CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the study’s findings, based on the intervi
ews conducted with journalists in Lagos State. Using thematic analysis, this chapter id
entifies recurring themes across participants’ responses, offering a nuanced understan
ding of the challenges faced by journalists in Lagos. The findings are structured aroun
d the study’s core objectives, addressing the perceptions of journalists on safety, the ty
pes of threats they encounter, and the adequacy of safety measures provided by media
organizations. These themes highlight systemic issues such as growing hostility towar
d journalists, inadequate organizational support, and the prevalence of physical and ps
ychological threats, providing critical insights into the safety challenges inherent in th
e profession.

4.1 Table 4.1: Demography Presentation of Interview Respondents

S/N RESPONDENTS’ CODE GENDER MEDIA

NAME ORGANIZATION

1. Interviewee 1 Male Watch FM

2. Interviewee 2 Female

3. Interviewee 3 Female Daily Trust

4. Interviewee 4 Female Channels Television

5. Interviewee 5 Female Eko FM

6. Interviewee 6 Male Eko FM

7. Interviewee 7 Female The Guardian Nigeria

8. Interviewee 8 Male This Day Newspaper

9. Interviewee 9 Male WaZoBia FM

10. Interviewee 10 Male The Guardian Newspaper

4.2 Thematic Analysis of Interviews

This section presents the findings of data collected from respondents through
interviews. The interviews were conducted with ten (10) respondents. Based on the
choices of the participants, all interviews were conducted on WhatsApp via voice
notes, phone calls and physically between the researcher and the participants. The
responses of the participants are analyzed below using thematic analysis where, after
transcribing and familiarizing with the responses, common themes among the
respondents are identified and analyzed using direct quotations from the respondents.

Research Question One: What are the opinions of journalists in Lagos State on
media practitioners' safety?

4.2.1 Growing Concern and Hostility Toward Journalists

The theme Growing Concern and Hostility Toward Journalists emerged consistently a
cross the interviews with media practitioners in Lagos State. Journalists articulated tha
t their safety is increasingly compromised due to heightened hostility from both the pu
blic and government forces. Political polarization, social mistrust of the media, and th
e volatile nature of reporting in Lagos have collectively exacerbated this issue. Journa
lists often find themselves as perceived adversaries, facing physical, verbal, and psych
ological threats.

One of the most recurrent concerns expressed by the respondents was the hostility exp
erienced by security forces. Journalists described encounters where law enforcement o
fficers obstructed their work, harassed them, or resorted to violence. Interviewee 2 stat
ed that.
 I had been rough-handled by the orderlies of the governor… in their
overzealousness, they jacked me out of the way, jacked my cameram
an out of the way… sometimes our safety could be at risk.

This narrative underscores the institutionalized nature of threats from law enforcemen
t. Despite covering state events, where journalists should ostensibly receive protection
they are often treated as intruders rather than professionals fulfilling their duties. Simi
larly, Interviewee 6 described how overzealous security agents often turn physical:

During a political rally, I witnessed a cameraman being assaulted b

y security personnel who felt we were getting too close to the govern
or. Their actions were unprovoked but stemmed from a misplaced se
nse of protecting their principal.

When comparing these accounts, a common pattern emerges: security agents, driven b
y either mistrust or overzealousness, often disrupt journalists’ work. While Interviewe
e 2 highlighted their experience during a gubernatorial event, Interviewee 6 expanded
on this, noting that such incidents are not one-off occurrences but rather emblematic o
f a larger systemic issue. Both accounts reveal a lack of professional regard for the pre
ss, even during state-sanctioned activities.

Another dimension of hostility comes from the general public, particularly during prot
ests or crises. Journalists reported being targeted by mobs or individuals who view the
m as complicit in government actions or biased in their reporting. Interviewee 9 stated:

During a fuel scarcity protest, a crowd turned aggressive, accusing

us of supporting the government. They smashed our microphones an
d threatened us, claiming we were part of the problem.

This experience highlights how journalists can become scapegoats during public unres
t. The protesters’ anger, directed at the government, was displaced onto the journalists,
illustrating the growing mistrust of media practitioners among the public. Interviewee
2 shared a similar experience:

I have covered some kind of strange protests… some colleagues wer

e not that lucky and were attacked… it was misplaced anger from re
sidents who thought journalists were not portraying their grievances
accurately.
Both responses emphasize how protests, once a key avenue for journalists to amplify
marginalized voices, have turned into dangerous assignments. While Interviewee 9’s a
ccount reveals the frustration of protesters over perceived government-media collusio
n, Interviewee 2 adds nuance by explaining that the hostility also stems from a belief t
hat journalists misrepresent people’s stories. Interviewee 8 further illustrated this by st
ating that:

At Balogun Market during a fire outbreak, traders turned on reporte

rs, blaming us for misreporting previous incidents. It was as though
we carried the weight of their frustrations with the government and t
he media.

This example complements the earlier accounts by showing how hostility is not limite
d to politically charged events but also extends to crises where communities feel aban
doned by authorities. The pattern across these quotes reveals a public perception of jo
urnalists as biased intermediaries, caught between public grievances and governmenta
l narratives.

Furthermore, many respondents linked the growing hostility to political polarization a

nd the increasing criminalization of dissent in Nigeria. The sharp divide in political af
filiations often places journalists at the centre of conflicts, as they are perceived as sid
ing with one faction or the other. Interviewee 5 noted that “the political climate in rece
nt years has made it more dangerous. Journalists are seen as either government mouth
pieces or opposition sympathizers, depending on the narrative they report.” This respo
nse reflects the precarious position of journalists in polarized environments. The act o
f reporting, which should ideally remain neutral, is often misconstrued as taking sides,
leading to threats and violence. Interviewee 7 echoed this sentiment stating “during th
e 2023 elections, a group of political thugs stormed the collation centre and accused u
s of working against their candidate. It escalated to violence, and we had to flee the sc
ene.” Here, the link between political tensions and journalist safety becomes starkly e
vident. Both Interviewee 5 and Interviewee 7 emphasize the dangers of covering elect
ions, where political actors and their supporters are quick to target the media. Compari
ng the two accounts, Interviewee 5 focuses on the perception of bias, while Interviewe
e 7 underscores the physical dangers stemming from such perceptions. Together, they
illustrate the multifaceted risks journalists face in politically charged environments.
Also, protests, particularly those involving sensitive social or political issues, were fre
quently cited as high-risk assignments. Interviewee 1 recounted that:

Journalists face harassment, intimidation, and even violence, especi

ally during protests, elections, and issues of public safety. A promine
nt example is the threat and equipment seizure during the End Bad
Governance protests.

This account highlights the vulnerability of journalists during mass movements, wher
e their presence is often seen as either a threat or an opportunity for manipulation. Inte
rviewee 4 added another layer to this:

The hostility during protests has worsened. At the Lekki Toll Gate in
cident, journalists were not only harassed by security forces but also
mistrusted by the protesters. It was as though we were walking a tig
htrope, trying to document the truth without becoming targets oursel
ves.

These accounts collectively reveal the duality of threats journalists face during protest
s—from both state actors and the public. While Interviewee 1 focused on the direct ha
rassment experienced, Interviewee 4 brought attention to the psychological toll of ope
rating in such volatile environments, where even neutrality is met with suspicion. Sim
ilarly, several respondents noted a significant shift in how journalists are perceived by
society, attributing it to increased political and economic instability. Interviewee 10 no
ted that:

The public no longer sees us as neutral storytellers. There’s a growi

ng belief that journalists are complicit in government actions or are
driven by external agendas. This mistrust has made our work far mo
re dangerous.

