Framing Protest: A Stuart Hall Reading of CNN’s EndSARS Coverage

 

Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding theory explains how media messages are created by producers (encoding) and interpreted by audiences (decoding) in different ways. The CNN investigation into the Lekki Toll Gate shooting is a good example of this theory in action. While CNN had a specific message they wanted to pass across, different groups of people interpreted the video in their own way based on their experiences, beliefs, and interests. This essay will explain the intended message of the video and how three main groups—local protesters, the Nigerian government, and international viewers—might respond using the dominant, negotiated, or oppositional reading.

The encoded message in the CNN video is clear: it aims to expose the truth about what happened on the night of October 20, 2020, during the #EndSARS protest at Lekki Toll Gate. CNN uses eyewitness interviews, time-stamped videos, and satellite footage to prove that Nigerian security forces opened fire on peaceful protesters. The tone of the video is serious and investigative, and the message is meant to show that the Nigerian Army and Police were involved in an unjust and violent act. The report is encoded to highlight human rights abuse, seek justice for victims, and pressure authorities into taking responsibility. CNN wants viewers to see the shooting as a violation of democratic and human rights.

For many local Nigerian protesters and supporters of the #EndSARS movement, the decoding of the video is likely a dominant reading. This means they understand and fully agree with CNN’s message. To them, the report confirms what they already believed: that the Nigerian government and its security forces tried to cover up the truth. These viewers see the CNN report as support for their cause and evidence that their pain is being recognized globally. It validates their experience and encourages them to continue seeking justice. The video gives them hope that the world is watching and that change is possible.

The Nigerian government, however, is more likely to give an oppositional reading of the CNN report. From their point of view, the video challenges their authority and damages the country’s image. At first, officials denied that people were killed at Lekki, and even after evidence came out, they tried to downplay it. The government might say the video is biased, misleading, or part of a plan to embarrass Nigeria. Because the CNN report points fingers at the military and suggests there was a planned attack on protesters, the government may reject the message completely and claim that the media is interfering in the country’s affairs. This is a clear case of oppositional decoding—rejecting both the content and the purpose of the message.

On the other hand, some Nigerian citizens and government supporters might have a negotiated reading of the video. They may agree that what happened at Lekki was wrong and that the use of force was too much, but they might also believe CNN exaggerated some parts of the story. For example, they may feel the soldiers acted out of confusion or self-defense, or that not all the footage shown was accurate. These viewers accept some of CNN’s points but also question others. Their reading is mixed—they understand the message but don’t completely agree with all of it. This reflects how people often balance personal beliefs with new information.

International viewers, on the other hand, may engage with CNN’s investigation through an oppositional decoding. While many may initially react in support of the protesters, others could adopt a skeptical stance, questioning the authenticity and motives behind CNN’s reporting. Some might argue that Western media often sensationalizes events in non-Western countries, potentially distorting the truth. This oppositional reading can lead to a dismissive attitude toward the investigation, as some viewers may perceive it as part of a broader narrative that seeks to undermine the Nigerian government. Thus, the international audience’s decoding reflects a critical engagement with the media, demonstrating that not all viewers accept the presented narrative at face value.

Moreover, the varying interpretations of CNN’s investigation underscore the importance of context in media consumption. Different audiences bring their own experiences, biases, and cultural backgrounds to the table, influencing how they decode messages. For local protesters, the footage serves as a testament to their reality; for the Nigerian government, it is a challenge to be managed; and for international viewers, it can prompt critical reflection on the role of media in shaping perceptions of global events. This diversity of interpretations illustrates Hall’s theory, emphasizing that meaning is not fixed but rather fluid and subject to negotiation among different audiences.

In conclusion, applying Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model to CNN’s investigation of the Lekki tollgate shooting reveals the complexities of media interpretation. Each audience—local protesters, the Nigerian government, and international viewers—engages with the content in distinct ways, influenced by their own contexts and perspectives. The dominant reading among local protesters aligns closely with CNN’s intended message, while the Nigerian government offers a negotiated interpretation to maintain its authority. Meanwhile, international viewers may adopt an oppositional stance, questioning the motivations behind the reporting. This analysis highlights the power of media to shape narratives while also acknowledging the active role of audiences in constructing meaning. As such, understanding these dynamics is crucial for comprehending the impact of media on social movements and political discourse.