Online newspaper, SIGNAL, on Monday, February 15, 2015, retracted its story which suggested that Tolu Ogunlesi, a popular social media personality was the author of the article by The Economist, which labelled former President Goodluck Jonathan as an “ineffectual buffon”.
According to the newspaper, “fresh facts and further investigations indicate that Tolu Ogunlesi may not have written the article”. The paper admitted writing to Ogunlesi on Monday and says that new details available have shed more light on the issues raised in its initial report.
The letter, which was signed by Yemi Adebowale, the editor of SIGNAL partly reads, “We received your letter dated 3rd February 2016 asking our newspaper to retract and apologise over a report it published which had identified your good self as the alleged writer of an article by The Economist, which described Nigeria’s former President, Goodluck Jonathan as an “ineffectual buffoon”.
“Suffice it to say that fresh facts obtained by SIGNAL, after further investigations have shed more light on the issues raised in the said report.
“You will recall that SIGNAL had stated in the same article that efforts to reach you to get your reactions proved abortive at the time of filing the report.
“It is also on record that after the said article was published, you publicly denied the claims, which was also published in another report by our newspaper in adherence to the principles of our profession as unbiased reporters of facts for the public good.
“While the said report had no defamatory import and was not intended to cause you any embarrassment, we have in adherence to journalistic ethics and standards, and in good faith, retracted the report in its entirety from our platform,” Adebowale wrote.
In its retraction, however, SIGNAL reminded its readers that The Economist has an anonymity policy and does not identify the authors of opinion editorials that London based news magazine publishes, and revealed that the “fresh facts” might not be facts, after all, but a mix of emotional blackmail and hearsay.
“This information comes partly by the intervention of persons close to him who say he vehemently denies being the author of the article,” SIGNAL wrote. “These are men and women of upstanding professional reputation and the newspaper respects their judgment and wise counsel on the matter.”
The paper claims to be deferring to wise counsel and has “withdrawn the original story from circulation”. SIGNAL concluded its retraction by apologising “unequivocally to Mr. Ogunlesi and reiterates, once, again that there was no malicious intent in publishing the story”.
“We tried our best to stick to facts,” the paper said as it assured its readers that its “commitment towards informing, educating and enlightening society remains unflinching”.
A source familiar with all parties in this conflict tells The Trent that SIGNAL caved to pressure to retract the story in order to give Mr. Ogunlesi “soft landing” with his new bosses – the minister and the president. “As far as retractions go, it should be obvious to anybody reading between the lines that this is all about saving Tolu’s job,” the source told our correspondent.
“Recall that Tolu was to be appointed special assistant to President Buhari on new media. The appointment was withdrawn after Northern elements around the president expressed unease with Tolu’s disloyal outlook. They succeeded in prevailing on Buhari to appoint a Northern youth into the position of personal assistant on new media, though still unofficial.
“This gang of Northern hardliners had begun to circle around Tolu’s new appointment as a media aide to the Minister of Trade and Investment. Because the article was not just insulting to GEJ, it was heavily critical of President Buhari; it more or less called the president an idiot.
“So, he [Tolu] needed something strong to show to his boss to keep his job. We all went to UI [University of Ibadan], we had to step in to salvage the situation for one of us.
“But my real disappointment is in The Economist who have not raised a finger to help Tolu who writes for them. He had requested for a disclaimer from The Economist and they refused to give him one. It is a big lesson for us,” our source, who did not want to be named because of his relationship with the parties involved said.