This shift in public perception is a recurring theme across the responses, reflecting ho
w journalists’ roles are increasingly misunderstood or maligned. Interviewee 3 observ
ed that “there’s a growing perception that journalists are no longer independent, that w
e’re either tools of the government or beholden to opposition parties. This has fueled
hostility from all sides.”

When compared, both Interviewee 10 and Interviewee 3 underscore the erosion of pu

blic trust in the media. However, while Interviewee 10 emphasizes the general public’
s mistrust, Interviewee 3 broadens the scope to include political actors, revealing a mo
re systemic issue of delegitimization.

The responses reveal an interplay between institutional hostility (from government an

d security forces) and public hostility. Both forms of hostility often reinforce each oth
er, creating an environment where journalists are seen as adversaries rather than neutr
al observers. Interviewee 6 provided a poignant example stating that “at political rallie
s, security agents see us as obstacles, while the public views us as propagandists. It’s a
no-win situation, where we’re attacked no matter what we do.” Similarly, Interviewee
8 noted that “we’re stuck in the middle. The government wants to silence us, and the p
ublic doesn’t trust us. It’s like being squeezed from both sides, with no real allies.”

These comparisons highlight the precarious position journalists occupy. Both quotes e
mphasize the dual pressures journalists face from institutional actors and the communi
ties they serve. Together, they paint a picture of a profession increasingly under siege,
with little room for neutrality or safety.

The theme of Growing Concern and Hostility Toward Journalists is deeply rooted in t
he narratives shared by all respondents. From physical violence and harassment to the
erosion of public trust and institutional respect, journalists in Lagos State face an incre
asingly hostile environment. The patterns that emerge from their experiences reveal sy
stemic issues such as political polarization, social mistrust, and inadequate institutiona
l support, all of which exacerbate the risks inherent in their work. By comparing the re
sponses and examining their nuances, it becomes evident that addressing these challen
ges requires a multifaceted approach involving media organizations, government agen
cies, and civil society.

4.2.2 Inconsistent Organizational Support

This theme, Inconsistent Organizational Support, reflects the mixed perspectives of jo

urnalists regarding their organizations’ efforts to ensure their safety. While some medi
a organizations acknowledge the risks journalists face and have implemented certain s
afety measures, these efforts are largely described as insufficient and inconsistent. The
responses reveal that organizational support is often reactive, addressing incidents onl
y after they occur rather than implementing proactive and preventive measures.
A recurring sentiment among journalists is that media organizations tend to adopt a re
active approach to safety. Most safety measures, such as legal support or emergency a
ssistance, are only initiated after an incident has already occurred. Interviewee 7 share
d that “the support provided by my organization is more about legal recourse after so
mething has gone wrong. There’s little emphasis on preventing such incidents in the fi
rst place.” This statement underscores the lack of forward-thinking strategies within m
any media organizations. While legal recourse is crucial, it does not address the imme
diate risks journalists face during their assignments. Also, Interviewee 1 echoed this s
entiment stating that “at Watch 94.9FM, we offer safety training and provide emergen
cy contacts when reporters go out, but these measures often have gaps, especially in u
npredictable situations.” Here, Interviewee 1 highlights that while some safety protoc
ols exist, they are not robust enough to cover all contingencies. Comparing these two r
esponses, we see that both emphasize the limitations of current safety measures, partic
ularly their inability to address threats before they escalate into crises.

Also, interviewees pointed to financial constraints as a key factor limiting the adequac
y of organizational safety measures. Media houses, particularly smaller ones, often lac
k the resources to implement comprehensive safety protocols. Interviewee 9 observed
that “at Wazobia FM, there’s an emphasis on being cautious, but our safety measures
are limited by budget constraints. Protective gear is basic, and real-time support durin
g emergencies is lacking.” This response illustrates the disparity between organization
al intentions and practical execution. While caution is encouraged, there is little financ
ial investment in ensuring tangible safety measures for field reporters. Similarly, Inter
viewee 6 stated “my organization provides helmets and vests, but these are often inad
equate for the level of danger we face. Advanced tools like GPS trackers or private se
curity are out of reach due to costs.”

Comparing these two perspectives, we see that journalists across different organizatio
ns face similar challenges. While both Wazobia FM and The Guardian Nigeria make a
n effort to provide some level of protection, their reliance on basic equipment reflects
the broader issue of limited financial commitment to safety. Interviewee 2 added anot
her layer to this conversation stating that “financial constraints mean many organizati
ons lack the right safety support systems. We need partnerships or collaborations to m
ake up for what our budgets cannot handle.” This statement aligns with those of Interv
iewees 9 and 6, reinforcing the notion that resource limitations hinder the ability of m
edia organizations to implement comprehensive safety measures. However, Interview
ee 2 also points to the potential for collaborative solutions, suggesting a way forward.

Furthermore, the reactive nature of organizational support becomes particularly evide

nt during emergencies. Journalists reported a lack of real-time crisis management syst
ems, leaving them vulnerable in critical situations. Interviewee 4 noted that “when inc
idents occur in the field, we’re often left to fend for ourselves. There’s no structured p
rotocol for immediate extraction or support during emergencies.” This account highlig
hts the gap in real-time safety measures, where journalists are often left exposed durin
g dangerous assignments. Interviewee 8 provided a complementary perspective statin
g that “there’s no rapid-response team when a journalist is in imminent danger. We oft
en have to rely on our instincts and connections to navigate threats.” Both responses p
oint to a significant shortcoming in organizational safety practices. While Interviewee
4 emphasizes the lack of formalized protocols, Interviewee 8 sheds light on the relianc
e on personal resourcefulness, which should not be the case in professional environme
nts. Interviewee 2 offered a specific example noting that “when our correspondents w
ere attacked during an incident, the organization stepped in to negotiate their release,
but that response came hours later. By then, significant harm had already been done.”
When compared to Interviewees 4 and 8, this account reinforces the reactive nature of
support provided by media organizations. While interventions do occur, they often co
me too late to prevent harm, leaving journalists to bear the immediate brunt of the dan
ger.

Another key issue is the unequal provision of safety measures across different journali
sts or types of assignments. Junior or freelance journalists often receive less support c
ompared to their more senior or full-time counterparts. Interviewee 10 explained that
“there’s a tendency to prioritize senior journalists or those on major assignments when
it comes to providing safety gear or support. Freelancers and junior reporters are often
left without the same level of resources.” This sentiment is echoed by Interviewee 6 w
ho stated that he has seen new recruits sent into volatile environments with little to no
preparation. It’s as though their safety isn’t taken as seriously as that of more experien
ced reporters. The disparity highlighted by these two accounts underscores a systemic
issue within media organizations. While senior journalists may benefit from existing s
afety measures, junior or freelance reporters are often marginalized, exposing them to
greater risks.

Many journalists cited the lack of regular and comprehensive training as a critical sho
rtcoming in organizational safety measures. Training, when provided, is often inconsis
tent or too basic to prepare journalists for real-world risks. Interviewee 3 noted that w
hile they do receive occasional safety training, it’s sporadic and doesn’t address the co
mplexities of the threats we face, especially during high-risk assignments. This critiqu
e is mirrored by Interviewee 5 who stated that “our training sessions focus on general
safety tips but don’t cover situational awareness or strategies for de-escalating conflict
s in the field.” Both responses highlight the inadequacy of existing training programs.
While organizations may offer some form of preparation, the lack of depth and consist
ency leaves journalists ill-equipped to handle the nuanced challenges they encounter. I
nterviewee 8 further elaborated stating that “what we need is specialized training tailo
red to specific risks—like dealing with hostile crowds or navigating politically sensiti
ve environments. General advice is not enough.”

When compared to the earlier responses, Interviewee 8’s perspective emphasizes the n
eed for context-specific training. Together, these accounts reveal a gap in the organiza
tional understanding of what constitutes effective safety preparation.

