When the New Patriotic Party (NPP) announced in 2025 that it would boycott all platforms of Media General, many dismissed the decision as political petulance. The party cited persistent editorial bias, selective framing and agenda-setting in favour of the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

At the time, the NDC was in opposition, and the accusation was that Media General, particularly TV3, had become less of a neutral watchdog and more of a sympathetic megaphone.

Today, the political context has changed. The NDC is over a year in government under President John Mahama, while the NPP finds itself in opposition. Yet the core concern that triggered the boycott has not only remained unresolved; it has been reinforced by subsequent events.

One of the most telling developments in the first year of the NDC administration has been the migration of key Media General figures into government. Several lead presenters, producers and influential newsroom actors — individuals who once shaped public discourse from behind TV3’s cameras and microphones — have been rewarded with high-profile appointments.

This revolving door between Media General and the NDC government lends disturbing credibility to the NPP’s longstanding claim: that what masqueraded as “robust journalism” was, in reality, political positioning in waiting.

In any healthy democracy, journalists moving into public service is not inherently wrong. The problem arises when the pattern is so one-sided that it blurs the line between editorial independence and partisan alignment.

Media General has yet to convincingly explain why such appointments overwhelmingly favour one political tradition or how audiences should continue to trust the platform’s neutrality in light of these developments.

Equally troubling is the noticeable shift in tone and intensity of political scrutiny. During the NPP years, TV3 prided itself on combative journalism — relentless panel discussions, aggressive questioning and hard-hitting segments that framed governance primarily through the lens of failure and scandal.

Personalities such as Johnny Hughes, through programmes like Johnny’s Bite, became symbols of this confrontational style, earning both praise and criticism for their sharp, uncompromising attacks on those in power.

Under the NDC government, that edge has dulled. The same platforms that once amplified every misstep of the NPP now appear hesitant, cautious and selective.

Major governance controversies are softened by euphemistic language, contextual excuses or brief coverage that quickly gives way to other topics. The “bite” has become toothless, not because wrongdoing has disappeared but because the subject of scrutiny has changed.

This is the context in which the NPP’s recent decision to lift its boycott of Media General must be interrogated. The party claims it has secured assurances of fairness and equitable broadcasting.

While engagement is preferable to isolation, goodwill assurances alone cannot erase years of structural bias, institutional culture and demonstrable patterns of behaviour. Media organisations do not change by press statements; they change by consistent editorial decisions over time.

The uncomfortable truth is this: Media General and TV3, in particular, have crossed from perceived bias into functional partisanship.

Its credibility problem is no longer an opposition talking point but an observable reality reinforced by personnel appointments, editorial silence and selective outrage. In such circumstances, scepticism is not cynicism; it is prudence.

Ghanaians deserve a media that holds power to account regardless of who occupies Jubilee House. Until Media General demonstrates — through sustained, fearless and balanced journalism — that it can criticise the NDC with the same vigour it once deployed against the NPP, the verdict will remain unchanged.

TV3 will not change, obviously, because it has chosen its side, and the decision by the NPP to return to their studios and sets is most unfortunate.