Governments, Media, and Citizens Together Shape How the World Sees Africa, Survey Finds

How the world perceives Africa is not a matter of chance, according to a new survey-based study published in Discover Global Society. Godwin Ehiarekhian Oboh of Benson Idahosa University in Benin City, Nigeria, set out to measure whether the actions of African governments, the reporting of African media, and the conduct of African citizens influence the public view of the African image abroad. His answer, drawn from 368 respondents and tested with inferential statistics, is that all three actors matter, and that the region’s global reputation is a shared production rather than the output of any single institution.

The study rests on a conceptual framework borrowed from social theory. Oboh anchors his analysis in Jürgen Habermas’s concept of the public sphere, the notional space in which governments, media, and citizens exchange views on matters of common interest. Since Habermas’s work was translated into English in 1962, scholars have used the idea to explain how democratic societies negotiate collective concerns. Contemporary researchers of counterpublics have extended the model, arguing that the public sphere is better understood as a multiplicity of overlapping publics rather than a single unified arena. Social media, Oboh notes, has accelerated this transformation: citizen journalists now create virtual spaces where people process their thoughts and share ideas on any issue of public interest, much as Habermas envisioned for the print-era bourgeois public sphere.

Within that framework, the media occupy a pivotal position. They are, metaphorically, the nexus that connects countries and regions in a notional space, and for most people they are the primary source of political information, including information on the conduct of governments and citizens. Oboh argues that the thoughts and feelings people hold about Africa are partly built on what media report about the region, and that media can also serve as ideological weapons projecting the views of their proprietors. A government that performs well in office, he observes, gains little public credit if the media fail to report that commitment, which is why objective coverage matters both for accountability and for image formation.

To test these propositions empirically, the study adopted a survey method with a non-probabilistic, purposive sampling technique. The sample was drawn from staff and students of Benson Idahosa University and from media practitioners in Benin City, Nigeria. A total of 384 questionnaires were distributed and 368 were retrieved, an attrition rate of 4.3 percent. The instrument was a structured questionnaire with 29 items in four sections, covering respondent background, the effects of media coverage, the effects of government actions, and the effects of citizens’ conduct on the African image. Responses were recorded on a five-point Likert scale, with mean scores above 3 indicating general agreement and standard deviations capturing the dispersion of opinion. Three null hypotheses were then evaluated using the Pearson correlation coefficient.

The results on media coverage were the clearest. The statement that media coverage of the good things done by Africans creates a good image for Africa recorded the highest mean in its block, 4.26, signaling strong agreement, while the claim that media reports of government actions do not affect Africa’s image scored a low 2.18, indicating disagreement. The grand mean of 3.44 for the media block suggested that respondents broadly accepted that the media exert a reasonable influence on how Africa is viewed. Statistically, the Pearson correlation between media coverage of African affairs and the public view of the African image was r = 0.365, a positive moderate relationship, with a significance value of 0.000, well below the 0.05 threshold. The null hypothesis of no correlation was therefore rejected: the more the media cover African affairs, the more other regions are likely to know about the continent.

Government actions also proved consequential. The single strongest item in this block was the statement that corruption by some African leaders has an impact on the image of Africa, with a mean of 4.11. The grand mean of 3.21 indicated that respondents believed government conduct shapes public assessment of the region, although a fairly high standard deviation of 1.32 revealed considerable diversity of opinion. The Pearson correlation between government actions and the public view of the African image was r = 0.340, again a positive moderate relationship significant at 0.000, leading to rejection of the second null hypothesis. In plain terms, when governments act in ways aligned with public expectations, the image of the region improves; corruption and misgovernance do measurable reputational damage.

The evidence on citizens was weaker but still significant. The grand mean of 2.95 for the citizen block showed respondents were essentially neutral about how much individual conduct shapes the continental image, and a standard deviation of 1.28 confirmed a fair diversity of views. Yet the Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.229, significant at p = 0.000, indicated a weak positive relationship between the actions of African citizens and the public view of the African image. The third null hypothesis was rejected as well. Oboh interprets this to mean that how African citizens relate to members of other regions, including what they share on social media, does feed into external perceptions, even if the effect is smaller than that of media and government.

Beyond the survey, the study situates Africa’s image problem in the structures of global politics and economics. Oboh argues that the region’s difficulties today stem less from colonialism than from misplaced priorities by past and present leaders who ignored citizens’ welfare. He highlights the debt burden as a central constraint: between 1970 and 2002, Africa received 540 billion dollars in loans, paid back 550 billion, and still owed 293 billion at the end of 2002. Some African nations remain aid-dependent, with foreign assistance exceeding 50 percent of government expenditure in certain cases, a dependency that erodes economic sovereignty. He also points to the absence of a permanent African seat on the United Nations Security Council, noting that UN Secretary-General António Guterres has called for reform of the council’s outdated structure and criticized its lack of representation for Africa as undermining the body’s credibility and legitimacy.

The digital dimension runs throughout the analysis. Oboh argues that technological development is not value neutral, and that Western control of digital technology shapes how virtual spaces frame discussions of globalization and digital governance. He urges African governments to use both legacy and new media to project their positions, and to exploit social media networking sites to share the continent’s own narratives and correct impressions that have undermined its image. At the same time, he warns that citizen journalists sometimes circulate untrue stories about African governments, and that such stories carry negative consequences precisely because audiences abroad are more likely to believe accounts shared by African citizens about their own governments than accounts shared by outsiders.

The study’s conclusions come with candid limitations. Because the sample was purposive and drawn entirely from Nigerian academia and media, the findings reflect an African perspective on Africa’s image and cannot be generalized to non-African audiences; Oboh recommends that future research survey international respondents or compare African and non-African viewpoints directly. His recommendations are nonetheless pointed: media organizations should report factual accounts of government actions; governments should encourage inclusive, participatory democracy; citizens, at home and in the diaspora, should feel a sense of ownership in their governments’ success and report on them objectively; and the United Nations should consider making Africa a permanent member of the Security Council to enhance both the continent’s image and its contribution to global peace. The overarching message is that Africa’s reputation is a joint enterprise, and that governments, media, and citizens who work more closely together on socioeconomic development will, in the process, reshape how the committee of nations sees the region.

Subject of Research: Public perceptions of how African governments, media, and citizens influence Africa's global image

Article Title: Impact of the actions of governments, media, and citizens on public view of African image

Article References: Oboh, G. E. (2026). Impact of the actions of governments, media, and citizens on public view of African image. Discover Global Society, 4(1), Article 206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44282-026-00373-y

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44282-026-00373-y

Keywords: Africa, public sphere, media coverage, governance, citizenship, survey research, Habermas, correlation analysis, African image, UN Security Council, foreign debt, social media