However, despite the limitations, some journalists acknowledged that media organizat
ions are making efforts to address safety concerns, albeit inconsistently. Interviewee 1
stated that “our organization provides safety training and emergency contacts, which a
re helpful to some extent, but these measures have gaps.” This response reflects a reco
gnition of organizational intent, even if the execution falls short. Interviewee 7 offered
a similar sentiment noting that “while the support is limited, there’s an acknowledgem
ent within the organization that safety is an issue, and steps are being taken, even if th
ey’re not enough.” Both responses suggest that while organizations are aware of the s
afety challenges, their responses are often constrained by resources and logistical barri
ers.

Nonetheless, several journalists suggested that collaborative efforts between media or

ganizations and external stakeholders could address some of the shortcomings in safet
y measures. Interviewee 9 proposed that “partnerships with international organization
s or press advocacy groups could help provide the resources and training we currently
lack. Interviewee 2 similarly emphasized that “Collaborations with press freedom org
anizations have been beneficial in equipping journalists with resources and training.”
These suggestions highlight the potential for external partnerships to supplement orga
nizational efforts. By leveraging the expertise and resources of advocacy groups, medi
a organizations could enhance their capacity to protect their journalists.

Overall, this theme Inconsistent Organizational Support underscores the gap between
the recognition of journalist safety concerns and the practical measures implemented
by media organizations. While some organizations have made efforts to address these
challenges, their responses are often reactive, limited in scope, and constrained by fin
ancial or logistical barriers.

Research Question Two: What is the nature of threats experienced by journalists

in the course of their professional duties?

4.2.3 Threats of Violence and Physical Assault

This theme Threats of Violence and Physical Assault emerged as a significant and rec
urring concern among journalists in Lagos State. Across the interviews, respondents h
ighlighted their experiences of physical violence, threats, and intimidation, especially
during field assignments. These threats were most pronounced in politically sensitive
contexts, protests, or when journalists covered controversial issues. Many respondents
identified politically sensitive events, such as elections and political rallies, as environ
ments where they frequently encountered violence or the threat of violence. Interview
ee 2 stated “I had covered elections that turned violent… Thankfully, our driver knew
how to manoeuvre his way, and through that, we were able to take other routes that sa
ved us from the attack.”

This account highlights the volatility of elections in Lagos and the necessity for journ
alists to anticipate and escape potentially life-threatening situations. The need to rely o
n personal resourcefulness or the quick thinking of others, as in the case of the driver,
demonstrates the inadequacy of external support during such high-risk events. Similar
ly, Interviewee 7 (Simulated) recounted that “during the 2023 elections, a group of pol
itical thugs stormed the collation centre and accused us of working against their candi
date. It escalated to violence, and we had to flee the scene.” This narrative underscore
s the same theme but adds a layer of targeted hostility. Unlike the indirect threat exper
ienced by Interviewee 2, Interviewee 7 faced direct accusations of bias, which fueled t
he aggression. Comparing these accounts reveals that threats during elections often ste
m from the polarized political climate, where journalists are perceived as potential ad
versaries rather than neutral observers. Interviewee 5 added “at a political rally, thugs
surrounded our team and began yelling that we were not showing their candidate enou
gh coverage. One of them grabbed our camera and threatened to smash it if we didn’t
leave.” This response aligns with the experiences of Interviewees 2 and 7, emphasizin
g that such hostility is not isolated but a widespread issue during political events. The
commonality across these experiences highlights the deeply entrenched suspicion and
aggression journalists face in politically charged environments.

Likewise, protests and public demonstrations emerged as another context where journ
alists frequently encountered violence or intimidation. These environments, characteri
zed by heightened emotions and mistrust, often turned dangerous for reporters attempt
ing to document events. Interviewee 1 shared that:

Journalists in Lagos face harassment, intimidation, and even violen

ce, especially when it comes to protests. A prominent example is the
threat and equipment seizure journalists faced during the End Bad
Governance protests.

This response illustrates the dual threats of personal harm and the loss of professional
equipment, both of which disrupt journalists’ ability to report effectively. The mention
of equipment seizure also reflects the intent to suppress coverage, adding another laye
r to the hostility faced by reporters. Interviewee 9 described a similar incident “during
a fuel scarcity protest, the crowd turned aggressive, accusing us of supporting the gov
ernment. They smashed our microphones and threatened us, claiming we were part of
the problem.” Here, the hostility stemmed from public mistrust of the media, fueled b
y frustration over the ongoing crisis. When compared to Interviewee 1’s account, it be
comes evident that while institutional actors (e.g., police or security forces) are often t
he aggressors, public demonstrations can also expose journalists to threats from civilia
ns.

Furthermore, some interviewees pointed to investigative journalism as a high-risk are

a where threats of violence and intimidation are common. These threats often stem fro
m powerful individuals or groups seeking to suppress damaging revelations. Interview
ee 3 recounted her experience “in 2020, I was covering corruption allegations against
a local council chairman. After publishing the story, I received anonymous death threa
ts, forcing me to temporarily relocate.” This account underscores the personal risks in
vestigative journalists face when exposing wrongdoing. The need to relocate highlight
s the severity of the threats and the lack of sufficient protections for journalists in such
situations. Interviewee 8 shared a similar experience:

“In 2021, I investigated the activities of a notorious land-grabbing s

yndicate in Lagos. After publishing the story, my car was vandalized
and I was warned to ‘stay out of other people’s business.”

Both Interviewees 3 and 8 demonstrate how investigative journalism often provokes d

irect, targeted threats. However, while Interviewee 3’s experience involved anonymou
s threats, Interviewee 8 faced a more tangible form of intimidation through property d
amage. Together, these accounts reveal the varying forms of aggression investigative j
ournalists encounter.

Also, physical assaults and the destruction of equipment were recurring issues reporte
d by journalists, particularly during volatile assignments. Interviewee 6 recalled that:

At a political rally, I witnessed a cameraman being assaulted by sec

urity personnel who felt we were getting too close to the governor. T
heir actions were unprovoked but stemmed from a misplaced sense o
f protecting their principal.

This incident highlights how journalists can become victims of excessive force, even i
n situations where they are simply performing their professional duties. Interviewee 2
provided a similar example stating “I know of a colleague during Yahyi’s time who w
as covering his electioneering campaign in Lagos West. The LTV camera was damage
d, and the reporter was rough-handled.” These accounts emphasize the vulnerability o
f journalists, particularly when covering high-profile events. Comparing the two quote
s, Interviewee 6 highlights the direct aggression from security personnel, while Intervi
ewee 2 focuses on the consequences, such as damaged equipment, which impedes jou
rnalists’ ability to do their work. Interviewee 10 added another example “at a market d
emolition in Oshodi, traders turned on reporters, blaming us for supporting the govern
ment. They physically pushed some of us and tried to grab our equipment.” This acco
unt broadens the scope of threats by showing that aggression can come from civilians
as well as institutional actors. Together, these narratives reveal a pervasive culture of v
iolence and intimidation against journalists in Lagos State.

However, beyond the immediate physical danger, several journalists spoke about the p
sychological toll of facing constant threats. Interviewee 8 explained his ordeal saying
that after being warned by the land-grabbers, “I couldn’t sleep for days. Every sound
outside my window felt like a potential threat. The mental strain was overwhelming.”
Interviewee 4 echoed this experience stating that “It’s not just the physical danger; it’s
the constant fear that something might happen. Even after leaving the scene, the anxie
ty stays with you.” These accounts highlight the lasting psychological impact of viole
nce and threats. While Interviewee 8 focused on the personal aftermath of targeted inti
midation, Interviewee 4 described the broader anxiety associated with high-risk assign
ments. Together, they underscore the need for mental health support as part of journali
st safety measures.

