone or a group, while the watchdog role was so labelled as three of its items focused on government accountability. The only item in the passive mirror role was about journalists avoiding unverifiable stories. The journalistic function of providing entertainment and relaxation did not form into any cluster. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = 0.706 was used to confirm my sampling adequacy. Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (χ2
= 559.617, df = 120, p < .001) indicated that the correlations between items were sufficiently large. Each extracted item had eigenvalues above 1, while factor loadings above 0.5 were retained except for the item of investigating government claims, which had a factor loading of 0.409 but is theoretically part of the watchdog role and loaded on its reliability test. The five new role clusters formed my dependent variables for the role conception research questions.
Individual and organisational influence factors. The questionnaire contained a set of questions relating to work life, as well as general demographics (see Appendix 1 for the full questionnaire). These questions made up the variables of individual and organisational factors as specified in RQ2, RQ3, RQ5 and RQ6. The work-related questions included questions such as type of media (e.g. print, online only, TV, and radio), media ownership (government or privately owned), numbers of years as a journalist, and salary. The demographic questions were on age (in years), gender, work location (i.e. state within Nigeria) and education.
Brown envelope journalism. Respondents were asked a series of self-formulated questions on their attitudes towards and use of brown envelopes (see Appendix 1 for full list of questions). The questions sought to measure two broad issues: prevalence of brown envelope and personal attitude to brown envelope. The first questions sought to know journalists understanding of the prevalence of brown envelope journalism in Nigeria. For this, they were asked if they knew other journalists who had accepted brown envelopes (Yes or No). They were also asked a multiple choice question of the reasons they believe other journalists accept brown envelopes (answers include: because they believe that there is nothing wrong in it; because they see it as a gift; because it does not affect their journalistic product; because it is a gift and it is against the culture to reject gifts; and because they need the money).
The next set of questions sought to know the journalist's own personal attitude to brown envelopes. This involved a series of seven questions including multiple choice questions on their individual disposition to brown envelope and how they believe brown envelopes affect a journalist's story. The individual disposition question included options like: I do not see anything wrong in it; it is okay to collect brown envelope as long as it does not affect journalistic product; and I am indifferent about whether or not it is okay to receive brown envelopes. The question on how they believe brown envelope affects a story included
options like: it affects selection of the topic; it affects the angle of the story; and it affects the people named and sources used. Journalists were also asked if they had ever accepted brown envelopes (options were Yes, No, and I do not want to answer) and the ones who answered in the affirmative were asked how often they do so on a 7-point scale, 1 being "regularly" and 7 being "seldom". The last individual attitude question was on how much respondents believe brown envelopes influence a journalist's story. This was measured on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 being "Absolutely none" to 7 being "A lot". The response to this question was used as a dependent variable in the regression to study the relationship between role perceptions and attitude to brown envelope. Overall, the questions relating to brown envelope helped to explain the prevalence of the practice and the attitudes of individual journalists towards it. Analysis
To study the impact of my independent variables on role perceptions, OLS regression analyses were conducted for the five role clusters. The independent variables are introduced in two steps. Firstly, the individual characteristics (age, gender, income, journalistic experience and educational qualification), followed by the organisational characteristics (media type, media ownership, media size, and editorial responsibility which was categorised into reporter and editor).
The independent variables for the OLS regression on brown envelope journalism were the five role clusters and each of the individual role questions. The individual and organisational characteristics were also used as independent variables in a regression to see if they have a relationship with journalist's attitude to brown envelopes.
Results
I report findings in several steps. First, I report the descriptives for the respondents and then proceed to answer each of my research questions and the hypothesis on development
journalism. The descriptives and results of research questions relating to brown envelope are reported last.
Descriptives
Although the link to the questionnaire was sent to journalists working in Nigeria's 37 states (including the nation's capital, Abuja), only respondents from 16 states, across Nigeria's six regions, completed the survey. 75% of those who completed the survey were based in Abuja and Lagos, the commercial capital of the country.
