Some reactions to my last article on Rufai Oseni bemused me. Many betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of both the craft and code of journalism. A few even hailed Oseni for “provoking” interviewees — as though journalism were a brawl, not a discipline.
It gave me occasion to clean up my digital space and weed out abusive characters and vitriol merchants, in line with the biblical injunction to “guard your heart with all diligence.” But for those who genuinely seek understanding, let me offer this: Every major media house on earth — from The New York Times to Reuters, from BBC to AP — enshrines in its stylebooks one non-negotiable truth: professionalism precedes provocation.
1. The Associated Press Stylebook: “Fairness Is Not Optional”
The AP Stylebook warns: “Reporters must remain courteous, even when confronting. A journalist’s tone must never become the story.”
Those who claim that journalists may “provoke a source” contradict this entirely. The AP’s ethical rule is clear: no interview should devolve into antagonism. The goal is to elicit truth, not tantrums. Once the journalist becomes the provocateur, credibility collapses.
Consider the BBC’s handling of the Prince Andrew interview (Emily Maitlis, 2019). She was unflinchingly firm, yet unfailingly civil — she didn’t provoke, she exposed. The difference between those two verbs is the difference between journalism and theatre.
2. Reuters Handbook of Journalism: “Aggressive Accuracy, Not Aggressive Behaviour”
The Reuters Handbook (2023) states: “Our interviews must display respect for our sources and the audience. We test facts, not tempers.”
Provocation, as some propose, violates the cardinal Reuters tenet of even-handedness. Adversarial journalism, yes — but adversarial with facts, not with fury. A reporter who baits an interviewee discredits both the story and the newsroom.
Look at Christiane Amanpour of CNN — known worldwide for toughness. Yet her mastery lies in controlled composure, not in shouting matches. She pierces with logic, not loudness. The moment she yells, she ceases to interview and begins to argue — and argument is not journalism.
3. BBC Editorial Guidelines: “Challenge with Civility”
The BBC Editorial Guidelines (2024) emphasize: “We must ensure due impartiality and respect in our tone and treatment of interviewees. Challenge is essential; contempt is not.”
The claim that provocation “helps sources manifest their character” is lazy ethics masquerading as courage. Good journalists reveal character through questioning; bad ones manufacture it through conflict.
Contrast that with Stephen Sackur’s “HARDtalk” — rigorous, forensic, unsparing, yet disciplined. He never stoops to mockery or name-calling because he knows that the dignity of journalism depends on the dignity of its methods.
4. The New York Times Ethical Handbook: “The Journalist Is Not the Story.”
The NYT Standards and Ethics guide cautions: “When a reporter’s behaviour overshadows the content of an interview, the public interest is ill-served.”
The philosophy of abusing guests turns the journalist into the spectacle rather than the storyteller. That is performance, not reportage — entertainment masquerading as inquiry. The Times explicitly forbids “emotionally manipulative conduct” designed to “inflame or demean a subject.”
5. NPR (National Public Radio) Code of Ethics: “Provocation Is Not Inquiry”
The NPR Code (2023) declares: “We may ask hard questions. We may press for answers. But we may not insult, goad, or grandstand. The listener deserves illumination, not confrontation.”
Provoking a source “to manifest character” is not journalism — it is egoism disguised as activism. Some of the reactions I’ve read romanticize chaos. But the duty of a journalist is not to make people angry; it is to make people think.
6. Contemporary Examples: How True Professionals Do It
BBC’s Emily Maitlis vs. Prince Andrew (2019): surgical precision, zero hostility.
CNN’s Amanpour vs. Iranian Officials (2022): relentless questioning, impeccable decorum.
CBS’s Norah O’Donnell vs. Kamala Harris (2024): pressing for clarity without provocation.
Now compare those with the Arise TV shouting fiascos in Nigeria — interviews that collapse into ego duels. Each time the journalist yells, the public learns nothing except the journalist’s temper. That’s not adversarial journalism; that’s amateur theatre with a camera.
7. Final Rebuke: The Power of Discipline, Not Drama
Journalism’s first duty is to inform, not to inflame. When you provoke instead of probe, you betray the very purpose of the press. The Reuters Handbook calls such behaviour “a distortion of the reporter’s role.” The BBC calls it “editorial misconduct.”
A professional journalist never needs to “provoke” to expose truth — only to prepare, persist, and probe. The true test of mastery is not how loudly you speak, but how quietly the truth emerges after you’re done.
Conclusion
You may still write a “full piece” to defend the abuse of guests, but every line will be a footnote to ignorance unless it begins with humility — and a rereading of the Reuters, AP, and BBC handbooks.
Journalism is not about provoking people; it is about provoking thought. As the AP Stylebook reminds us: “Our tone should never turn a subject into a spectacle. To lose composure is to lose credibility.”
So, compatriots, before you “do a full piece,” do the full reading. The ethics of journalism are written in ink, not adrenaline.