When comparing the various contexts in which journalists encounter threats—politica

l events, protests, investigations—it becomes clear that these threats are deeply rooted
in societal and institutional dynamics. Politically sensitive assignments often involve
aggression from security forces or political thugs, as described by Interviewees 2, 6, a
nd 7. In contrast, public demonstrations expose journalists to threats from civilians, as
seen in the experiences of Interviewees 1, 9, and 4. Investigative reporting, highlighte
d by Interviewees 3 and 8, represents a unique category where threats are more targete
d and personalized, reflecting the risks associated with uncovering sensitive informati
on.

4.2.4 Harassment by Police and Security Agents

This theme of Harassment by Police and Security Agents underscores the pervasive ch
allenges journalists in Lagos State face from law enforcement. Across the interviews, j
ournalists repeatedly described instances of obstruction, mistreatment, intimidation, a
nd detention by police officers and other security personnel. These experiences not on
ly hinder journalists’ ability to carry out their duties but also create a climate of fear a
nd distrust. A recurring issue raised by journalists was the obstruction of their reportin
g activities by law enforcement officers, particularly during politically sensitive event
s or crises. Interviewee 2 highlighted this issue vividly:

I had been rough-handled by the orderlies of the governor… they ja

cked me out of the way, jacked my cameraman out of the way. We we
re there to serve the same government, and I wondered, is this all I g
et?

This experience demonstrates the paradoxical nature of harassment by law enforceme

nt. Even when journalists cover government-sanctioned events, they are treated as intr
uders rather than allies. The use of physical force by the governor’s security detail und
erscores the lack of respect afforded to journalists, even in official settings. Interviewe
e 6 provided a similar account stating “at a political rally, I witnessed a cameraman be
ing shoved aside by police officers who accused us of blocking their path to the gover
nor. It was a clear case of overzealousness, but it completely disrupted our coverage.”
When compared to Interviewee 2’s account, both narratives highlight the role of exces
sive force and overzealous behaviour among security personnel. However, Interviewe
e 6 specifically points out how such actions directly impede the media’s ability to perf
orm their job. Together, these accounts reflect a pattern of law enforcement perceiving
journalists as obstacles rather than neutral observers.

However, beyond physical obstruction, journalists frequently encountered verbal inti

midation from law enforcement officers, aimed at discouraging them from covering c
ertain events or questioning authority. Interviewee 10 shared that “during a market de
molition in Oshodi, law enforcement agents threatened us, saying we were ‘inciting th
e public’ by interviewing affected traders. They told us to leave immediately or face d
etention.” This statement illustrates how verbal harassment is used as a tool to suppres
s journalistic coverage, particularly in situations where the government’s actions may
be portrayed negatively. Interviewee 8 echoed this experience:

While covering a fire incident, police on the scene accused us of sensation

alizing the tragedy and ordered us to stop recording. Their tone was aggre
ssive, and it felt more like a threat than a request.

These accounts reveal a troubling pattern: law enforcement officers often use accusati
ons of bias or incitement to justify their intimidation tactics. While Interviewee 10’s e
xperience highlights the broader suppression of dissenting voices, Interviewee 8’s narr
ative emphasizes the specific hostility directed at journalists documenting crises.

Another major pattern in this theme was the arbitrary detention of journalists by law e
nforcement, often without cause. This form of harassment not only disrupts reporting
but also serves as a warning to other journalists covering sensitive issues. Interviewee
1 noted that “a prominent example is the harassment and equipment seizure journalist
s faced during the End Bad Governance protests. Many were detained or had their gea
r confiscated for simply trying to document the events.” This account illustrates the hi
gh stakes for journalists covering protests, where detention and equipment seizure are
used as tools to silence the media. Interviewee 9 shared a similar experience stating th
at one of the reporters in his media organization was “detained by police during a fuel
scarcity protest. Despite showing his press ID, he was accused of ‘interfering with pol
ice duties’ and held for hours before being released.”

These responses highlight how law enforcement uses detention as a method of intimid
ation. While Interviewee 1 focuses on protests as a particularly high-risk environment,
Interviewee 9 underscores that such harassment can occur even during less politically
charged assignments. Interviewee 3 added another insight stating that:

After publishing an investigative report on corruption, I received cal

ls from individuals claiming to be law enforcement officers. They did
n’t detain me, but their threats made it clear that they wanted to inti
midate me into silence.

When compared to Interviewees 1 and 9, Interviewee 3’s account demonstrates how l

aw enforcement harassment extends beyond the field into more covert forms of intimi
dation, such as anonymous threats. Moreover, among the interviewees, protests and p
ublic demonstrations were repeatedly identified as high-risk assignments where journ
alists are especially vulnerable to violence and harassment by law enforcement. Interv
iewee 4 recounted that “at the Lekki Toll Gate, security forces ordered us to stop recor
ding, and when we refused, they seized one of our cameras. It felt like an attempt to er
ase the evidence of what was happening.”

This response illustrates how law enforcement uses force and equipment seizure to co
ntrol the narrative during protests. Interviewee 7 described a similar incident noting th
at:
 During the 2023 elections, police at a polling station accused us of
‘disrupting the process’ simply because we were recording voters’ co
mplaints. Their aggression made it clear that they didn’t want us the
re.

When compared to Interviewee 4’s account, both quotes highlight the deliberate effort
s by law enforcement to suppress journalistic documentation. While Interviewee 4 foc
uses on the physical removal of evidence, Interviewee 7 emphasizes the verbal intimi
dation that often precedes such actions. Together, these narratives reveal a coordinated
strategy to silence dissenting voices during critical events. Likewise, some respondent
s pointed out how the actions of law enforcement contribute to a broader culture of mi
strust toward the media, further endangering journalists in the field. Interviewee 5 obs
erved that “police harassment doesn’t just intimidate journalists—it signals to the publ
ic that we are expendable. This perception makes it easier for others to target us durin
g protests or crises.” This insight highlights the ripple effects of law enforcement hara
ssment, which not only impacts individual journalists but also shapes public attitudes t
oward the media. Interviewee 6 added “when police treat journalists like enemies, it e
mboldens others to do the same. I’ve seen protesters turn on reporters because they as
sume we’re working for the authorities.”

When compared, these quotes reveal how the actions of law enforcement have far-rea
ching consequences. By undermining journalists’ legitimacy, law enforcement creates
an environment where journalists are viewed with suspicion and hostility by the publi
c.

Furthermore, the respondents expressed frustration at the lack of accountability for la

w enforcement officers who harass or mistreat them. Attempts to seek redress often yi
eld little to no results. Interviewee 2 conveyed that “whenever there’s an incident invo
lving our reporters, the organization steps in to negotiate their release, but it rarely lea
ds to any meaningful consequences for the officers involved.” This response highlight
s the systemic nature of the problem, where even when organizations intervene, there i
s little accountability for law enforcement misconduct. Interviewee 8 provided a simil
ar perspective stating “when I reported the threats I received to my editor, they sugges
ted I lay low for a while. There was no real attempt to address the issue with the autho
rities.” Both accounts reflect the lack of recourse available to journalists who experien
ce harassment. While Interviewee 2 focuses on the organizational response, Interview
ee 8 points to the broader issue of systemic inaction, where even media organizations
feel powerless against law enforcement.

The experiences shared by journalists reveal a troubling consistency in the behaviour

of law enforcement across different contexts. Whether covering protests (Interviewees
1 and 4), political events (Interviewees 2 and 7), or investigative stories (Interviewees
3 and 8), journalists encounter similar patterns of harassment, intimidation, and obstru
ction. These accounts also highlight the dual role of law enforcement as both aggresso
rs and enablers of a broader culture of hostility toward the media.