The average Nigerian journalist in this study is 38 years old; male (83%); and has worked between 10 and 15 years as a journalist. The average journalist also tends to be well educated: 47% have a Bachelor, 31% have a Masters degree, only 0.6% have high school as highest qualification. The majority have full employment with only 5.1% working as freelancers. In terms of where they work, the majority of journalists work for print outlets (48.1%), followed by journalists working for online-only media (34.4%). An overwhelming majority (91.3%) work for privately owned media. The percentage that work for privately owned media may have been influenced by the number of responses from Lagos and Abuja as most private media in Nigeria are based in those two states. Over half of the journalists (53.1%) had worked for daily print newspapers before their current job, which may be a reflection of the dominance of print media in Nigeria before the broadcast media liberalisation of 1992. For 14.4% of respondents, their current job was their first as journalists. In terms of editorial responsibility, 63.1% were reporters (either with fixed beat or not) while 36.9% were editors (with management responsibilities or not).
Overall Role Perceptions
The results on role perceptions are presented based on a sequence of research questions. My first research question (RQ1) was on which role perceptions Nigerian journalists have.
-- Table 2 here --
Although Nigerian journalists adopt a pluralistic view, only four individual role items belonging to different role clusters were considered "extremely important" by a majority of journalists in this study. As shown in Table 2, these are “investigate government claims” (77.5%), “give ordinary people a chance to express their views” (76.3%), “promote the strength and unity of communities” (72.5%), and “provide analysis and interpretation of complex problems” (71.9%). Two of these individual roles loaded in the watchdog cluster, while the other two loaded in the public interest journalism cluster reflecting those two clusters were mostly favoured by journalists. The individual roles that received the least support were two items that factored in the propagandist role cluster: only 5% of journalists in this study said it was extremely important for journalists to “portray the government in a positive light”, while only 5.6 % said it was extremely important for journalists to portray national leaders in a positive manner.
In terms of clusters, the watchdog role (M = 6.42, SD = 1.025) received the highest support from journalists, followed by the public interest role (M = 6.138, SD = 1.199). Although two of the three items in the propagandist role had the least number of journalists who considered it extremely important (M = 2.98, SD = 1.675), as a cluster the adversarial role had the least support (M = 3.36, SD = 2.062). So, in sum, my analysis regarding RQ1 shows that Nigerian journalists consider the watchdog role as the most important. This is closely followed by their support for public interest journalism. In contrast, the adversarial role enjoys the least support among Nigerian journalists.
Individual and Contextual Predictors of Role Perceptions
My second research question (RQ2) covers the influence of individual characteristics, such as age, years of experience, educational qualification, gender, and income on Nigerian journalists role perceptions. As shown in Table 3, the individual characteristics have no
significant effect on any of the journalistic role clusters. Age does not predict public interest role (p = .303), does not predict propagandist role (p = .316), does not predict watchdog role (p = .790), does not predict adversarial role (p = .702) and does not predict passive mirror (p = .999). As shown in Table 3, like age, none of the other individual characteristics (years of experience, gender, educational qualification and income) predicted each of the role clusters (p > .05 in each case). However, two are worth noting. Coefficients of income as a predictor for the public interest role (B = -0.133, p = .058), and the propaganda role (B = -0.216, p = .059) approached significance. Therefore, this tentatively suggests that, as annual income increases by an average of a million Naira, support for the public interest role decreases by a factor of 0.133 on a seven-point scale, while support for the propaganda role decreases by a factor of 0.216 on a 7-point scale. That is, journalists who earn more tend to show less support for both propagandist role and public interest journalism. However, I conclude that in answer to my RQ2, individual characteristics such as age, years of experience, educational qualification, gender, and income have no significant effect on how Nigerian journalists conceptualise their roles.
-- Table 3 here --
My third research question (RQ3) is on the influence of organisational characteristics such as media size, media ownership, role in media, and media type on journalistic role perceptions. For public interest journalism, none of the organisational characteristics were significant predictors (see second column on Table 4). Organisational characteristic did also not predict the watchdog role (fourth column on Table 4), adversarial role (fifth column on Table 4), and passive mobiliser role (sixth column).
