The Army, the Media, and Communication of National Interest

By Okey Ikechukwu

What benefits does a journalist or the nation derive from producing, distributing, and generally promoting news and images that can only demoralise everyone? What advantage does a responsible media practitioner gain by happily broadcasting the worst possible information about his country and the military personnel risking their lives to secure the environment in which he practices journalism?

Recent tensions have arisen when the output of certain individuals or organisations appeared to take the form of mischievous reportage or deliberate attempts to foster disaffection. These incidents, which deviate from the excellent work most media houses and practitioners are doing in Nigeria, are perceived as irresponsible, inaccurate, sensational, or at least capable of undermining personnel morale and military and security operations.

Video clips, misinformation, disinformation or distorted data masquerading as honest and objective reports all undermine us in ways that I propose to raise here today. Let us examine the challenges of irresponsible media behaviour that our fighting forces must confront amid grave national security threats.

A sound relationship between the media and the military is vital in any democratic society. The former informs the public, holds state institutions accountable, and prevents the spread of news or information that could create social tension or undermine national security. The latter is tasked with safeguarding, protecting, and guaranteeing national security and maintaining the nation’s territorial integrity.

Some points to consider for the media before we proceed: First, we do not have enough officers and foot soldiers to cover the vast geographical profile of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Second, the army is burdened with many internal security issues that should ordinarily not be its business. This has been expressed in some quarters as negatively impacting the Service and even “demobilising” the army. Third, our fighting forces are overstretched, under‑equipped, under‑funded, and sometimes undermined by the irresponsible antics of politicians.

They are being portrayed as less professional, less patriotic, and less competent than they truly are by the challenges of the operating environment. These are issues the media can highlight, while also holding the military accountable when its conduct is remiss. For instance, many media men who were loudly complaining about our security problem and the growing attacks on military facilities and the killing of senior officers in combat were shocked to hear at a public civil forum, three weeks ago, that only seven per cent of the 2026 budget of the army had been released to the Service.

The information was greeted with cries of outrage in the hall. The army cannot embark on a public campaign or openly speak about these challenges, but the media can. When uniformed commentators venture into the public domain to speak authoritatively on matters they do not understand, it is easy to see many of them overstepping the bounds completely, and conspicuously in ways that may be considered irresponsible.

The elements of irresponsible media behaviour we can identify include publishing unverified or false information, sensationalising security incidents for attention or profit, disclosing sensitive military operational details, and using inflammatory language that could heighten public panic or ethnic tensions. It also includes failing to provide balanced coverage or reportage for security issues—especially for political reasons.

The expansion of the media and journalism space by the growth of online journalism and social media makes it easy for information and fake news to spread rapidly, allowing inaccurate reports and claims to reach large audiences in seconds before there is any opportunity for proper verification. This can, and does, compromise military operations, especially regarding troop movements, strategies for specific engagements, and operational locations. That is why we teach budding journalists that national security information is not a media scoop and should not be treated as such; doing so may assist and empower criminal groups, insurgents, and terrorists.

Repeated mischievous circulation of inaccurate reports can weaken public trust in the army and other security institutions, negatively affect the morale of soldiers operating under difficult conditions, and create confusion and panic among citizens. It also reinforces hostile propaganda, which can be exploited by terrorist and criminal groups to advance their objectives.

For the record, responsible journalism is not the same as avoiding criticism of the military. It is the commitment to verifying facts before publication, consulting multiple sources on touchy issues, distinguishing clearly between facts and opinions, paying attention to national security considerations in every media output, and correcting errors promptly when discovered. Only in this way can professional journalism strengthen both democracy and national security.

That brings us to the concept of “national interest journalism.” It means disseminating information in a manner that informs the public while safeguarding national security, social stability, national values, and democracy. In a period of insurgency, terrorism, or armed conflict—as we have in Nigeria today—government communicators and media practitioners face the common challenge of balancing the public’s right to know with the need to avoid aiding hostile actors with compromising information. They all need to abide by the fundamental ABC principles of public communication.