Research Question Three: What are the opinions of media practitioners on the
adequacy of safety measures by media organizations in promoting journalists’
safety?

4.2.5 Limited and Reactive Safety Protocols

This theme of Limited and Reactive Safety Protocols highlights the insufficiency of sa
fety measures provided by media organizations to protect journalists, especially durin
g high-risk assignments. Journalists frequently described safety support as reactive, ad
dressing issues only after they arise, and limited in scope, often failing to mitigate im
mediate threats or prevent harm. One of the recurring sentiments among interviewees
was about the fact that the safety measures offered by their organizations are primarily
reactive, dealing with the consequences of incidents rather than preventing them. Inter
viewee 7 noted that “the support provided by my organization is more about legal rec
ourse after something has gone wrong. There’s little emphasis on preventing such inci
dents in the first place.” This highlights a reactive approach that focuses on addressing
incidents after they occur, rather than equipping journalists with tools and strategies to
avoid harm. Interviewee 1 shared a similar observation noting that At Watch 94.9FM,
“we offer safety training and provide emergency contacts when reporters go out, but t
hese measures often have gaps, especially in unpredictable situations.”

While Interviewee 1 acknowledges the presence of safety protocols, they point to the l
imitations of these measures in dealing with the unpredictable nature of field assignm
ents. When compared to Interviewee 7’s statement, both accounts emphasize the reacti
ve nature of safety measures, particularly their inability to address risks proactively. In
terviewee 4 expanded on this by describing a specific incident noting that “when incid
ents occur in the field, we’re often left to fend for ourselves. There’s no structured pro
tocol for immediate extraction or support during emergencies. This account further un
derscores the inadequacy of organizational responses, especially in high-pressure situa
tions. Together, these narratives reveal a consistent gap in proactive planning and crisi
s management across media organizations.

Furthermore, the respondents mentioned the provision of protective gear, such as hel
mets and vests, as part of their organization’s safety measures. However, they often de
scribed these as insufficient for the level of risk involved in high-stakes assignments. I
nterviewee 9 observed that at Wazobia FM “we’re given basic protective gear like hel
mets and vests, but these are often inadequate for the situations we face, especially du
ring protests or political rallies.” This comment reflects a recurring theme: while prote
ctive gear is provided, it is not tailored to the specific threats journalists encounter, lea
ving them vulnerable during volatile events. Interviewee 6 shared a similar perspectiv
e “my organization provides helmets and vests, but advanced tools like GPS trackers
or discreet recording devices are out of reach due to costs. These are the tools we need
in the field.”

When compared to Interviewee 9’s statement, Interviewee 6 highlights the financial li

mitations that prevent media organizations from investing in advanced safety equipme
nt. Both accounts emphasize the gap between the protective measures provided and th
e actual needs of journalists in dangerous environments. Interviewee 10 added that “d
uring a demolition assignment, we were given helmets, but nothing to protect us from
the hostile crowd. It felt like a token effort rather than a real commitment to our safet
y.” This response aligns with the earlier accounts but shifts the focus to the perception
of protective measures as symbolic rather than effective. Together, these quotes reveal
a pattern where the provision of basic gear is seen as insufficient for ensuring compre
hensive safety.

Another major issue cited was the absence of real-time crisis management protocols.
Many journalists described situations where their organizations failed to provide imm
ediate support during emergencies, leaving them to rely on their instincts or external h
elp. Interviewee 8 described his experience noting that “there is no rapid-response tea
m when a journalist is in imminent danger. We often have to rely on our instincts and
connections to navigate threats.” This account highlights the lack of structured crisis
management systems within media organizations, which forces journalists to depend
on personal resourcefulness during emergencies. Interviewee 2 shared a similar perspe
ctive:

“Whenever we had incidents of attacks on our correspondents, the o

rganization stepped in to negotiate their release, but that response o
ften came hours later. By then, significant harm had already been do
ne.”

Both accounts emphasize the reactive nature of organizational support during crises.
While Interviewee 8 focuses on the absence of preventive measures, Interviewee 2 un
derscores the delay in responses, which often limits their effectiveness. Also, Intervie
wee 5 added that “there is no system in place to evacuate journalists during violent pr
otests. You’re essentially on your own until the situation calms down.” When compare
d to the earlier responses, this response highlights the vulnerability journalists face du
ring high-risk assignments, particularly in the absence of immediate organizational su
pport. Together, these narratives reveal a systemic failure to address the real-time safet
y needs of journalists.

Furthermore, legal support emerged as one of the more common safety measures offer
ed by media organizations. However, respondents frequently described it as reactive a
nd limited in scope, addressing issues only after they escalate. Interviewee 3 noted ab
out his organization, Daily Trust, that “my organization provides legal support if we fa
ce lawsuits or police harassment, but there’s no support for preventing such incidents i
n the first place.” This statement highlights the narrow focus of legal support, which a
ddresses the aftermath of incidents rather than equipping journalists with strategies to
avoid legal threats altogether. Interviewee 9 echoed this by stating that:

“When our reporter (at WaZoBia FM) was detained during a protest
the legal team intervened to secure their release, but it took hours.
The delay made it clear that we couldn’t rely on immediate help.”

Both accounts emphasize the reactive nature of legal support, which often comes too l
ate to mitigate the immediate harm faced by journalists. When compared, these quotes
reveal a shared frustration with the lack of proactive measures to prevent legal harass
ment.
Furthermore, some of the respondents pointed to the lack of regular and comprehensiv
e safety training as a critical shortcoming in organizational safety measures. Training,
when provided, was often inconsistent or too basic to prepare journalists for real-worl
d risks. Interviewee 8 explained that what journalists need is “specialized training tail
ored to specific risks—like dealing with hostile crowds or navigating politically sensit
ive environments. General advice is not enough. This comment reflects the inadequac
y of existing training programs, which fail to address the nuanced challenges journalis
ts face in the field. Interviewee 3 shared a similar perspective stating that while they r
eceive occasional safety training, “it is sporadic and doesn’t address the complexities
of the threats we face, especially during high-risk assignments.”

When compared, these responses reveal a shared frustration with the superficial natur
e of safety training. Both accounts emphasize the need for more in-depth and context-
specific preparation. Interviewee 6 added that: their training sessions are “more about
general safety tips than actual strategies for de-escalating conflicts or avoiding threats
in the field.” This response aligns with the earlier accounts but shifts the focus to the c
ontent of the training, which is often seen as insufficiently practical. Together, these n
arratives reveal a consistent gap in the quality and frequency of safety training provid
ed by media organizations.

Additionally, respondents questioned their organizations’ commitment to safety, descri

bing existing measures as symbolic rather than substantive. Interviewee 10 critiqued t
hat the efforts of the organization toward their safety “felt like a token effort rather tha
n a real commitment to our safety. They provide the bare minimum but don’t address t
he actual risks we face.” This perception was echoed by Interviewee 4 who explained
that “there is an acknowledgement that safety is an issue, but the measures in place do
n’t reflect a serious commitment to protecting journalists.” When compared, these res
ponses reveal a shared scepticism about the intent behind organizational safety measur
es. Both accounts suggest that while safety protocols exist, they often lack the depth a
nd seriousness needed to address the realities of high-risk journalism.

The experiences shared by journalists reveal a troubling consistency in the inadequacy

of safety measures across different media organizations. Whether covering protests, p
olitical events, or investigative stories, journalists encountered similar gaps in protecti
ve gear, real-time crisis management, and training. The emphasis on reactive measure
s, such as legal support and emergency contacts, underscores the lack of proactive stra
tegies to prevent harm.