However, for the propagandist role, media ownership was a significant predictor (B = 0.936, p = .029). As media ownership is coded 0 for private and 1 for public, this means that journalists working for public media tend to support the propagandist role by a factor of
0.936 on a 7-point scale more than their counterparts in the private media. That is, journalists working for public media have more support for the propagandist role, although this prediction only applies 6.9% of the time (R2 = 0.069)
--- Table 4 here --
Overall, in response to RQ3, most organisational characteristics of media size, media ownership, editorial responsibility, and media type had no significant effect on how Nigerian journalists perceive their roles. However, journalists who work for public media show significantly more support for the propagandist role. Development Journalism
My only hypothesis (H1) was that Nigerian journalists do not consider development journalism as a very important role conception. Of the five questions that initially made up the development journalism principle, only one (promote the strength and unity of communities) was considered extremely important by over half of the respondents (72.5%). The other four (as shown in Table 1) only had support from less than half of the journalists, and two items had the least support from journalists: less than 6% said it was extremely important for journalists to portray either the government or national leaders in a positive light. Table 1 also shows how low the overall agreement with this role perception is, compared to for example the watchdog or public interest role. This initially confirms my H1. Also, three of the five development journalism questions factored into the propagandist role cluster, which was considered "extremely important" by 12.7% of journalists. This provides additional support for H1, and Nigerian journalists do not consider development journalism a very important role.
Brown Envelope Journalism
My fourth research question was on the attitude of Nigerian journalists to brown envelopes.
When it comes to prevalence of the practise, a large majority of the journalists (81.9%) indicated that they knew other journalists who had received brown envelope. When asked why they believe other journalists accept brown envelope, the most popular response was related to culture: 84.4% of respondents said that other journalists accepted brown envelopes because they believed it was against their culture to reject gifts. In terms of the effect on journalism, 78.1% said other journalists accept brown envelopes because they believe it does not affect journalistic product.
For journalists’ personal attitude to brown envelopes, 24 respondents declined to answer the question of whether they themselves had accepted brown envelope in the course of their work. Of those who did answer the question (n = 136), a majority (65.9%) stated they had accepted brown envelopes, while 34.1% said they had never accepted it. Of the journalists who admitted to accepting brown envelopes, 4.8% said that they "regularly" accepted brown envelope, while 59% said they "seldom" accepted it (M = 2.11; SD = 1.711).
The results on personal attitudes to brown envelopes also shows that an overwhelming majority of journalists saw nothing wrong in accepting brown envelopes. In the multiple option question, 94.4% said there was nothing wrong with accepting brown envelopes, and 55.6% said the practice was acceptable if it did not affect journalistic product. Also, despite that majority admit accepting brown envelopes, half of the journalists (50%) said it was never right to accept brown envelope.
Also relating to personal attitudes, despite a majority of the journalists admitting to accepting brown envelopes, a majority (61.9%) also said accepting it regularly does influence a journalist's story, with 33.8% of respondents saying it affected journalist's story "a lot" (M = 5.07, SD = 1.819). In response to a multiple choice question on how specifically brown envelope affects a journalist's story, majority of respondents (56.3%) said it affected the topics selected for coverage while 51.9% said it affected people named and sources used in a
story. In contrast, only 23.1% said brown envelope prevents critical reporting of a story. In summary, the response to RQ4 is that most Nigerian journalists accept brown envelopes, believe that it influences their work but still see nothing wrong with it.
-- Table 5 here --
My fifth research question was on the relationship between journalists role conception and their perceptions of the influence of brown envelope on stories. As shown in Table 5, my results show that none of the role clusters is a significant predictor of brown envelope perceptions. A more detailed regression testing the relationship of each of the 16 role questions on brown envelope perceptions also shows no significant relationship (p > .05 for each). In response to RQ5, this shows that how Nigerian journalists conceptualise their role has no effect on their perception of the influence of brown envelope on stories.
My sixth research question (RQ6) covered the extent to which individual factors (age, years of experience, educational qualification, gender, and income) influence brown envelope perceptions. The results show that individual characteristics do not predict journalistic attitude to brown envelopes (p > .05 in each case).
