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

On October 20, 2020, during the height of Nigeria’s EndSARS movement, peaceful protesters gathered at the Lekki Toll Gate in Lagos to demand an end to police brutality, specifically targeting the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS). What followed that night sparked outrage and confusion. Many protesters reported being shot at by the Nigerian army, while government officials initially denied that any violence had occurred. In response, CNN released a video investigation titled “How a Bloody Night of Bullets Quashed a Young Protest Movement,” which examined the events of that night using eyewitness interviews, video footage, forensic evidence, and satellite images. This coverage not only aimed to expose the truth but also shaped how the world viewed the incident. Using Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding theory, this essay will explore CNN’s intended message and how different audiences, the Nigerian protesters, the government, and international viewers might interpret it in dominant, negotiated, or oppositional ways.

Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding theory argues that media producers create content with specific meanings in mind, known as encoding. However, audiences may interpret or decode those messages differently depending on their background, beliefs, and social position. Hall identifies three types of readings. The dominant reading occurs when the audience fully agrees with the message. A negotiated reading happens when the viewer partly agrees but questions or interprets some aspects differently. The oppositional reading is when the viewer actively resists or rejects the message altogether. Hall’s model reminds us that media messages are not simply received as intended, they are shaped by the viewers' own perspectives and lived experiences.

CNN’s EndSARS video is clearly encoded with a strong message: peaceful protesters were violently attacked, and the Nigerian government and military attempted to cover it up. The report uses verified social media videos, time-stamped footage, interviews with survivors, and analysis of bullets to build a convincing case. Emotional testimonies from eyewitnesses and the somber tone of the narration create a powerful sense of injustice. The overall framing paints the Nigerian authorities as responsible for human rights violations. The message CNN wants the viewer to receive is one of sympathy for the youth-led movement and criticism of the government’s denial and silence.

Many Nigerian youths and protesters would likely decode the video in a dominant way. For those who were present at the protest or followed it closely, CNN’s investigation may serve as a confirmation of what they already believed or experienced. The documentary validates their claims, giving them a sense of global support and recognition. The dominant reading here reflects a complete alignment with CNN’s message, they see the report as truthful, necessary, and courageous in the face of government denial.

Similarly, international viewers especially those with little prior knowledge of Nigeria’s internal politics might also accept the dominant reading. With its professional editing, reliable evidence, and emotional storytelling, CNN’s coverage appears trustworthy to many global audiences. Human rights organizations, foreign governments, and global citizens who value press freedom and social justice are likely to sympathize with the protesters and condemn the Nigerian state. Their distance from the political complexities of Nigeria allows them to receive the message as CNN intended, without questioning its motives.

However, not all Nigerian citizens may interpret the video in this way. Some viewers may engage in a negotiated reading. These viewers might agree that protesters were mistreated and that the Lekki incident was serious, but they may also feel that CNN’s report is one-sided or incomplete. They could argue that the situation was more complex that there may have been violent elements among the protesters in other parts of Lagos, or that the military was reacting to perceived threats. Others might suggest that CNN is highlighting only the government’s failures while ignoring efforts to maintain peace. People who hold this view may still feel empathy for the victims but may be hesitant to fully condemn the government based on the report alone. Their reading is mixed part agreement, part skepticism.

On the other hand, the Nigerian government and its supporters would most likely adopt an oppositional reading. From their perspective, CNN’s report is not only inaccurate but also harmful. After the video was published, Nigerian officials accused CNN of spreading “fake news” and attempting to damage the country’s international image. They questioned the credibility of the sources used and denied that the army fired live rounds at protesters. In this oppositional reading, CNN’s coverage is seen as a deliberate attack, possibly influenced by foreign interests. Supporters of this view may believe the media is exaggerating events to incite unrest or provoke international backlash. Rather than accepting the message, they completely reject it and create a counter-narrative.

Hall’s theory helps explain why one media report can lead to such a wide range of reactions. Even when a report seems clear and well-researched, people respond based on their personal experiences, cultural beliefs, trust in media, and relationship with authority. For protesters, the video is empowering. For the government, it is threatening. For others in between, it is a complex text that needs to be examined carefully. This shows that meaning in media is not fixed, it is flexible and shaped by context.

In conclusion, CNN’s coverage of the Lekki Tollgate shooting presents a strong example of how media framing works in real life. By applying Stuart Hall’s encoding/decoding model, we can see how CNN’s message that the Nigerian government used violence against peaceful protesters is interpreted differently by various audiences. Protesters and global viewers may accept it as truth. Some Nigerians may partially agree but remain cautious. The government, meanwhile, rejects the message entirely. Hall’s theory reminds us that media is not just about what is shown, but how it is received and that reception always depends on who is watching.