Dr Alieu SK Manjang
As many media outlets in The Gambia host weekly programmes dedicated to discussing current affairs — including Sunu Rewme on Eye Africa TV, Bantaba on Kerr Fatou, Giss Giss, and others — one question consistently comes to mind whenever I follow these discussions. Given the quality of many of these discussions and their frequent lack of depth, in most cases, on what basis do media houses select their panelists, particularly for programmes addressing socio-economic and political issues?
Are panelists chosen because of their expertise, professional experience, general knowledge, personal relationships, or simply their political affiliation? A quick survey of some of the country’s most popular political and current affairs programmes suggests that many panelists are selected primarily because of their party affiliation. This raises an important question: to what extent does political affiliation translate into meaningful knowledge and informed analysis of the issues being discussed?
In many cases, what is presented as analysis is little more than subjective opinion, often driven by personal bias, prejudice, or loyalty rather than facts, evidence, or professional expertise. Instead of critically examining issues, panelists frequently defend predetermined positions or advance their party’s agenda. Consequently, discussions become personal, confrontational, and superficial, offering audiences little opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the issues at hand.
This approach contributes significantly to the growing polarization and personalization of politics in The Gambia. Media discussions play a powerful role in shaping public opinion, and the tone and quality of debates on social media often mirror the style of these television programmes. When televised discussions prioritize political point-scoring over informed analysis, they inadvertently encourage public discourse that is equally shallow and divisive.Media houses have a responsibility that extends beyond providing platforms for political debate. They have a duty to inform the public, elevate the quality of national conversations, and encourage mature and constructive engagement with important public issues. Achieving this requires a more deliberate and principled approach to selecting panelists. Invitations should not be determined primarily by personal connections, political affiliation, or simply who is available at the time. Rather, they should be based on who can offer informed, evidence-based, and insightful perspectives.
The objective should not merely be to ensure representation from different political parties. True balance is achieved when audiences are exposed to informed analysis grounded in knowledge, experience, research, and evidence. Citizens should leave a programme understanding not only what happened, but also why it happened, how it unfolded, and the broader political, social, and economic context surrounding the issue.
When panelists support their arguments with facts, data, and reasoned analysis rather than rhetoric, public discourse becomes more meaningful and constructive. Unless media houses embrace this approach, they risk continuing to reinforce political polarization while producing audiences that are informed by opinion rather than knowledge. A democratic society depends not simply on freedom of expression, but on an informed citizenry capable of making sound judgments based on evidence rather than emotion or partisan narratives.p