-- Table 6 here --
My last research question was about the influence of organisational characteristics (media size, media ownership, role in media, and media type) on perception of influence of brown envelope on news content. The result shows that as a group, the organisational factors had a significant effect (p = 0.021). Specifically, two organisational characteristics have a positive correlation on what journalists think of the influence of brown envelopes on a story (see Table 6). Media size (B = 0.271, p = .033), and print journalists (B = 1.690, p = .044) both have positive correlations with perception of influence of brown envelopes on a journalist's story. For media size, the result implies that an increase of 10 journalists in
number of employees of a media organisation produces an increase of 0.271 on a 7-point scale on how much journalists believe brown envelope influences a journalist's story. In other words, the larger a news organisation is, the more journalists in that organisation believe that brown envelope influences their work. For print journalists, the result shows that journalist who work for other media (online-only, TV and radio) believe by a factor of 1.690 on a 7-point scale that brown envelope influences journalism than their print counterparts. The variance explained by the regression model is 10.7%. In summary, the response to RQ 7 is that while media ownership and editorial responsibility have no influence on journalists attitude to brown envelopes, journalists who work for large media organisations and journalists who work for other media apart from print believe more that brown envelopes influence journalism.
Discussion and Conclusion
Journalism plays an integral role in the development of democracy. This is true in Nigeria where journalists have played major roles in government accountability since 1999 (Olukoyun, 2004). Yet, there have been very few empirical studies on journalism in Nigeria and none on journalists role perceptions. While this study helps understand how Nigerian journalists perceive their roles, more studies will be required to fully comprehend how journalists in Nigeria and indeed other emerging democracies in Africa conceptualise their roles.
In sum, my study shows that Nigerian journalists support the watchdog function. It also shows that the adversarial role enjoys the least support among journalists while development journalism also enjoys support among only a minority of journalists. The study also shows majority of Nigerian journalists endorse brown envelope and that journalists role perceptions had no influence on their attitude to brown envelopes.
My study contributes to the literature in the following ways. Firstly, my findings show the importance of the watchdog role which includes investigating government claims, providing analysis and interpretation of complex problems, discussing national policy while it is still being developed and getting information to the public quickly. The data shows that the watchdog role, considered one of the most important functions of the media in a democracy, is most supported by Nigerian journalists. The majority of the journalists surveyed in this study believe that investigating claims and statements by the government is the most important function of a journalist. In considering the watchdog function as very important, the average Nigerian journalist not only shares similar perceptions with his Western counterpart (Weaver et al. 2007; Skovsgaard et al., 2013), but also with journalists in other African countries (Mwesige, 2004; Ngomba, 2010). The support for the watchdog role can also be traced to the historical experiences Nigerians have had with the government where officials have been exposed several times of lying, falsifying records and deceiving the public (Olukoyun, 2004).
Secondly, my results show that only few Nigerian journalists believe in the development journalism principle. For a majority of Nigerian journalists, it is not important to portray the government, its leaders or the community in a positive light. This finding confirms Mwesige's (2004) argument that the average African journalist, in terms of perception of journalisms role, is not different from his Western counterpart. Although Kasoma (1996, p. 95) considers this a "tragedy", the question to be asked is whether by considering these watchdog/analysis roles as most important and development journalism as less important, democracy in African societies will be better for it; especially if those role perceptions are implemented in the journalist's work. From my results, the Nigerian journalist in the 21st century appears to be saying that watchdog journalism is much more important for Nigeria's young democracy than development journalism is.
Another important point is that journalistic roles cluster differently in different countries. In terms of role clusters, the results show that while Weaver and Wilhoit's (1996) role questions can be used for guidance, the four role clusters are not cast in stone. This study and others (Skovsgaard et al., 2013, Ramaprasad, 2001, Hanitzsch, 2005) have shown that the individual journalistic roles cluster differently in different countries, a fact researchers should take into consideration. Researchers studying journalistic role conceptions, therefore, need to be guided not only by existing literature but also by local peculiarities and contexts.
