In an era where effective communication is paramount for transparency, development, and governance, it is disappointing to observe how some Commissioners and Permanent Secretaries in Delta State are grossly failing in their responsibility to use the media effectively. These officials, entrusted with the leadership of various Ministries, Departments, and Agencies (MDAs), seem to have neglected the essential role the media plays in publicizing government activities. Instead, funds budgeted for media coverage are either mismanaged or used for selfish purposes, leading to a significant gap between government efforts and public awareness.
It is troubling that some MDAs, whenever they organize programs or activities, restrict media coverage to government-owned media outlets. While state-run media has a role to play, relying solely on them is not enough to reach the wider public, especially in a state as diverse as Delta. This exclusion of private and local media is a deliberate act of marginalization that limits the reach of government activities. Such actions diminish the visibility of the state’s achievements, programs, and policies, as many residents prefer other channels for accessing information. This selective engagement is not just a disservice to the media industry but also to the people of Delta State, who remain unaware of important governmental actions.
This practice becomes more egregious when one considers the substantial budget allocations made for media engagements in these MDAs. Year after year, millions are earmarked for publicity, yet government-owned media remains the primary beneficiary. This is shortsighted, as these media outlets have not been upgraded to meet the current realities of effective information dissemination. A significant portion of the public no longer relies on state-owned channels for news. In today’s multimedia world, successful communication involves utilizing all possible platforms, from print to digital media, both private and public, to ensure that government policies and activities are well-disseminated.
Reports have emerged that some Commissioners and Permanent Secretaries are mismanaging funds meant for media engagements. A Public Relations (PR) officer in one ministry recently lamented how, despite submitting a comprehensive list of media houses to be invited for a program, the Commissioner and Permanent Secretary deliberately struck out the majority of the media outlets, claiming “there is no money.” This was despite the fact that media funding had already been allocated in the budget. Such acts raise serious questions about the integrity of these officials and highlight a worrying trend of sabotaging the government’s image.
By neglecting to invite and engage diverse media platforms, these officials are not just stifling transparency but also undermining the role of PR officers. The office of the Public Relations Officer is critical in ensuring that government achievements are communicated effectively to the public. However, when these officials use their positions to sideline PR officers, it leads to under-reporting of the state’s progress, further isolating the government from its citizens.
The marginalization of PR officers by some Commissioners and Permanent Secretaries is another glaring issue. PR officers are employed for a specific reason: to serve as a bridge between the MDAs and the public, ensuring transparency and public trust in government operations. By not involving them actively in publicity, these officials are sabotaging the entire process. How can we expect the government’s achievements to be widely known if those in charge of communication are being sidelined?
This blatant disregard for media engagement also extends to the personal attitudes of some Commissioners and Permanent Secretaries. Despite numerous activities that should be publicized, many refuse to interact with the media. This resistance further isolates the MDAs from public scrutiny and perpetuates the perception that the government is not working for the people.
The solution lies in strict accountability for the media budgets allocated to MDAs. The Ministry of Finance, working closely with the Delta State government, should implement a transparent system to track how these funds are being used. Media budgets must be disbursed with specific guidelines ensuring that both government-owned and private media houses are engaged. Additionally, quarterly reviews should be conducted to assess how effectively these budgets are used to publicize government activities.
The role of the Public Relations Officer should be restored to its rightful place. PR officers must be fully funded and empowered to carry out their responsibilities effectively. Their offices are not merely symbolic—they play an essential part in government communication, fostering transparency, and ensuring that the public is well-informed. These officers should be included in all media planning and execution, with a mandate to collaborate with a variety of media outlets.
Finally, those in leadership positions must be reminded that the media is a partner in nation-building. Government transparency relies heavily on the media to relay information to the public. The funds allocated for media in MDAs are there for a reason, and any misuse of those funds should be treated as an act of sabotage against the state’s development.
The negligence of some Commissioners and Permanent Secretaries in Delta State, regarding effective media engagement, is unacceptable. It is high time the state government took decisive steps to address this issue, holding those responsible accountable and ensuring that public relations and media budgets serve their intended purpose. The government must realize that effective communication is the bedrock of public trust. Without it, even the most commendable achievements risk going unnoticed and underappreciated. Let the media do its job, and let the people know what their government is doing for them.
