Punch Newspapers reportage: When critics lose sight of facts

By Emmanuel Nicholas

There’s an old saying that an enemy will never thank you for a gift; instead, he’ll look for a way to twist it into something ugly. That image fits the approach taken by some writers who have chosen to amplify criticism of Governor Umo Eno rather than report the record on its merits.

Rather than producing balanced, evidence‑based stories, their narrative in Punch Newspapers read like an exercise in partisan character assassination. I recognize this campaign for what it is, sponsored calumny, but it would be more honest and more useful if those critics directed their energies elsewhere.

If any sector has benefited from focused attention in this administration, it is health. From day one, Governor Eno declared a state of emergency in the health sector and committed to rebuilding, upgrading and re‑equipping facilities while recruiting and properly deploying health professionals.

Under the Arise Agenda, he pledged that every ward would have at least one functional primary health centre to reduce preventable deaths in rural communities.

Those promises have been followed by action. In roughly two years, the government initiated 31 health‑centre projects: 27 are complete, and four are still under construction. Completed projects include model primary health centres at Odot (Nsit Atai), Oboyo Ikot Ita (Nsit Ibom), Nduo Eduo (Eket), Wellington Bassey Way (Uyo) and Etim Ekpo, along with facilities in Urue Offong/Oruko, Usaka, Obot Akara, Awah (Onna), Ikot Ekwere (Nsit Ubium) and others.

These are not merely renovated buildings. Many of the centres include dialysis units, diagnostic laboratories, maternity wings, paediatric and adult wards, routine immunisation services and staff quarters so health workers can be on site and available to patients.

Such investments have a direct bearing on access to care and on health outcomes in communities that historically have limited services.

It is therefore disappointing that instead of visiting these centres, speaking to beneficiaries and health professionals, and reporting what is verifiable, some journalists have opted for partisan narratives.

Responsible reporting should assess outcomes and improvements, not merely amplify suspicion. Scrutiny and dissent are essential to democracy, but they must be rooted in facts and a willingness to acknowledge progress where it exists.

Governor Umo Eno’s concentrated investment in health, declaring an emergency, launching projects in every local government and completing the majority of 31 planned centres in a short span represents a measurable effort to reduce rural mortality and expand access to care. Those facts deserve independent verification and sober appraisal, not reflexive dismissal.

Journalists covering public affairs should revisit these facilities, engage with patients and staff on the ground, and produce impartial accounts of what they find. Citizens should judge leaders by outcomes and evidence; the media’s duty is to help them do that accurately and without partisan distortion.

Such tactics, twisting unverified allegations into veiled threats or blackmail, do a disservice to both the subjects they target and the public that depends on the press for accurate information.

False or exaggerated claims weaponised to coerce or delegitimise leaders corrode the institutions of accountability they claim to protect.

They distract attention and resources from genuine failings that require scrutiny, and they inflict reputational harm that is often difficult to repair even when later proven untrue.

Writers and editors bear an ethical obligation to distinguish robust investigation from rumour and innuendo. That means corroborating sources, offering right of reply, and clearly separating verified facts from opinion and conjecture.

Newsrooms that tolerate bias and sensationalism not only erode public trust but also risk legal and professional consequences; independent, evidence‑based journalism is the safeguard against those outcomes and the only sustainable way to hold power to account.

It is therefore incumbent on media organisations to discontinue partisan, biased reportage and recommit to standards of fairness and accuracy. Punch and other outlets would better serve democracy by investing in fact‑checking, transparent corrections policies, and regular editorial reviews that prioritise truth over agenda.

The public interest is best served when journalism elevates civic debate rather than resorting to blackmail by falsehood, and when citizens can rely on the press to inform, not inflame.