The results of this study also confirm that individual characteristics have no significant influence on how Nigerian journalists perceive their roles. This finding is similar to that of other studies on role perceptions (Weaver et. al; 2007; Zhu et al., 1997; Ramaprasad 2001). However, while political orientation has been found to have a significant effect on journalists role perception (Weaver et. al, 2007; Mellado, 2011), this study did not ask the respondents any question on their political disposition. This was deliberately so as politics and political parties in Nigeria are not based on ideologies or orientation but on interests, ethnicity and religion (Gunther & Diamond, 2003). This makes it easy for politicians and citizens to move freely from one party to the other, a factor that would have made nonsense of any question on political orientation of journalists. Like the individual factors, most of the organisational factors also had no significant effect on how Nigerian journalists in this study perceive their roles. Although some organisational factors have been found to have an effect on journalists role perceptions in existing studies (Weaver et al., 2007, Mellado, 2011), the lack of effect of both individual and organisational factors on role perceptions in this study is similar to the finding of Mwesige (2004) on Ugandan journalists. However, among the respondents, one organisational factor had a significant effect. Journalists in public media significantly had more support for the propagandist role than those in private. This may be
because public media in Nigeria is fully owned and controlled by the government and their journalists are trained and expected to report positively about the government.
The question then is if individual and organisational factors are not predictors of Nigerian journalists role perceptions, what is? Nigeria has been described as a multi-national country with more than 150 ethnic nationalities. Some scholars have also argued that there is no Nigerian media, but several ethnic media within Nigeria (Olukoyun, 2004; Adebanwi, 2000;Yusha’u, 2010). In other words, ethnicity influences how Nigerian journalists do their work. Perhaps ethnicity, which was not considered in this study, could be a predictor of journalists role conception. This is a factor that should be considered in future research; especially as Zhu et al. (1997) found that societal factors had the "strongest impact" (p. 84) on journalists role perceptions.
The prevalence of brown envelopes in Nigerian journalism is also confirmed in this study. This is in tandem with other studies on the topic (Nwabueze, 2010; Skjerdal, 2010). A majority of Nigerian journalists not only accept brown envelopes or know others who have, they also believe that there is nothing wrong with accepting them. This attitude to brown envelopes among Nigerian journalists is confounding with another result, namely that journalists predominantly support the watchdog function. How does one serve as a watchdog of a public official from whom one has accepted brown envelope? There is no doubt that the brown envelope factor is a threat to independent reporting. As stated by Skjerdal (2010), at the most basic level, the giver "expects coverage of an event or issue; but more importantly, the issue is expected to be covered in positive and uncritical manner" (p. 370). The Nigerian journalists who accept the brown envelopes, as shown in this study, also admit they influence their work. The question then is, if the journalists who accept brown envelopes admit they influence their work, why do they persist in accepting them? One reason could be poverty. Nigerian journalists are poorly paid and sometimes owed several months of salary
(Nwabueze, 2010). Perhaps the need to meet basic needs forces the journalists to persist in something they admit influences their work. However, majority of journalists also stated that they would continue accepting brown envelopes even if their salaries were increased (Nwabueze, 2010). Therefore, the problem is really not that of income. Arguably, the most important reason why this culture persists is because, as shown in the results, most of the journalists see nothing wrong with it. This is similar to the finding of Nwabueze (2010) were 70% of the journalists see brown envelope "as a gift or kind gesture from the giver" (p. 509). Are brown envelopes gifts or bribes? Should brown envelope simply be accepted as part of the journalistic culture in Nigeria and other African countries (see Zelizer, 2005). Resolving the ethical conundrum is not helped by the arguments of some scholars who caution against considering brown envelope a bribe and argue from an African socio-economic perspective (see Wasserman, 2008; Skjerdal, 2010). Brown envelopes are given with an intent, usually in private, and its recipients know they do influence or at least can influence their work. It is therefore bribery and unethical. Admitting otherwise only helps to perpetuate the practise. By accepting brown envelopes from sources, are the journalists not at best lapdogs? Nwabueze's (2010) call for a reorientation of Nigerian journalists is pertinent here as such is needed for the journalists to comprehensively grasp the impact of their actions. However, apart from journalists stating how brown envelopes affect their stories, there is need for more studies on how this influence works. This is especially so as studies have shown that journalists role perception does not necessarily relate to how they enact their roles (Graber, 2002; Tandoc, Hellmueller, & Vos, 2013).