Here is the simple framework, or ABC, of responsible communication and reporting in the present times. The A stands for Accuracy, the foundation of credible communication and journalism. Without accuracy, journalism can cause public panic and fear, spread misinformation and rumours, undermine confidence in security institutions, and provide propaganda opportunities for insurgent groups. The only counter to this, in the service of accuracy, is to always verify facts through multiple reliable sources, especially casualty figures, before publication. Avoid speculation and unverified claims, admit and correct errors promptly and transparently.

The B in the ABC of responsible journalism practice stands for Balance. This means presenting information fairly and objectively, allowing for different perspectives, while maintaining a commitment to professional integrity. It means weighing all output on the scale of fairness, verifiability, and broad national interests, while avoiding sensationalism and emotional manipulation of facts. Balanced reporting prevents polarization and contributes to national cohesion during periods of insecurity.

The C in the ABC of responsible journalism is about caution and discretion in determining what should go out and what should not. Caution is essential when dealing with sensitive security information because you cannot reveal troop movements or operational plans. Publishing information that is detrimental to national security, endangers Service personnel, or creates social tension among the civilian populace is an attempt to undermine the state and can be equated with treason in certain circumstances.

While caution does not mean censorship, it involves exercising sound professional judgment to ensure that information dissemination does not inadvertently assist those seeking to destabilise society. It is a form of self‑ and institutional censorship for a higher purpose, rather than mere concealment. The media has the duty of informing citizens about security developments, countering misinformation and fake news, encouraging public vigilance and resilience, promoting national unity and peaceful coexistence, while strengthening democracy by supporting informed public discourse.

These principles of Accuracy, Balance, and Caution (ABC) enable journalists, government communicators, and security agencies to provide the public with reliable information while protecting national security and preserving democratic values. When properly applied, the framework contributes to informed citizenship, social stability, and the collective effort to overcome security challenges. In this way, the media retains its central role as the watchdog for gathering, processing, and disseminating information to the public in a responsive manner.

In an era of terrorism, cyber threats, insurgency, and rapid digital communication, the media’s role intersects very closely, and very dramatically, with national information security. The challenge lies in balancing the public’s right to know with the need to protect sensitive information that could threaten national security. The Freedom of Information Act, which is sometimes touted by journalists with limited understanding of its full implications, does not override the overarching provisions of the constitution and other laws designed to safeguard the integrity of the state against any acts, plans, publications or intentions that may undermine or overawe it.

Concerns about national information security oblige the journalist to protect and prevent the dissemination of any piece of information that could undermine national interests in any form. This implies protecting information, communication systems, sensitive data, or other material that could compromise national security from unauthorised access, manipulation, disclosure, or destruction. It also encompasses the protection of classified government information, security of military and intelligence operations, cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection, refusal to promote misinformation and disinformation campaigns, and respect for citizens’ personal and national data.

The responsible journalist informs the public without ignoring the law against character defamation, libel, and public scandals. It means helping to verify facts, debunk rumours, and prevent the circulation of misleading narratives that may threaten national stability.

This task of the media also involves promoting public awareness of security obligations, educating citizens about cyber security risks, subtle terrorism radicalisation mechanisms, and the fundamentals of national resilience. Knowledge of manipulated images and videos, coordinated disinformation campaigns, cybersecurity threats and online fraud are to be taken for granted for practitioners guided by the principles for Responsible Media Practice.

As a way out of the more recent excesses in the media regarding the army, the following points should be noted: (1) Access to military facilities does not translate into the right to abuse established military traditions; (2) Journalists should consider the potential security implications of sensitive reports in their hands; (3) Coverage should present facts objectively and avoid inflammatory or stigmatizing language; (4) Media professionals should respect professional standards and avoid spreading rumours or propaganda; (5) Constructive engagement between media organisations and security institutions will improve information sharing while respecting press freedom.

The media is a critical stakeholder in national information security. Through accurate reporting, fact‑checking, public education, and responsible journalism, the media contributes significantly to national stability and resilience. Irresponsible reporting, misinformation, and disclosure of sensitive information do not foster a balanced relationship between media freedom and national security considerations.