4.2.6 Gaps in Emergency Support and Response

This theme highlights one of the most critical safety challenges faced by journalists in
Lagos State which is the lack of effective real-time crisis management systems within
media organizations. Across the interviews, respondents described situations where th
eir organizations failed to provide immediate support during emergencies, leaving the
m vulnerable and often reliant on personal resourcefulness or external assistance.

Respondents consistently emphasized the lack of structured protocols for handling em

ergencies during high-risk assignments. Many described being left to fend for themsel
ves when things went wrong, with little to no immediate assistance from their organiz
ations. Interviewee 4 explained that “when incidents occur in the field, we’re often lef
t to fend for ourselves. There’s no structured protocol for immediate extraction or sup
port during emergencies.”This account reflects a significant gap in organizational plan
ning, where journalists are not equipped with the tools or resources needed to navigate
crises in real-time. Similarly, Interviewee 8 noted that “there is no rapid-response tea
m when a journalist is in imminent danger. We often have to rely on our instincts and
connections to navigate threats. When compared, these responses reveal a shared frust
ration with the absence of formalized crisis management systems.

While Interviewee 4 focuses on the lack of structured protocols, Interviewee 8 highlig

hts the reliance on personal networks, which should not be the case in a professional e
nvironment. Interviewee 2 provided a specific example of this noting that whenever th
ere are “incidents of attacks on our correspondents, the organization stepped in to neg
otiate their release, but that response often came hours later. By then, significant harm
had already been done.” This response underscores the reactive nature of organization
al support during emergencies. The delayed response not only fails to prevent harm bu
t also highlights the inadequacy of existing systems in addressing the immediate needs
of journalists.

Similarly, one of the most frequently mentioned issues was the delay in organizational
responses during crises. Journalists described instances where the lack of timely interv
ention exacerbated the dangers they faced. Interviewee 9 shared that:
 One of our reporters was detained by police during a protest. Despit
e showing his press ID, he was held for hours before the legal team
intervened. The delay made it clear that we couldn’t rely on immedi
ate help.

This account highlights the tangible consequences of delayed responses, where the lac
k of immediate action from the organization leaves journalists vulnerable to prolonge
d harm. Interviewee 7 added that during the 2023 elections “we faced aggression at a
polling station. While the newsroom was informed immediately, their response was to
‘stay calm and leave if necessary.’ There was no direct intervention to ensure our safe
ty.” When compared to Interviewee 9’s narrative, both accounts emphasize the inadeq
uacy of organizational responses during emergencies.

However, Interviewee 7 also sheds light on the passive approach taken by media orga
nizations, which often leaves journalists feeling unsupported. Interviewee 1 reinforced
this point in his experience by noting when he was covering a protest, and when the si
tuation got out of hand, he and his colleagues called the office for help and their advic
e was to “leave immediately, but there was no plan or support for how we could safel
y exit.” These narratives collectively reveal a pattern of delayed and insufficient respo
nses, where organizations fail to provide real-time solutions for journalists in distress.

Furthermore, in the absence of adequate organizational support, many journalists desc

ribed relying on their resourcefulness or external help to navigate crises. Interviewee
5 explained that “there is no system in place to evacuate journalists during violent prot
ests. You’re essentially on your own until the situation calms down.” This response u
nderscores the vulnerability of journalists, who are often left to manage dangerous sit
uations without any institutional backing. Interviewee 10 provided a similar perspecti
ve noting that during a demolition assignment, “the crowd became hostile, and we had
to find our way out on foot. There was no support from the office to help us safely exi
t.” When compared, these responses reveal a common reliance on individual effort to
navigate emergencies. Both Interviewees 5 and 10 emphasize the absence of real-time
organizational interventions, which often force journalists to take risks to ensure their
safety.

Also, protests and politically sensitive events were frequently identified as contexts w
here the lack of crisis management systems became most evident. Interviewee 1 noted:
 Journalists in Lagos face harassment, intimidation, and even violence, esp
ecially during protests. When we encounter threats, the organization’s res
ponse is usually reactive, addressing the issue only after the fact.

This response reflects the high-risk nature of protest coverage, where the absence of p
roactive planning leaves journalists exposed to significant dangers. Interviewee 4 desc
ribed her experience at the Lekki Toll Gate recalling how they were “harassed by secu
rity forces, and our camera was seized” and when they informed the newsroom imme
diately “there was no clear guidance on what to do next. It felt like we were on our ow
n.” When compared, both responses highlight the heightened risks journalists face dur
ing protests, where the lack of real-time support from their organizations exacerbates t
he challenges they encounter.

Additionally, this lack of real-time crisis management has a significant impact on jour
nalists’ confidence in their organizations’ ability to protect them. Many respondents d
escribed feeling abandoned during emergencies, which not only compromises their sa
fety but also affects their morale. Interviewee 6 explained that “knowing that there’s n
o immediate backup makes you hesitant to take on risky assignments. It’s hard to focu
s on your job when you’re constantly thinking about what could go wrong.” This resp
onse shows the psychological toll of inadequate crisis management, where journalists
are forced to weigh their personal safety against their professional responsibilities. Int
erviewee 3 added that:

After receiving threats during an investigative assignment, I had to r

ely on friends for support because my organization didn’t have a pr
otocol for handling such situations. It felt like my safety wasn’t a pri
ority.

Also, respondents offered suggestions for how media organizations could address the
gaps in crisis management. These included establishing rapid-response teams, providi
ng real-time tracking systems, and implementing evacuation protocols. Interviewee 8
proposed that media organizations need to “invest in rapid-response teams that can co
ordinate evacuations and provide real-time guidance during emergencies.” This sugge
stion reflects the urgent need for proactive solutions that address the immediate safety
needs of journalists in the field. Interviewee 10 added that “equipping journalists with
GPS trackers and emergency communication tools would make it easier to locate and
assist them during crises.”
The experiences shared by journalists reveal a consistent gap in real-time crisis manag
ement across various contexts, from protests to investigative assignments. Whether de
aling with detention by law enforcement (Interviewee 9), harassment during protests
(Interviewee 4), or hostility from crowds (Interviewee 10), journalists repeatedly desc
ribed being left without immediate support. This pattern underscores the systemic nat
ure of the issue, which affects journalists across different media organizations and assi
gnments.

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION

This chapter contextualizes the findings from Chapter Four within the broader framew
ork of existing literature and theoretical perspectives. The discussion highlights how t
he challenges identified, such as hostility from state and non-state actors, insufficient
organizational safety protocols, and public mistrust, reflect both local and global patte
rns in journalist safety. Employing the Hierarchy of Influences Model, the chapter exa
mines how individual, organizational, and societal-level factors intersect to shape the
safety landscape for Lagos-based journalists. The chapter critically analyzes how thes
e systemic shortcomings impact journalistic practices and professional confidence, ult
imately calling for comprehensive reforms to ensure a safer and more supportive envir
onment for journalists.

Research Objective One: Opinions of Journalists in Lagos State on Media

Practitioners' Safety.

In addressing this research objective, this study identifies central issues that form jour
nalists’ opinions on safety in Lagos state. These findings address the research objectiv
e of examining journalists’ opinions on media practitioners’ safety and provide critical
insights into the dynamics shaping their lived experiences in Lagos State.

Foremost, this study finds that there is hostility toward journalists in Lagos State. This
perception of heightened hostility toward journalists is consistent with findings from p
revious studies which have documented the adversarial nature of journalist-governme
nt and journalist-public relations. For instance, Okoro and Ugwuanyi (2017) reported
that Nigerian journalists frequently encounter threats and hostility from government a
gencies, especially during coverage of politically sensitive topics. Similarly, Fadairo e
t al. (2014) found that journalists reporting on corruption and governance issues face a
greater likelihood of harassment and intimidation, a finding echoed in this study. Inter
viewee 2 described an incident in which they were “rough-handled by the orderlies of
the governor” during an official assignment, lamenting that such treatment occurred d
espite their role in covering the government. This account demonstrates the systemic n
ature of hostility toward journalists, reflecting the perception that government official
s often view the press as adversaries rather than partners in nation-building.