This study also shows that Nigerian journalists perception of the influence of brown envelope on stories is not predicted by how they perceive their roles as journalists. In other words, irrespective of the roles Nigerian journalists consider important, a majority believe brown envelope influences a story. However, this finding could be due to lack of variance in
role conceptions or on attitude to brown envelope, therefore more studies are needed here. The perception of the influence of brown envelopes on stories is also not affected by individual and many organisational factors. However, journalists in larger media organisations believe more that brown envelopes influence journalism than journalists working for smaller organisations. One can argue that journalists in large media organisations work with more journalists who accept brown envelopes; and in the final published works see more of the influence of the brown envelopes. Since most Nigerian media have ethical guidelines opposed to collection of brown envelopes (Nwabueze, 2010), perhaps smaller media organisations are able to effectively monitor their staff. Therefore, journalists working for them see less influence of the brown envelope on their works. However, more research is also required here to further test the relationship between journalists role perceptions and attitude to brown envelope.
This study comes with some limitations. Firstly, the low response rate of the study for a large country like Nigeria constitutes a problem for the generalisability of the result. This is more so, as responses were very low from some of the country's regions despite the consistent reminders during the survey. Secondly, about 75% of the respondents work in two states (Lagos and Abuja) which may be a problem. But this should be expected as most of the media organisations in Nigeria are based in the two states and both states have the highest number of journalists in the country, according to the NUJ. Thirdly, information on organisational factors such as media size were based on journalists own report and not official information from the news organisations themselves. Lastly, the measures on brown envelopes were self-developed and need to be further validated in future research.
Despite its few limitations, this study presents a first comprehensive view of how Nigerian journalists perceive their roles. It shows that in terms of role perceptions, the Nigerian journalist is not different from his Western or indeed other African counterparts.
The study also contributes to the discussion on brown envelope journalism by not only affirming that brown envelope journalism is prevalent in Nigeria but showing that journalists attitude to brown envelopes is not affected by their role perception.
As democracy deepens in Africa's most populous country, the role of its media and journalists will continue to be a topic of discourse. For Nigerian journalists, this study could serve as a mirror, upon which to reflect on themselves and the future of their profession, one that is needed for the country's young democracy to survive. For the Nigerian public, the study helps understand better what motivates those who bring news to them.
References
Adebanwi, W. (2000). The Nigerian Press and the National Question. In A. Momoh, & S. Adejumobi (Eds.), The National Question in Nigeria: Comparative Perspectives (pp. 201-215). Aldershot: Ashgate Books.
Adebanwi, W. (2008). Trials and triumphs: The story of The News. Lagos: West African Book Publishers.
Awoshakin, T. (2010). Civic Journalism Initiatives and NIgeria. (A. Romano, Ed.)
International Journalism and Democracy: Civic Engagement Models from Around the World, pp. 49-62.
Babbie, E. (2005). The basics of social research (3rd). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth. Bamiro, E. (1997). Lexical innovation in Ghanaian English: Some examples from recent
Cassidy, W. (2005). Variations on a Theme: The Professional Role Conceptions of Print and Online Newspaper Journalists. Journalism and Mass COmmunication Quarterly, 82(2), 264-280.
Cassidy, W. (2008). Traditional in Different Degrees: The Professional Role Conceptions of Male and Female Newspaper Journalists. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 16(2), 105-117. doi:10.1080/15456870701840020
Cohen, B. (1963). The press and foreign poucy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Coyne, M. (1984). Role and Rational Action. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 14
(3): 259_70.
Dalen, A. v., Vreese, C. H., & Albæk, E. (2012). Different roles, different content? A four-country comparison of the role conceptions and reporting style of political journalists. Journalism, 903-922.
Dare, S. (2007, May 18). Guerilla Journalism: Dispatches from the Underground. Ibadan: Kraft Books Limited. Retrieved from The Nation.
Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Gerhards, J., & Rucht, D. (2002). Four Models of the Public Sphere in Modern Democracies. Theory and Society, 3(3), 289-324.
Graber, D. (2002). Mass Media and American Politics (6th ed.). Washington DC: CQ Press. Gunther, R., & Diamond, L. (2003). Species of Political Parties: A New Typology. Party
Politics, 9(167), 167-199. doi: 10.1177/13540688030092003
Hallin, D., & Mancini, P. (2004). Comparing Media Systems: Three Models of Media and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hanitzsch, T. (2005). Journalists in Indonesia: educated but timid watchdogs. Journalism Studies, 6(4), 493-508.
