Ebola: The Media Must Uphold Its Agenda-setting Role

By Njideka Maduka 

Media literacy is something I think people should begin to take more than a cursory look at, especially as the editorial integrity of some media organisations is beginning to raise questions in my mind.

Media literacy, by definition, is the ability to access, analyse, evaluate and create media in various forms. It also involves reflecting on one's media choices, identifying sponsored content, recognizing stereotypes, analysing propaganda and understanding the benefits, risks and harms of media use.

Understanding these concepts should make the audience more critical of the information it consumes. It should encourage people to ask questions about why a media platform focuses on a particular message and what informs that choice. Without this understanding, many people fall into the trap of offering unending support to media organisations without questioning their editorial decisions.

Ebola Coverage and Editorial Priorities

On Tuesday, October 20, 2026, Nigeria's Minister of Health announced that the country had recorded its first confirmed case of the current Ebola outbreak in Abuja. According to the World Health Organization, the patient developed symptoms on October 7, sought medical attention at a private health facility on October 11, and tested positive for the Bundibugyo virus on October 19. The result was announced to the public the following day. The patient had a recent travel history involving Uganda, while investigations were ongoing to establish the likely source of infection and reconstruct her full travel history.

Now, you would think that a development of this nature would command significant attention across Nigerian newspapers, making the front-page banner headlines the following morning. But that was not what I observed.

Instead, while some newspapers focused on the development, others gave greater prominence to different stories. In reviewing the front pages of about three newspapers, I noticed that the Ebola case did not receive the prominence I expected in some of them. This surprised me because we know the seriousness of the disease and the public-health concerns an imported case can raise.

Ebola can cause severe illness and, in some cases, bleeding and other serious complications. That alone should scare any sane mind. Added to this is the 12-day interval between the onset of symptoms and the test conducted on October 19. By the time the result was announced on October 20, the patient had reportedly been experiencing symptoms for nearly two weeks. The media, which had been briefed about the case the previous day, should by the following morning have been leading with questions about this timeline and what it could mean for public health.

But no. What we got was an ordinary headline where there should have been urgent questions and deeper scrutiny.

Nigeria had experienced an Ebola outbreak in 2014, although the virus involved in that outbreak was different from the Bundibugyo virus responsible for the current case. Nigeria eventually contained the 2014 outbreak through the efforts of health authorities and other stakeholders.

I have always attributed part of the urgency surrounding the 2014 response to the fear generated by the disease, given its severity and the attention it attracted. The reports and stories about the infection alarmed many people, and the authorities had to respond to a serious public-health threat.

At the time of the 2014 outbreak, I was not particularly mindful of how much the Nigerian media contributed to the attention the disease received. Over time, however, in the course of my work, I have begun to pay closer attention to the media and have come to question whether some organisations are falling short of their expected role as agenda-setters.

The Media's Agenda-Setting Power

Back in school, two functions of the media particularly caught my attention: its agenda-setting role and its interpretation role.

Of the two, agenda-setting struck me as one of the most powerful functions of the media.

Beyond providing information, agenda-setting is the power of the media to influence what the audience focuses on. By giving sustained attention to an issue, the media can influence the importance people attach to it. The attention an issue receives can, in turn, shape public discussion and influence the response it receives from those concerned.

It is similar to the work of modern-day social media influencers, who can draw widespread attention to an issue simply by focusing on it. Long before today's influencers emerged, the traditional media already had this capacity to influence public attention and set the agenda for public discourse.

Deep down, I have always understood this power as one of the most potent tools available to guide and redirect society. I have therefore always wished that, whenever it is within my power, I would contribute to ensuring that this powerful role expected of the media is utilised to its fullest potential.

Because I believe that agenda-setting can help redirect society.

Imagine the Nigerian media focusing on the core issues that affect the masses. Imagine the media setting the agenda on the best ways to address insecurity, resolve the country's economic challenges, improve education and strengthen healthcare.

By constantly focusing on these issues, the media could help ensure that they remain at the centre of public discussion. Those whose responsibility it is to address them would face sustained questions about their policies, decisions and performance. They would find it more difficult to ignore issues that continue to receive public attention.

When the Audience Sets the Agenda

But unfortunately, it does not appear that some media organisations are fully utilising this role. Instead, the reverse increasingly seems to be the case.

What we see today is that many media platforms have tilted towards the agenda set by their audiences. Rather than using their editorial judgement to guide public attention, they increasingly allow audience interests to determine what receives prominence.

And so, instead of the media helping to set the agenda for the audience, the audience is now setting the agenda for the media.

The pursuit of clicks and engagement now dictates editorial priorities.

When this happens, what value does the media offer beyond giving the audience more of what it already wants?

And so, with the recent Ebola outbreak receiving minimal attention in some newspaper coverage the day after it was announced that Nigeria had recorded a case, I asked myself: What was the thinking behind the editorial decisions of media houses that did not consider this story important enough to make a banner headline?. It was the same thing that happened with the Oyo students' kidnap. Did they think it was unimportant, or that it was child's play? Do they want to normalize Ebola the way we have normalized Lassa fever and diphtheria? So much so that many people are dying from these diseases, yet they receive less media attention than they deserve?

It was not until Thursday that some of these media houses began to give the story more attention. If the media decides to dance to the tune of clickbait and clickbait headlines, it does not help society.

Outside government, the media remains one of the most powerful institutions in society. This is why it is often described as the Fourth Estate of the Realm. Its responsibility extends beyond reporting events. It must also scrutinize power, hold those in authority accountable and help the public understand issues that affect its welfare.

A media that focuses on trivialities at the expense of important public issues risks creating more room for maladministration and misgovernance. It also misses an opportunity to educate citizens and contribute to a more informed population.

As Nigeria begins another round of efforts to contain the Ebola infection, it is my hope that the media will prioritize the issue.

It would be unfortunate for us to focus on trivialities and unnecessary political distractions, especially during the campaign season, and lose sight of what matters most to people: their lives, their health and their safety.

The Media and the Audience Share Responsibility

The media audience must also become more critical of the information it consumes and the platforms from which it receives that information. People must learn to question, compare, verify and evaluate what they read, hear and watch rather than accept every report or defend every media organisation simply because they have come to trust it.

This is where media literacy becomes important.

Media literacy is not about distrusting every media platform. It is about understanding that media organisations make choices, and those choices deserve scrutiny. Why is one issue receiving so much attention while another receives so little? What information is missing? Are the headlines consistent with the facts? What do other credible sources say about the same development?

These are questions a media-literate audience should be asking.

Only by becoming more critical of the information they consume can people begin to recognise when their attention is being diverted from issues that matter. It is also one way to challenge media organisations that may be taking for granted the trust they have built over the years by focusing on distractions and inanities.

I believe that the media must uphold its agenda-setting role by giving sustained attention to issues that matter to society.

It has considerable power to influence what society pays attention to. That power comes with responsibility, and it should be exercised in the public interest.

Driving the Conversation... Making Sense of the News.