Interpreting a Night of Violence: CNN’s #EndSARS Report Through Stuart Hall’s Theory

 

In October 2020, Nigeria experienced a landmark youth-driven protest against police brutality under the #EndSARS campaign. The movement took a devastating turn on the evening of October 20, when soldiers allegedly opened fire on peaceful protesters at the Lekki Toll Gate. CNN’s investigative video titled “How a Bloody Night of Bullets Quashed a Young Protest Movement” offers a detailed breakdown of the events using video clips, satellite images, and eyewitness testimonies. This review examines CNN’s report through Stuart Hall’s Encoding/Decoding framework, which explains how media messages are crafted (encoded) and how different audiences interpret (decode) them depending on their political, cultural, and ideological backgrounds.

Stuart Hall’s model (1980) stresses that audiences do not receive media content passively. Instead, creators “encode” messages with intended meanings, but viewers “decode” them based on personal experiences, which may result in Dominant, Negotiated, or Oppositional readings.

CNN’s report is encoded as an investigative piece centered on truth, proof, and holding power accountable. It includes Satellite data and timestamps showing military movement, Eyewitness footage and social media posts, Expert breakdowns of bullet casings AND Direct refutations of official government statements.

By combining these components, CNN constructs a strong narrative: peaceful #EndSARS demonstrators were shot at by armed forces, the Nigerian government attempted a cover-up, and the international community must demand accountability. Visually, the report drives this message home with slow, emotional music, close-up visuals of injured youths, and the chilling contrast of the national anthem playing amid gunfire. Both emotionally and factually, CNN codes the protesters as blameless and the authorities as violent and oppressive.

Many international viewers (especially in the West) are likely to give a dominant reading, accepting CNN’s version as reliable and truthful. These audiences view the protesters as victims and the Nigerian government as dishonest. This interpretation fits global themes around authoritarian regimes in developing nations and the urgency of defending youth movements and democracy. For such viewers, CNN represents the unheard, capturing abuse and demanding global action.

Some Nigerians, particularly those involved in the protests or who followed the news online, may offer a negotiated reading. They might agree with the general message but raise some concerns. While acknowledging that violence occurred, they may think not all details are fully accurate or believe CNN missed important context (like the deep-rooted distrust in both Nigerian media and government).

Others may feel CNN sensationalized the trauma for global attention or used it for clicks, a familiar criticism of how foreign outlets cover African tragedies. Nonetheless, these viewers usually still acknowledge the cruelty and support the youth-led protests, even if they are skeptical of foreign media’s intentions.

From the government’s perspective, CNN’s video might be interpreted through an oppositional lens. Officials initially dismissed reports of any shootings at Lekki, branding the footage “fake news” or a “slanted foreign agenda.” They may argue that CNN overstated its findings or presented facts unfairly, insisting that the military was deployed to maintain peace, not incite violence.

In their view, international media like CNN interfere in domestic matters and incite division. This kind of reading rejects CNN’s framing not due to lack of evidence, but due to underlying motives—protecting the country’s image, preserving authority, and avoiding blame.

Hall’s theory reminds us that media content doesn’t float in a neutral space. CNN’s portrayal of the #EndSARS shootings as a human rights violation directly conflicts with the Nigerian state’s framing of the event as either fake or necessary security action. The interpretation of what occurred on October 20, 2020, therefore, hinges not just on evidence, but on who is watching, their standpoint, and their beliefs. This creates what Hall described as a “discursive struggle.” Who controls the narrative? CNN has visuals and eyewitnesses, but governments have official channels and control of public messaging.

CNN’s “How a Bloody Night of Bullets Quashed a Young Protest Movement” stands as a strong example of how media encodes meaning to expose, inform, and provoke action. But as Hall’s model shows, no message is interpreted in one way. While many decode CNN’s story as a rightful call for justice, others—especially those with power at stake—reject or reinterpret it.

In the case of Lekki, the fight over the truth goes beyond the event itself; it’s also about memory, ownership of the story, and whether the message survives attempts to suppress it. This layered complexity supports Hall’s idea: media can send the message, but meaning is always made by the audience.