In recent days, TV3’s news and political programming have raised serious questions about how the station selects and manages its guest panels. The on-air altercation involving Dr George Domfe was not just an embarrassing moment for a respected media house; it was a symptom of a deeper problem—one that many viewers have been observing for some time.
While individuals are responsible for their own conduct, media platforms are responsible for the environments they create. When a discussion space becomes fertile ground for tempers rather than ideas, the blame does not fall solely on the guests. It also rests with the institution that repeatedly sets the stage for such outcomes.
That is why TV3’s insistence on empanelling certain NPP figures—often introduced to audiences as technocrats, academics, or policy analysts—deserves scrutiny. This is especially perplexing given the party’s recent public posture toward the station. The NPP leadership not only announced a boycott of TV3’s programmes; one of its senior members even discarded a TV3 microphone during a press engagement, a gesture widely interpreted as dismissive. No apology followed, no acknowledgement of excess, and no visible attempt to repair the relationship.
Yet TV3 continues to offer its platform to the very individuals whose party has treated the station with open disregard. The message this sends is unmistakable: that the station needs these voices more than those voices need to respect the platform. When guests sense this imbalance, the result is predictable—an air of impunity that can easily spill into unacceptable behaviour on live television.
Yesterday it was a scuffle. Tomorrow, viewers fear, it could be something far worse.
There is an old proverb: when you carry home firewood crawling with ants, you should expect visitors. By repeatedly hosting guests whose approach to public discourse appears shaped more by political combativeness than intellectual engagement, TV3 risks importing the very chaos its viewers tune in to escape.
The station must now choose what kind of forum it wants to be. One that protects the integrity of national conversation? Or one that prioritises spectacle over substance?
For a network with TV3’s legacy and audience loyalty, the answer should be obvious. Viewers expect better. And if TV3 wishes to maintain their trust, it must urgently reclaim the dignity, balance, and seriousness that once defined its panels.
By Vitalis Aiyeh.
Justine Ninwie
Nov 17, 2025 5:05 amTV 3 must assess the mental balance of some personalities they empanel. Persons who argue base on ideas and not on party fanatism else they risk losing respect from the general viewership.