A chieftain of the Peoples Democratic Party, Otunba Segun Showunmi, has criticised broadcaster Mehdi Hasan over his recent interview with presidential spokesperson, Daniel Bwala, describing the exchange as hostile rather than professional journalism.
Showunmi said the interview crossed the line between tough questioning and outright hostility, arguing that what viewers witnessed was “an attempted public ambush” rather than a serious engagement.
In a statement, Showunmi said, “There is a clear difference between tough journalism and outright hostility. One serves the public interest. The other serves the ego of the interviewer.”
He added, “Unfortunately, the recent exchange between Mehdi Hasan and presidential spokesperson Daniel Bwala fell squarely into the latter category.”
According to him, the tone of the interview from the beginning was aggressively confrontational and appeared designed to embarrass the guest rather than inform the public.
“From the outset, the tone was aggressively confrontational. Questions were framed less as inquiries into governance and more as prosecutorial traps. Responses were repeatedly interrupted before they could develop. Clarifications were brushed aside,” he said.
Showunmi stated that the atmosphere of the interview made it clear that it was not designed as a genuine conversation.
“The atmosphere was unmistakable: this was not a conversation designed to inform viewers but a spectacle designed to embarrass the guest,” he added.
He stressed that serious journalism requires discipline and balance, noting that difficult questions should still allow interviewees the opportunity to provide clear answers.
“The craft of interviewing demands discipline. It requires the ability to ask difficult questions while still allowing the guest to articulate answers. It requires intellectual confidence strong enough to permit disagreement without descending into open hostility,” he said.
Showunmi further argued that the interview missed an opportunity to interrogate the Nigerian government on key national issues.
“Nigeria is currently grappling with a range of serious national challenges — economic restructuring, security threats, governance reforms, and the complex work of stabilising a large and dynamic democracy,” he said.
“A responsible interviewer would have used the opportunity to interrogate the administration’s policies on these matters: What strategies are being deployed? What reforms are underway? What outcomes should citizens expect?” he added.
He maintained that the programme instead focused on “selective outrage and repetitive interruption.”
“Instead, viewers were treated to an exercise in selective outrage and repetitive interruption,” he said.
Showunmi also faulted what he described as insinuations in the interview that political realignment was illegitimate.
“Democratic politics is built on shifting alliances. Individuals and movements evolve. Former opponents become partners when national circumstances demand cooperation,” he said.
“This is neither shocking nor dishonourable; it is one of the defining characteristics of democratic political life.”
He warned that journalism risks losing credibility when interviewers resort to ridicule or humiliation.
“A journalist who openly ridicules or repeatedly attempts to humiliate a guest crosses an important professional boundary.
“The role of the interviewer is to hold power accountable, not to behave like a courtroom prosecutor seeking a viral ‘gotcha’ moment," he said.
Showunmi added that audiences deserved interviews that focused on policy and governance rather than spectacle.
“They deserve interviews that illuminate policy, probe governance, and help citizens understand how leaders intend to confront the pressing challenges of the day.
“What they do not need is a theatrical performance in which hostility is mistaken for intellectual rigour.” he stated.

























