I'm a regular reader of your work and you do some interesting expositories which I have said are worthy of high praise.
Having read through this piece however, I feel though that it is somewhat invidious. Yes, you highlight the need to avoid sensationalism which David does to great effect. But much of your piece centres on what he does wrong and barely makes any mention of what he does right. And if there's one tenet of journalism it is the need to seek balance.
David is a self-described one-man army; an alarmist. In a different time his writings may not hold much appeal. However, and except you want to play the ostrich, these are very strange times.
When one is teetering close to the precipice the appropriate response is to raise the alarm. The methods may be flawed but they work. There is a reason people are drawn to his work and for all his misgivings you cannot deny that it is for the greater good.
You questioned some of his other work and pointed out flaws, but you interestingly fail to mention the great things he's done. It is thanks to his penchant for 'sensationalism' that he was able to get the Nigerian government to get that poor lady languishing in an Ivorian prison for a crime she knew nothing about. It is thanks to his 'sensationalism' that we now know about Isa Pantami. Thanks to his 'sensationalism', the rot in Nigerian immigrations has been exposed with some actions already taking place.
If his kind of journalism spurs the government to action, a government notoriously known for not giving a hoot, I am more than happy to throw my weight behind him and lend him all the support he would need.
David is the kind of person we need now. And as some users have pointed out, while it is true that he needs editorial guidance to vet his work properly, there's no doubt that people are out there orchestrating attacks on his credibility. You need not be a genius to see why.
And to read this piece and not find a single word of praise for David raises a lot of questions in my head especially coming from a journalist like you.
As one who practices journalism myself, I know the pains one goes through to deliver exclusives, not in the least one of this magnitude. To focus only on the things he did wrongly while sidestepping what he got right is, in my opinion, unfair.
P.S: This is not an attack. I respect your work but on this matter, I'm afraid you may also need to do a reckoning over if this was really necessary.
The problem with looking for righteousness in the article is that you all are missing a major point. Good journalism brings issues to light and the David’s write up does just that. It’s all speculative. By now anybody that reads him knows his style. While it may bother you that he’s getting accolades for something he has done (which you feel is not worthy) we cannot deny that he has done something that you didn’t or haven’t done.
In every respect to the realities faced by the South South and South East regions, one must be wary of posturing a need for economic revitalisation as regime consolidation. The narratives that accompanied progressive politics have not done enough in providing a nexus between policy and responsibility. On the various socio-cultural platforms, there hasn't been convincing attempts to foster national identity.
The situation that has been simmering in our polity has not boded well for politcal consciousness. That is to say, inclusive politics which is the bedrock of democratisation has not had opportunity given it- especially with the militarism that has characterised the national question in recent times.
Unequivocally, this has not brought economic development to Africa's fastest growing economy. The political decay that presents a hindrance even in governance has left many out of national integration.
Muyiwa is enugbe journalist. Southerners must always present there Judases. You have never written any noteworthy piece and the salient points and directions raised by the young writer, you at best is pilloring it. Please delete this your piece of s...t
Welldone on the fact checking! I don't expect it to stop there though. This same energy and swiftness also has to be used to doing the journalism work the way it ought to be done and addressing some of the issues he raised. Posterity will not only judge inaccurate articles and fact checking.
Seems the sole aim of today's article is criticism of David Hundeyin's article? You've listed what you see as discrepancies and half truths in his article. Things he got wrong or weren't expatiated on. You're curiously mute on the rest. Or you didn't see any merits in the article? Things that make you wonder on where we're heading to as a country. Or you see the North's agenda to islamize this country as a false narrative?
Half truth are more dangerous than lies. especially when the article is accusatory and if taken seriously can ruin lives. If by cursory glance we could pick holes, what would we find if we look deeper . Journalism should be about stating facts and not sensationalism. The whole write up shouldn't have seen the light of the day and he should be sued for all he is worth.
