NBC cannot legislate opinion out of broadcasting

The National Broadcasting Commission’s new notice on “Code breaches” overreaches and risks undermining press freedom. It targets anchors for “expressing personal opinion as fact” and “compromising neutrality”, yet fails to distinguish between anchors and commentators. Global broadcast practice is clear: anchors moderate and frame discussion; commentators and analysts are invited precisely to express informed opinions. Conflating the two turns current affairs into stenography.

In democracies, opinion is lawful unless it crosses into defamation, incitement, or hate speech. The NBC cannot extend a neutrality requirement beyond what the law prescribes. “Compromised neutrality” is also vague. Without objective tests, editors and stations will self-censor to avoid Class B sanctions. That chills the robust journalism needed to interrogate power, especially during elections.

The asymmetry is glaring. Government functionaries use NTA, FRCN, and state media daily to dispute, ridicule, and delegitimise the opposition, without sanction. Yet private anchors are threatened with heavy penalties for perceived bias. Regulation cannot credibly demand neutrality from journalists while exempting state media from the same standard. That creates a lopsided playing field.

The real test is simple and already exists in law: distinguish opinion from fact, and keep facts accurate. Misrepresenting opinion as a verified fact is the offence, not expressing opinion. Deploying Class B sanctions against undefined terms like “compromised neutrality” hands the regulator a political weapon.

Broadcasters must be fair, accurate, and decent. But the NBC cannot police content or legislate opinion out of current affairs. If the government wants neutrality, it should model it first through its functionaries and state broadcasters.

Maduegbuna is chairman of C&F Porter Novelli, Strategic Communications Consultants.