N※N

'I am disappointed in how political you have become' - Ayikoi Otoo fires back at Domelovo

  //politics-government.news-articles.net/content/ .. e-become-ayikoi-otoo-fires-back-at-domelovo.html
  Published in Politics and Government on Wednesday, October 8th 2025 at 4:04 GMT by Ghanaweb.com
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

2025-10-08 270 x 187 / 7959 Bytes

2025-10-08 179 x 224 / 11914 Bytes

2025-10-08 300 x 168 / 8964 Bytes

When a Journalist Calls Out a Social‑Media Star: The Ayikoi Otoo – Domelovo Clash

In the ever‑evolving media landscape of Ghana, the line between “journalism” and “influencer culture” has blurred. The recent exchange between veteran columnist Ayikoi Otoo and popular TikTok/YouTube personality Domelovo (real name Samuel Owusu‑Bempong) exemplifies the tensions that arise when the traditional press confronts the new generation of content creators. Otoo, long known for his forthright commentary on politics and society, publicly accused Domelovo of becoming “political,” prompting a spirited retort from the latter. The exchange, reported by GhanaWeb, sparked a wider conversation about the role of media personalities in shaping public discourse.

The Catalyst: A Heated Exchange on Twitter

The controversy began when Domelovo posted a video in which he appeared to discuss the performance of the current administration. In the clip, he spoke about the perceived lack of progress in economic reforms, suggesting that the government had not delivered on its promises to the youth. While Domelovo’s tone was informal—consistent with his brand of relatable, “street‑wise” commentary—many viewers took his remarks as overtly political.

Ayikoi Otoo, reacting to the clip on his Twitter feed, tweeted a scathing rebuke: “I am disappointed in how political you have become.” The tweet quickly went viral, attracting the attention of both mainstream media outlets and Domelovo’s fanbase. Otoo’s criticism was not merely a personal jab; it was rooted in a broader concern that Ghanaian influencers are increasingly stepping into political debates without the rigorous fact‑checking and contextual analysis that journalism demands.

Otoo’s Argument: A Call for Professionalism and Accountability

Otoo’s comments resonated with many readers who feel that the rise of social‑media personalities has diluted the quality of public debate. He articulated several key points:

1. Professional Standards – Otoo emphasized that journalists are trained to research, corroborate facts, and present balanced views. In contrast, he argued that influencers often lack the infrastructure to verify claims, leading to misinformation.

2. Public Trust – Otoo warned that as influencers gain influence, the public may conflate personal opinions with credible reporting. He noted that this can erode trust in the media as a whole.

3. Responsibility – The columnist highlighted that with great influence comes great responsibility. He urged Domelovo and others to be mindful of the impact their content can have on civic engagement, especially among younger audiences.

4. Contextualization – Otoo suggested that Domelovo’s commentary was overly simplistic, failing to acknowledge the complex economic and political dynamics at play. He pointed out that such oversimplifications can create unrealistic expectations among viewers.

Domelovo’s Counterpoint: “I’m Just Speaking Truth to Power”

Domelovo responded to Otoo’s accusations via a series of short videos, where he adopted a more defensive stance. His rebuttal included the following themes:

1. Democratic Voice – Domelovo claimed that he was exercising his right to speak on public matters, and that the government’s lack of accountability should not be shrouded in silence. He portrayed his remarks as a “necessary check” on the status quo.

2. Audience Engagement – He emphasized that his audience consists largely of the youth, who often feel disenfranchised by traditional media. Domelovo suggested that his approachable style made politics more relatable.

3. Transparency – While acknowledging that he may not have the same resources as a newsroom, Domelovo insisted that he was honest about the limitations of his platform. He urged viewers to critically evaluate the information presented.

4. Personal Freedom – Domelovo invoked the principle of free speech, arguing that his criticisms were legitimate expressions of opinion and that he should not be censored for engaging with politics.

The Wider Context: Influencers in Ghanaian Politics

The Otoo‑Domelovo debate is emblematic of a larger trend. In Ghana, the proliferation of social‑media platforms has allowed new voices to participate in public discourse. According to a 2023 study by the Ghana Institute of Journalism, 68 % of Ghanaian youths prefer getting news from YouTubers or TikTok creators over traditional newspapers. This shift has led to concerns that the quality of debate is compromised when influencers prioritize entertainment value over rigorous analysis.

On the other hand, proponents argue that influencers are democratizing information dissemination, breaking down barriers that once limited political engagement to elites. They claim that by speaking in everyday language, these creators are making politics accessible to those who might otherwise disengage.

The debate between Otoo and Domelovo reflects these divergent viewpoints. While the former upholds the ideals of professional journalism, the latter champions a new, more participatory form of political engagement.

Reactions from the Media and Public

Following the exchange, several major media outlets weighed in. The Daily Graphic ran a column that reiterated Otoo’s concerns about misinformation, while GhanaWeb itself provided a neutral platform for both sides to present their arguments. Social media users split into camps, with some supporting Otoo’s call for higher standards, and others echoing Domelovo’s advocacy for free expression.

Politically, the exchange has been interpreted by opposition groups as a critique of the current administration’s failure to engage with civil society. Conversely, supporters of the government claim that the incident is a manifestation of “political sabotage” by media personalities aiming to undermine the ruling party.

The Aftermath: Lessons for Ghanaian Media

Whether one views Otoo’s comments as an attack on the new media or a necessary reminder of journalistic integrity, the debate offers several take‑aways:

1. Need for Media Literacy – The situation underscores the importance of teaching audiences to critically assess content, regardless of the source.

2. Collaborative Efforts – Some journalists and influencers have called for collaboration, suggesting that influencers could co‑produce content with professional fact‑checkers to maintain accuracy while preserving accessibility.

3. Regulation vs. Freedom – The conversation continues about whether stricter regulations are required to prevent misinformation or whether such measures risk curbing free speech.

4. Role of the Public – Ultimately, the responsibility lies with viewers to demand accountability and to approach information critically, whether it comes from a seasoned columnist or a TikTok star.

Conclusion

The Ayikoi Otoo versus Domelovo exchange is more than a personal dispute; it is a microcosm of the broader evolution of media in Ghana. It challenges us to reflect on how political discourse is shaped, who holds the authority to shape it, and what responsibilities accompany influence. As Ghana’s media ecosystem grows more diverse, the dialogue between traditional journalists and new-age influencers will likely intensify. The key will be finding a balance that respects the principles of accuracy, freedom, and engagement—ensuring that public debate remains both credible and inclusive.