I am curious as to the merits because like the author pointed out, not of the accusations made was backed up with evidence. DH merely danced around issues that have been floated for a while and a generally accepted view of the accused and their skirting around religious fundamentalism. Nothing concrete to work with there.
I think I owe this long missive a response, so let's get this show on the road. First of all, I was honest enough to state in my article that I did in fact have preconceived notions of Hundeyin's work, and this was the primary reason I wrote the article.
As I said in one paragraph, "this has become a worrying but broader pattern with Hundeyin's work," so I don't make any bones about that. I also cite examples of his previous works that led me to this opinion; you're welcome to check out some of the links again. And I gave a nod to what made the article so arresting by saying, the article's central theme, and arguably why it has struck such a chord, is that it "advances the argument of the "Islamization" of Nigerian politics," and even delving into what made it so spectacular.
Now to my newsletter premise of doing new things. There are ethical problems in journalism, some of which were covered in Morrisey's brilliant article on the Ozy affair - I recommend that for everyone. In Nigeria, those conversations on sensationalism, the ethics of journalism and where that puts journalists aren't happening. Those conversations need to happen if we're going to make interesting progress; in this way, I'm glad I wrote this article, as it kickstarted - within my own circle anyway - a healthy conversation on journalism ethics which was long overdue.
To the subject of what's in my best interests, I've always done things with conviction. Although this is not a failsafe against occasional stupidity, I'm fairly certain that I will not look back on this and judge it a stupid moment.
I do not consider critique of another writer "pulling down" as I rather enjoy being critiqued myself. No writer ever improved without censure, and I grew up in an era where journalists sparred intellectually on the pages of the Sunday Guardian. I cannot wait to go back to a time when intellectual discourse, rigour, and robust critique are a part of our daily diet as professionals, instead of this misnomer.
Thank you for taking your time to write this missive of course. Good luck and well done!
Hi Olumuyiwa,
I'm a regular reader of your work and you do some interesting expositories which I have said are worthy of high praise.
Having read through this piece however, I feel though that it is somewhat invidious. Yes, you highlight the need to avoid sensationalism which David does to great effect. But much of your piece centres on what he does wrong and barely makes any mention of what he does right. And if there's one tenet of journalism it is the need to seek balance.
David is a self-described one-man army; an alarmist. In a different time his writings may not hold much appeal. However, and except you want to play the ostrich, these are very strange times.
When one is teetering close to the precipice the appropriate response is to raise the alarm. The methods may be flawed but they work. There is a reason people are drawn to his work and for all his misgivings you cannot deny that it is for the greater good.
You questioned some of his other work and pointed out flaws, but you interestingly fail to mention the great things he's done. It is thanks to his penchant for 'sensationalism' that he was able to get the Nigerian government to get that poor lady languishing in an Ivorian prison for a crime she knew nothing about. It is thanks to his 'sensationalism' that we now know about Isa Pantami. Thanks to his 'sensationalism', the rot in Nigerian immigrations has been exposed with some actions already taking place.
If his kind of journalism spurs the government to action, a government notoriously known for not giving a hoot, I am more than happy to throw my weight behind him and lend him all the support he would need.
David is the kind of person we need now. And as some users have pointed out, while it is true that he needs editorial guidance to vet his work properly, there's no doubt that people are out there orchestrating attacks on his credibility. You need not be a genius to see why.
And to read this piece and not find a single word of praise for David raises a lot of questions in my head especially coming from a journalist like you.
As one who practices journalism myself, I know the pains one goes through to deliver exclusives, not in the least one of this magnitude. To focus only on the things he did wrongly while sidestepping what he got right is, in my opinion, unfair.
P.S: This is not an attack. I respect your work but on this matter, I'm afraid you may also need to do a reckoning over if this was really necessary.
The problem with looking for righteousness in the article is that you all are missing a major point. Good journalism brings issues to light and the David’s write up does just that. It’s all speculative. By now anybody that reads him knows his style. While it may bother you that he’s getting accolades for something he has done (which you feel is not worthy) we cannot deny that he has done something that you didn’t or haven’t done.