Hasty, J. (1999). Big language and brown envelopes: The press and political culture in Ghana. PhD dissertation, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Johnstone, J., Slawski, E., & Bowman, W. (1976). The news people. A Sociobgical portrait of American Joumalists and their work. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Kasoma, F. (1996). The Foundations of African Ethics (Afriethics) and the Professional Practice of Journalism: The Case for Society-Centred Media Morality. Africa Media Review , 93-116.
Kperogi, F. (2012). The Evolution and Challenges of Online Journalism in Nigeria. The Handbook of Global Online Journalism,, 445-461.
MacQuail, D. (2000). McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McManus, J. (1995). A Market-Based Model of News Production. Communication Theory,
301-338.
Mellado, C. (2011). Modeling Individual and Organizational Effects on Chilean Journalism: A Multilevel Analysis of Professional Role Conceptions. COMUNICACIÓN Y SOCIEDAD, 269-304.
Musa, B. A., & Domatob, J. K. (2007). Who Is a Development Journalist? Perspectives on Media Ethics and Professionalism in Post-Colonial Societies. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 22(4), 315-331. doi:10.1080/08900520701583602
Mwesige, P. G. (2004). Disseminators, Advocates and Watchdogs: A Profile of Ugandan Journalists in the New Millennium. Journalism, 5(1), 69-96.
Ndangam, L. (2009). All of us have taken gombo”: Media pluralism and patronage in Cameroonian journalism. Journalism, 10(6), 819-842.
Ngomba, T. (2010). Journalists Role Conceptions And The Democratization of
Contemporary Cameroon. Cameroon Journal on Democracy and Human Rights, 36-63.
Nwabueze, C. (2010). Brown envelopes and the need for ethical re-orientation: Perceptions of Nigerian journalists. African Communication Research, 3(3), 497-521.
Olukoyun, A. (2004). Media Accountability and Democracy in Nigeria. African Studies Review, 69-90.
Ramaprasad, J. (2001). A Profile of Journalists in Post-Independence Tanzania. International Communication Gazette, 63(6), 539-555.
Retief, J. (2002). Media ethics. An introduction to responsible journalism. Cape Town: University Press South Africa.
Rodny-Gumede, Y. (2015). An Assessment of the Public Interest and Ideas of the Public in South Africa and the Adoption of Ubuntu Journalism. Journal of Media Ethics, 30(2), 109-124. doi:10.1080/23736992.2015.1020379
Salawu, A. (2015). Not Iwe Irohin but Umshumayeli: A revisit of the historiography of the early African language press. African Identities, 13(2), 157-170.
doi:10.1080/14725843.2014.1002383
Shoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Skjerdal, T. S. (2010). Review article: Research on brown envelope journalism in the African media. African Communication Research, 367-406.
Skovsgaard, M., Albæk, E., Bro, P., & Vreese, C. d. (2013). A reality check: How journalists’ role perceptions impact their implementation of the objectivity norm. Journalism, 22-42.
Stromback, J. (2005). In Search of a Standard: four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6(3), 331-345.
doi:10.1080/14616700500131950
Tandoc, E. C., Hellmueller, L., & Vos, T. P. (2013). MIND THE GAP. Journalism Practice, 7(5), 539-554. doi:10.1080/17512786.2012.726503
Tiako, N. P. (2015, June 19). JOURNALISTIC ROLE PERCEPTIONS OF
CAMEROONIAN PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISTS. (J. M. Rodriguez, Ed.) Repensar los valores clásicos del periodismo, pp. 117-136.
Voakes, P. (1999). Civic Duties: Newspaper Journalists' Views on Public Journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 76(4), 756-774.
Wasserman, H. (2008). Media ethics and human dignity in the. In S. Ward, & H. Wasserman, Media ethics beyond borders (pp. 74–89). Johannesburg: Heinemann.
Weaver, D. H., Beam, R. A., Brownlee, B. J., Voakes, P. S., & Wilhoit, G. C. (2007). The American Journalist in the 21st Century: U.S. News People at the Dawn of a New Millennium. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Weaver, D., & Wilhoit, C. (1986). The American Journalist. A portrait of U.S. News People and Their Work. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
Weaver, D., & Wilhoit, C. (1996). The American Joumalist in the 1990s: U.S. News People and the End of an Era. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
