A Stuart Hall Reading of CNN’s EndSARS Coverage

 

23BE033067

A Stuart Hall Reading of CNN’s EndSARS Coverage

On October 20, 2020, the world watched as Nigerian youth took to the streets in protest, demanding an end to police brutality and the notorious SARS unit. But even more powerful than the protest was the media coverage that followed particularly CNN’s investigative report “How a Bloody Night of Bullets Quashed a Young Protest Movement.” While many Nigerians already knew the truth of what happened at the Lekki Toll Gate that night, CNN’s report introduced the tragedy to an international audience, using visuals, witness accounts,  to build a case. But how this message was received depended heavily on the viewer. Using Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding theory, I want to explore how CNN’s report was encoded with a particular message, but decoded differently by various audiences some accepting, others rejecting, and some somewhere in-between.

Stuart Hall’s model argues that media texts are not just passively received they are interpreted through individual and cultural lenses. The encoding happens when the media organization puts together a message . The decoding is how audiences understand that message, and this understanding can fall into three categories: dominant, negotiated, or oppositional. CNN encoded their report with a clear dominant meaning the Nigerian government is responsible for a violent breakdown on peaceful protesters, and this should be seen as a serious violation of human rights. This dominant meaning is built carefully in the video. CNN uses  footages, eyewitness interviews,   to suggest that Nigerian military and police forces opened fire on civilians. The tone is serious, even accusatory. There are slow-motion replays, somber music, and dramatic transitions  that signal to the viewer: “This is real. This is serious. This is wrong.” By packaging the story with evidence and emotion, CNN wants viewers especially international ones to sympathize with the protesters and condemn the government.

However, not all viewers decode the message in the same way. For example, local Nigerian youth and EndSARS supporters likely accepted the report with a dominant reading. Many of them were there, or know people who were. For them, CNN’s coverage served as international validation of their pain. It wasn’t just storytelling  it was proof. It helped them feel heard in a country where the local media sometimes avoids challenging government narratives. On social media, many Nigerians shared the report, saying things like “Now the world knows” or “We’re not crazy.” In this case, Hall’s dominant code was fully accepted the audience received the message as intended.

 

But then there’s the Nigerian government, who responded with an oppositional reading. They rejected the report entirely. Officials like Lai Mohammed, Nigeria’s Minister of Information, claimed the CNN investigation was fake news, exaggerated, or even dangerous. Instead of acknowledging the evidence, they accused CNN of bias and misinformation. This is a classic oppositional decoding where the viewer (in this case, the state) sees the message, understands it, but actively pushes back because it threatens their position. From the government’s perspective, CNN’s framing of the Lekki shooting undermines their authority and stability. Accepting it would mean admitting guilt, and that’s not something power structures do easily.

Then, there’s a negotiated audience, made up of everyday Nigerians who weren’t at Lekki and are unsure what to believe. These viewers might say: “Something bad definitely happened, but maybe CNN is also dramatizing it.” They might accept parts of the story the fear, the brutality but question other elements like the motives behind the report or whether foreign media can truly represent Nigerian realities. This group doesn’t reject CNN’s message completely, but they also don’t accept it blindly. Their decoding is mixed partly agreeing with CNN’s version, partly maintaining being skeptical. Another interesting layer comes when we look at international audiences particularly Western viewers. For them, CNN’s encoding may seem straightforward oppressed people protesting against corrupt institutions. But there’s also a danger here. When international media covers African stories, it sometimes reinforces the stereotype of Africa as chaotic and violent. So while the report aims to raise awareness, it could also unintentionally frame Nigeria in a negative light that lacks context. This is not CNN’s intention, but it shows how even dominant messages can have unintended effects depending on who is decoding them. What this teaches us is that no media text is ever neutral. Every image, every cut, every word choice has a purpose and that purpose is shaped by power, politics, and perspective. CNN may have all the evidence, but how that evidence is read depends on the viewer’s beliefs, identity, and location. Stuart Hall helps us see that communication is never one-way. It’s a process, and that process can produce resistance, doubt, or full agreement.

In conclusion,  me as a young Nigerian student watching the EndSARS protests unfold, CNN’s report was emotional. It brought back the trauma, the fear, and the anger. But it also gave me a strange kind of hope. Seeing an international platform take our story seriously reminded me that truth can travel, even when it’s suppressed at home. At the same time, I know that truth is always up for debate and that’s exactly what Hall’s theory captures. There’s no single meaning. Just many voices, trying to be heard.