Well said.
In every respect to the realities faced by the South South and South East regions, one must be wary of posturing a need for economic revitalisation as regime consolidation. The narratives that accompanied progressive politics have not done enough in providing a nexus between policy and responsibility. On the various socio-cultural platforms, there hasn't been convincing attempts to foster national identity.
The situation that has been simmering in our polity has not boded well for politcal consciousness. That is to say, inclusive politics which is the bedrock of democratisation has not had opportunity given it- especially with the militarism that has characterised the national question in recent times.
Unequivocally, this has not brought economic development to Africa's fastest growing economy. The political decay that presents a hindrance even in governance has left many out of national integration.
Muyiwa is enugbe journalist. Southerners must always present there Judases. You have never written any noteworthy piece and the salient points and directions raised by the young writer, you at best is pilloring it. Please delete this your piece of s...t
This article seems to me like one written by a colleague jealous of Hundeyin's work. The holes picked lack substance.
sending you love and light because this article go cause fight.
Hahaha, thanks Tissy!
Welldone on the fact checking! I don't expect it to stop there though. This same energy and swiftness also has to be used to doing the journalism work the way it ought to be done and addressing some of the issues he raised. Posterity will not only judge inaccurate articles and fact checking.
This is a very good fact check. Thank you for taking time to write this.
Seems the sole aim of today's article is criticism of David Hundeyin's article? You've listed what you see as discrepancies and half truths in his article. Things he got wrong or weren't expatiated on. You're curiously mute on the rest. Or you didn't see any merits in the article? Things that make you wonder on where we're heading to as a country. Or you see the North's agenda to islamize this country as a false narrative?
Half truth are more dangerous than lies. especially when the article is accusatory and if taken seriously can ruin lives. If by cursory glance we could pick holes, what would we find if we look deeper . Journalism should be about stating facts and not sensationalism. The whole write up shouldn't have seen the light of the day and he should be sued for all he is worth.
I am curious as to the merits because like the author pointed out, not of the accusations made was backed up with evidence. DH merely danced around issues that have been floated for a while and a generally accepted view of the accused and their skirting around religious fundamentalism. Nothing concrete to work with there.
I think I owe this long missive a response, so let's get this show on the road. First of all, I was honest enough to state in my article that I did in fact have preconceived notions of Hundeyin's work, and this was the primary reason I wrote the article.
As I said in one paragraph, "this has become a worrying but broader pattern with Hundeyin's work," so I don't make any bones about that. I also cite examples of his previous works that led me to this opinion; you're welcome to check out some of the links again. And I gave a nod to what made the article so arresting by saying, the article's central theme, and arguably why it has struck such a chord, is that it "advances the argument of the "Islamization" of Nigerian politics," and even delving into what made it so spectacular.
Now to my newsletter premise of doing new things. There are ethical problems in journalism, some of which were covered in Morrisey's brilliant article on the Ozy affair - I recommend that for everyone. In Nigeria, those conversations on sensationalism, the ethics of journalism and where that puts journalists aren't happening. Those conversations need to happen if we're going to make interesting progress; in this way, I'm glad I wrote this article, as it kickstarted - within my own circle anyway - a healthy conversation on journalism ethics which was long overdue.
To the subject of what's in my best interests, I've always done things with conviction. Although this is not a failsafe against occasional stupidity, I'm fairly certain that I will not look back on this and judge it a stupid moment.
I do not consider critique of another writer "pulling down" as I rather enjoy being critiqued myself. No writer ever improved without censure, and I grew up in an era where journalists sparred intellectually on the pages of the Sunday Guardian. I cannot wait to go back to a time when intellectual discourse, rigour, and robust critique are a part of our daily diet as professionals, instead of this misnomer.
Thank you for taking your time to write this missive of course. Good luck and well done!