There appears to be some confusion among some on the communications and media structure in the Presidency, and on who exactly is at the top of the ladder. Rightly so too, given the overlap in the designations of the Special Advisers and (Senior) Special Assistants tasked with managing the media, communications and orientation function(s) for and on behalf of the President.
It needs not be so. But the confusion didn’t start today, even if it is more pronounced now, not helped by the overlapping and confusion nature of designations, largely unspoken expectations of deliverables from the different offices, unclear and often contradictory allocation of duties, and blurred lines of demarcation of duties, if any.
Ordinarily, as was in the case under previous administrations, starting with the Yar’Adua administration (Olusegun Adeniyi), at the top of the ladder is the Special Adviser (Media & Publicity), supposedly of cabinet rank, who superintends over the media function, acting as the lead Spokesperson and head of the Presidential Communications team.
While some queried the arrangement under the previous administration which paired Femi Adesina with Garba Shehu, the official designations made it clear who was top. Being two good-natured men made it easier for that team to navigate around what might have easily been misconstrued or actioned as two captains in one ship.
This dispensation would throw up a different and strange scenario in which the announcement of the Special Adviser immediately triggered questions, as it was difficult to picture an organogram with the person at the top with some of the (Senior) Special Assistants reporting to him. It was difficult to explain, as he was of considerably less qualified and experienced than others on the team.
While announcing himself as the ‘Official Spokesperson of the President’ might have been an effort at marking his territory, events as later played out would restate our argument about the overlapping and contradicting nature of power and influence, as power does not always connote influence.
The situation would become more difficult, some would say chaotic, with the appointment of a much more senior Journalist as Special Adviser. Reports of restiveness, quite predictable, were rife, some of that spilling onto the public space.
No surprise that events eventually got to the head, leading to the exit of the ‘Official Spokesperson of the President’ under woolly circumstances, made worse by the unsavoury reports released to the public following that confirming the toxic environment under which the media function was carried out.
It is baffling to me, not surprising though, to see how flippantly the media function is handled at the highest levels of government, and that cuts across the different administrations, given the central nature of communications and media management not only in defining the Presidency but in shaping the Presidential legacy.
I have been around for a while, seen things from outside and inside as well. I have different levels of relationship (professional and unofficial) with almost everyone who has occupied the office of Special Adviser to the President (Media) since 2007.
What I have heard, seen and read about that office speaks to a disregard for communications and media professionals, disrespect for the media, a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of how the media and communications function is supposed to run.
Except things have changed of late, the office has no budget of its own and has to depend on ‘special consideration’ by superiors to fund programmes and projects. The office is not properly structured, with duties and reporting lines clearly defined.
There appears to be an understanding that the media function is for ‘boys’ whose job is to say what it has been told to say, and clean up mess that has been created by others. There is little or no thought and regard for the most important part of the job, which is ‘advisory’.
The idea of being proactive or the communications/media professional participating in the decision making process is an aberration. What they they think they need is a ‘Reporter-after-the-fact’, not an Adviser, even if designated as one.
Well, some have argued that the function is better managed by a PR professional rather than a Journalist. There is a debate around that, which is not the focus here. As one with feet planted on both sides, I think each person’s body of knowledge and experience will speak for or against his competence.
What I have found is that there is a level of disrespect for the media professional which typecasts him as a ‘media boy’ whose competency is limited to ‘reporting’ and is supposed to be seen and not heard in the decision-making room. He is assumed not to know beyond the media space. Yet, we have had Journalists serve meritoriously as Governors. Lateef Jakande. Olusegun Osoba. Adamu Chiroma, a Journalist and Historian, once served as the Central Bank Governor.
A well-read Journalist, with requisite knowledge and experience within and outside the media, will apply himself to other functions successfully. Being a Journalist does not limit the practitioner to only the media function.
Back to managing the media function for the President, I will argue for the office of the Chief Media Adviser to the President, appropriately so called and institutionalised within the Presidency. With a clearly defined structure and organogram in place, which should make it clear who is in charge. It needs be evident at whose desk the buck stops. If it still doesn’t have a budget of its own, independently managed, that should be rectified.
The media function is too important for its funding to be left to the discretionary power of one not directly responsible for its management.
The ‘iru wa, ogiri wa’ approach, which makes the media and communications team an all-comers affair is less than ideal. Populating the media office with all manner of people (qualified and unqualified), is not only antithetical to amity, but renders it inefficient and ineffective in carrying out its functions.
The way the media/communications function is ‘structured’ or unstructured right now makes it dysfunctional and a likely recipe for confusion, if not chaos. There are currently three Special Advisers with seemingly overlapping functions, that apart from the (Senior) Special Assistants within the same space.
Managing communications/media is already difficult as it is, made more difficult by the confusion around what it entails, on the part of those who appoint some who take the job, and especially the public, with limited understanding of the communications function. Being an attack dog is the only thing that will satisfy some.
Well, the task at hand for the President, his legacy especially, is too important for it to be about unleashing attack dogs at ‘enemies within’. There might be a need for attack dogs once in a while, but the professionals know how to deploy that without tainting the presidential platform.
The legacy of the President can be made or marred by how the media function is handled. It will do well for a President with an eye on legacy to have a properly structured Media Office built around the Chief Media Adviser, seen and recognized by everyone as the leader of the team, on whose desk the buck stops.
By Simbo Olorunfemi.
