As a Nigerian in the diaspora, I watch our country from a distance with a mix of pride and pain. Pride because Nigerians remain stubbornly resilient. Pain because I also see how easily our fragile unity can be wounded, sometimes not only by terrorists and criminals but by the way influential institutions choose to tell the story.
That is why Channels Television’s reporting on the Maiduguri mosque bombing deserves public criticism. Not because tragedy should be hidden and not because journalists should be gagged, but because when a nation is already tense, irresponsible framing is not “just language.” It is social fuel.
What happened in Maiduguri, and what mattered most
On 24 December 2025, a bomb detonated at a mosque in Maiduguri during evening prayers. Channels’ own report states the incident occurred at about 6:10 p.m., while Muslim worshippers observed Maghrib prayer at a mosque in Gamboru Ward around the Customs area.
Police later confirmed five deaths and about 35 injuries. Reuters reported it as a suspected suicide bombing, and the AP similarly noted evidence consistent with a suicide attack (including fragments consistent with a suicide vest).
These are the facts that should anchor the public’s understanding: worshippers were attacked in a mosque during prayer; Nigerians were killed and injured; and the state must respond with urgency and competence.
The problem: Channels chose a headline and narrative hook that pushed Nigerians toward religious interpretation
Despite the location and context (a mosque; Muslim prayers), Channels framed the story as happening “less than 12 hours before Christmas” and circulated the attention-grabbing headline: “Many Feared Dead As Bomb Blast Rocks Maiduguri…”
Let’s be clear: it is not inherently wrong to state the date. The problem is the editorial choice to make “Christmas Eve” the emotional center of the story, when the event itself was not a Christmas gathering, not a church, not a Christian service, but a Muslim place of worship.
In Nigeria, words do not land in a vacuum. A “Christmas Eve” frame, repeated and amplified across social media, risks becoming a dog whistle, an invitation for people to read the tragedy through a religious scorecard: Who is being targeted? Who is to blame? Who should retaliate? That is precisely the kind of atmosphere terrorists thrive on.
“Many feared dead” + “sketchy information” is not urgency, it is sensationalism
Channels’ report itself admits that information was still “sketchy,” yet it leaned into “many feared dead” reporting before official confirmation.
Yes, breaking news is fluid. But ethical reporting distinguishes clearly between verified facts and unverified claims, especially in high-risk contexts. Reuters’ initial report, for example, noted that details were unconfirmed at the time, then later published confirmed casualty figures once police spoke.
That is the discipline Nigerians expect from a leading national broadcaster: verify first, amplify second, not because the public cannot handle urgency, but because the public deserves accuracy.
Why this matters: Nigeria’s unity is fragile, and media must not become an accelerant
The attached public reactions circulating online say it plainly: Nigerians are calling out Channels because headlines matter. The anger is not performative. It reflects a real fear that major media houses can, through careless framing, turn a national tragedy into communal suspicion.
This is not a theoretical concern. Nigeria has lived through cycles where misinformation and inflammatory interpretation turn grief into vengeance. When a media institution frames a mosque attack with a Christmas hook, it can unintentionally seed the idea that this is part of a religious war narrative, rather than what it is: terrorism and state failure to protect citizens.
Global journalism ethics are explicit that journalists should consider the harm their reporting can cause. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics urges journalists to “minimize harm” and balance the public’s need for information against potential harm. The International Federation of Journalists similarly warns against dissemination that contributes to hatred or prejudice, including on religious grounds.
Nigeria is exactly the kind of environment where those ethical warnings are not academic, they are survival logic.
Channels must apologize, not as weakness, but as responsibility
This is the heart of it: Channels Television should issue a public apology to Nigerians for the irresponsible framing and sensational headline choices surrounding this incident. An apology is not an attack on press freedom; it is a recognition that the press has power and that power can be misused.
What should that apology include?
- Acknowledge that the story’s dominant “Christmas Eve” framing was inappropriate given that the attack occurred in a mosque during Muslim prayers.
- Commit to conflict-sensitive editorial standards for headlines and push notifications—especially for incidents involving religion, ethnicity, and mass casualty events.
- Demonstrate accountability by reviewing the internal editorial decision-making that approved a framing likely to inflame communal interpretation.
Nigeria needs journalism that heals, not journalism that heats
Terrorism aims to fracture society. Media must not unknowingly complete that mission.
As Nigerians, home and diaspora, we reject any reporting that fans the embers of disunity. We can condemn violence, demand justice, and insist on security without converting every tragedy into a religious flashpoint. The difference is editorial responsibility.
Channels Television should apologize, learn, and do better, because Nigeria cannot afford a media culture where the race for clicks outruns the duty of care to a country already carrying too many scars.
Garbs,
Dec 25, 2025