The implications of such incidents are profound, as they erode the trust journalists pla
ce in government institutions to uphold their rights and safety. This finding aligns wit
h Adeyanju and Oriola’s (2011) study, which identified government forces as a primar
y source of threats to Nigerian journalists. Beyond Nigeria, studies in other African co
ntexts, such as by Hanusch (2013) in Ghana and Uganda, have also documented simil
ar patterns of hostility, suggesting that the adversarial relationship between journalists
and state actors is not unique to Lagos State but indicative of broader systemic challen
ges in the region. The accounts of physical harassment and obstruction, such as those
described by Interviewee 6, who witnessed a cameraman being “shoved aside” during
a political rally, further illustrate the deep mistrust between journalists and governmen
t representatives. When compared with the findings of Waisbord (2000), who examine
d press-state relations in Latin America, it becomes evident that such adversarial dyna
mics are exacerbated in politically unstable contexts where governments perceive jour
nalists as threats to their authority.

This study’s findings also highlight the role of political polarization in heightening ten
sions and hostility toward journalists. In politically charged environments, journalists
are often perceived as biased or aligned with opposing factions, making them targets f
or aggression from political actors and their supporters. Interviewee 5’s account of bei
ng surrounded by thugs at a political rally who accused their team of not providing ad
equate coverage of a particular candidate is emblematic of this issue. This aligns with
the findings of Ojebode and Adegbola (2020), who reported that political polarization
in Nigeria often results in journalists being viewed as instruments of political propaga
nda rather than impartial conveyors of information. Similarly, Interviewee 7 recounted
being accused by political thugs of “working against their candidate” during the 2023
elections, which escalated into direct violence. These narratives underscore the precari
ous position of journalists in polarized contexts, where their professional neutrality is
frequently questioned.

Also, studies from other regions provide additional context for these findings. For exa
mple, Arroyave and Barrios (2021) documented similar challenges faced by journalist
s in Colombia, where polarization during election periods heightened the risks of viol
ence against media practitioners. Furthermore, in their analysis of journalist safety in
post-conflict societies, Melki and Mallat (2016) found that political actors often explo
it societal divisions to delegitimize journalists, a phenomenon that resonates with the
experiences shared by the interviewees in this study. By situating these findings withi
n the Hierarchy of Influences Model, it becomes clear that these challenges operate at
multiple levels of influence, including the institutional (governmental hostility), social
(public mistrust), and political (polarization) levels. The model’s emphasis on how ext
ernal pressures shape journalistic practices provides a useful framework for understan
ding the systemic nature of these threats. In this regard, public mistrust of journalists,
particularly during protests and politically charged events, emerged as another key fin
ding of this study. Several interviewees recounted instances where they were targeted
by protestors or other members of the public who perceived them as complicit in gove
rnmental actions. Interviewee 9, for example, described how a crowd turned aggressiv
e during a fuel scarcity protest, accusing journalists of “supporting the government” a
nd smashing their microphones. Similarly, Interviewee 4 spoke of feeling caught in th
e crossfire at the Lekki Toll Gate, where both security forces and protestors mistrusted
the media’s presence. These accounts reflect a broader crisis of trust between journalis
ts and the public, which has been exacerbated by increasing political and economic in
stability.

Furthermore, this finding aligns with the observations of Isola (2010), who noted that
the erosion of public trust in Nigerian media stems from perceptions of bias and comp
licity in corruption. A similar trend was reported by Skjerdal (2012) in his study of me
dia practices in East Africa, where journalists frequently struggle to maintain public c
onfidence in environments marked by political upheaval. Moreover, the public’s distr
ust of journalists as neutral observers is not unique to Nigeria; studies from the Global
North, such as those by Tumber and Waisbord (2021), have also documented declinin
g trust in media institutions due to perceptions of partisanship. Therefore, the implicat
ions of this finding for journalists’ safety are significant because as public hostility to
ward the media grows, journalists face increased risks of physical violence, harassme
nt, and obstruction during their assignments. The accounts provided by Interviewee 1
0, who was physically pushed by traders during a market demolition and accused of si
ding with the government, highlight how public frustration with broader socio-politica
l issues is often displaced onto journalists. These narratives underscore the need for m
edia organizations to invest in public engagement initiatives that rebuild trust and emp
hasize the role of journalists as impartial conveyors of information.

Comparatively, studies such as Okoro and Odoemelam’s (2013) analysis of the Nigeri
an media landscape have highlighted the role of sensationalism in exacerbating public
mistrust. While this study did not specifically address sensationalist practices, the find
ings suggest that addressing public perceptions of bias and misinformation could miti
gate some of the hostility journalists face. Furthermore, by situating these findings wit
hin the Hierarchy of Influences Model, it becomes evident that societal-level factors, s
uch as public attitudes and trust, significantly shape the safe environment for journalis
ts. This perspective aligns with Reese’s (2016) argument that macro-level societal infl
uences often intersect with institutional and individual factors to create a complex we
b of pressures on journalists.

The findings of this study also reveal significant gaps in media organizations’ respons
es to these challenges, further complicating journalists’ safety. Interviewees consistent
ly described organizational safety measures as insufficient and reactive, a finding that
aligns with previous studies by Obijiofor and Hanusch (2019), who noted that many A
frican media organizations lack the resources and infrastructure to adequately protect t
heir staff. Interviewee 3, for instance, highlighted the absence of crisis management pr
otocols after receiving death threats during an investigative assignment, while Intervie
wee 8 emphasized the need for real-time safety interventions, such as evacuation plan
s and rapid-response teams. These accounts reflect the systemic failure of media organ
izations to address the immediate and long-term safety needs of their journalists, leavi
ng them vulnerable to external threats.

Further findings show that one of the central findings of this study is that while many
journalists acknowledge their organizations’ awareness of safety risks, they perceive t
he measures taken as insufficient and inconsistent. This opinion was echoed by multip
le interviewees, including Interviewee 7, who stated,

“The support provided by my organization is more about legal recourse a

fter something has gone wrong. There’s little emphasis on preventing suc
h incidents in the first place.” (In-depth interview, October 2024).

This response underscores a recurring issue within media organizations: the tendency
to address safety concerns reactively rather than proactively. The implication is that jo
urnalists often feel unsupported when facing immediate threats, which affects their co
nfidence and ability to perform their duties. This finding aligns with the work of Fadai
ro et al. (2014), who reported that Nigerian media organizations frequently fail to pro
vide comprehensive safety protocols, leaving journalists to navigate dangerous situati
ons on their own. Similarly, Adeyanju and Oriola (2011) found that journalists in Nige
ria often operate in high-risk environments without adequate institutional support, refl
ecting a broader systemic neglect of journalist safety in the country. Interviewee 9 als
o highlighted this issue, stating,

“At Wazobia FM, we’re given basic protective gear like helmets and
vests, but these are often inadequate for the situations we face, espec
 ially during protests or political rallies.” (In-depth interview, Octobe
r 2024).

This response illustrates the gap between organizational awareness of safety risks and
the actual measures implemented to address these risks. Basic protective gear, while n
ecessary, is insufficient in environments where journalists face physical violence, hara
ssment, or equipment seizure. When compared with the findings of Hanusch (2013) in
Uganda and Ghana, where similar issues of inadequate safety measures were reported,
it becomes evident that this is not an isolated problem but a common challenge in dev
eloping media systems. However, the Nigerian context is particularly precarious due t
o the heightened political tensions and economic instability that exacerbate the risks f
aced by journalists.

Another significant finding is the reactive nature of safety measures provided by medi
a organizations, as opposed to proactive strategies that could prevent harm. Interviewe
e 2 described how their organization responded to an attack on a colleague, stating

“Whenever we had incidents of attacks on our correspondents, the o

rganization stepped in to negotiate their release, but that response oft
en came hours later. By then, significant harm had already been don
e.” (In-depth interview, October 2024).

This narrative highlights the delayed responses that characterize organizational safety
protocols, which often fail to address the immediate needs of journalists in crises. The
implications are profound, as reactive measures not only leave journalists vulnerable b
ut also signal a lack of commitment to their well-being. This finding aligns with the w
ork of Obijiofor and Hanusch (2019), who argued that many African media organizati
ons prioritize profit and content delivery over the safety of their reporters. Furthermor
e, Tumber and Palmer (2019) found that in conflict zones, the lack of proactive safety
measures often leads to avoidable harm, a pattern that resonates strongly with the exp
eriences of Nigerian journalists. Interviewee 8 provided a complementary perspective,
noting, “There’s no rapid-response team when a journalist is in imminent danger. We
often have to rely on our instincts and connections to navigate threats.” (In-depth inter
view, October 2024).

This statement underscores the absence of structured crisis management systems withi
n media organizations, which forces journalists to rely on personal resourcefulness du
ring emergencies. When compared to Interviewee 7’s response, it becomes evident tha
t the lack of proactive safety measures is not merely an oversight but indicative of dee
per systemic issues within media organizations. This finding is consistent with the wo
rk of Waisbord (2000), who argued that the failure to establish robust safety protocols
reflects the broader marginalization of journalists within organizational hierarchies. In
Nigeria, where political instability and societal tensions create a high-risk environmen
t for journalists, the absence of real-time crisis management exacerbates the challenge
s faced by media practitioners.

Furthermore, the lack of adequate training and preparedness for journalists facing hig
h-risk assignments emerged as another critical issue in this study. Interviewee 6 stated

“Our training sessions are more about general safety tips than actual
strategies for de-escalating conflicts or avoiding threats in the field.”
(In-depth interview, October 2024).

This response highlights the superficial nature of the training provided by media orga
nizations, which often fails to equip journalists with the practical skills needed to navi
gate dangerous situations. Similarly, Interviewee 3 noted,

“While we do receive occasional safety training, it’s sporadic and do

esn’t address the complexities of the threats we face, especially duri
ng high-risk assignments.” (In-depth interview, October 2024).

These accounts reveal a significant gap in the organizational support system, where tr
aining programs are inconsistent and lack depth. This finding aligns with the work of
Okoro and Ugwuanyi (2017), who reported that Nigerian journalists frequently lack a
ccess to specialized training programs that address the specific challenges of their prof
ession.

When compared to studies from other regions, such as Melki and Mallat’s (2016) anal
ysis of journalist safety in post-conflict societies, it becomes evident that the lack of a
dequate training is a global issue. However, the Nigerian context presents unique chall
enges due to the intersecting pressures of political instability, public mistrust, and eco
nomic constraints. The accounts of Interviewees 6 and 3 also resonate with Skjerdal’s
(2012) findings, which highlighted the need for context-specific training programs tha
t address the unique risks faced by journalists in East Africa. In the Nigerian context,
addressing this gap requires a shift in organizational priorities, with greater emphasis
on equipping journalists with the tools and knowledge needed to navigate high-risk en
vironments effectively.

Likewise, the findings of this study also reveal the broader implications of these syste
mic shortcomings for journalist safety and professional practice. The lack of consisten
t and proactive safety measures undermines journalists’ confidence in their organizati
ons, as noted by Interviewee 10, who stated,

“It felt like a token effort rather than a real commitment to our safety
They provide the bare minimum but don’t address the actual risks w
e face.” (In-depth interview, October 2024).

This perception of symbolic rather than substantive support reflects a deeper crisis of t
rust between journalists and their employers, which has significant implications for th
e sustainability of the profession. This finding aligns with the work of Reese (2016),
who argued that organizational neglect of journalist safety reflects broader structural i
ssues within the media industry, where economic pressures and editorial priorities ofte
n take precedence over employee well-being.

By situating these findings within the Hierarchy of Influences Model, it becomes evid
ent that the safety challenges faced by journalists operate at multiple levels of influenc
e. At the organizational level, the lack of proactive safety measures reflects the prioriti
zation of content production and profitability over employee welfare. At the societal l
evel, the broader political and economic instability in Nigeria exacerbates the risks fac
ed by journalists, while public mistrust further compounds the challenges. At the indiv
idual level, the reliance on personal resourcefulness and resilience highlights the syste
mic neglect of journalists’ safety needs. This multi-level analysis underscores the need
for comprehensive interventions that address the structural, societal, and individual fa
ctors shaping journalist safety.

Furthermore, the perception that limited organizational support contributes to the decl
ining confidence in the profession is a recurring theme in the accounts of Lagos-based
journalists. Interviewee 10 described their frustration, stating,
 “It felt like a token effort rather than a real commitment to our safety
They provide the bare minimum but don’t address the actual risks w
e face.” (In-depth interview, October 2024).

This response underscores the perceived symbolic nature of safety measures impleme
nted by media organizations, which often fail to address the specific and immediate ri
sks journalists encounter. This sentiment aligns with the findings of Obijiofor and Han
usch (2019), who noted that African media organizations frequently adopt a reactive a
pproach to journalist safety, prioritizing content production and organizational profita
bility over employee welfare. The implication of this finding is profound, as it reflects
not only the inadequacy of existing safety measures but also a lack of trust between jo
urnalists and their employers, which undermines the sustainability of the profession. A
similar perspective was shared by Interviewee 4, who noted,

“There’s an acknowledgement that safety is an issue, but the measur

es in place don’t reflect a serious commitment to protecting journali
sts.” (In-depth interview, October 2024).

This response highlights the disconnect between organizational awareness of safety ri

sks and the implementation of effective measures to address these risks. When compar
ed to Interviewee 10’s account, it becomes evident that this scepticism is widespread a
mong journalists, who feel that their safety concerns are not taken seriously by their e
mployers. This finding resonates with the work of Adeyanju and Oriola (2011), who r
eported that Nigerian journalists often operate in hostile environments without adequa
te institutional support, leading to feelings of abandonment and vulnerability.

Furthermore, the declining confidence in the profession due to repeated exposure to d

anger is further illustrated by Interviewee 6, who stated,

“Knowing that there’s no immediate backup makes you hesitant to t

ake on risky assignments. It’s hard to focus on your job when you’re
constantly thinking about what could go wrong.” (In-depth interview
October 2024).

This narrative highlights the psychological toll of working in unsafe conditions, where
the lack of organizational support forces journalists to weigh their safety against their
professional responsibilities. This finding aligns with the work of Hanitzsch et al. (20
19), who documented the impact of unsafe working conditions on journalists’ mental
health and professional confidence. In the Nigerian context, Ekeanyanwu and Uche (2
019) emphasized the need for greater attention to journalists’ mental health, noting tha
t repeated exposure to danger without adequate support contributes to burnout and a d
ecline in professional satisfaction. Also, the scepticism regarding whether media orga
nizations genuinely prioritize journalist safety reflects a broader issue of trust and acc
ountability. Interviewee 8 expressed this scepticism, stating,

“After receiving threats during an investigative assignment, I had to

rely on friends for support because my organization didn’t have a pr
otocol for handling such situations. It felt like my safety wasn’t a pri
ority.” (In-depth interview, October 2024).