Has anyone had experience using The Guardian Nigeria as one of my OC2 evidence for talent premise application?
I previously submitted an article to them and it is currently under review. I’m now wondering whether this media outlet is considered credible and whether it could be useful as supporting evidence.
Has anyone here used it before, or know if it would carry any weight in an application?
Many many thanks,
Self promoted articles aren’t considered by TN. Also depends if this is the only article or is this one of many articles you have? If it’s the only one and close to application date, it would be flagged.
Hi @lele,
I think the question shouldn’t be whether anyone has used it before or what their outcome was, but rather how relevant it is to OC2 and how it aligns with your narrative.
While the use of newspapers has been abused and to be honest, it’s not respected the way it used to be, it can still be valid if it genuinely meets the criterion.
If you submitted an article you wrote and paid to have it published, that makes it either advertorial or invalidates the recognition element, which is a major requirement for OC2.
For context, I’ll give examples of when a newspaper publication can be acceptable for OC2.
A published article written by you (op-ed) or a news article about you that shows you are contributing ideas, frameworks, or insights that influence your sector. It must demonstrate thought leadership, meaning you are shaping conversations, not just reporting facts about yourself or what you did. For this to properly meet OC2, you should be doing it as a result of recognition and also it should contribute and impact the sector. That is, the media house recognised you as an expert, approached or invited you to write or speak, you spoke and it has significant viewership.
And this is how OC2 puts:
“…demonstrate that I have been recognised for my work outside of my immediate occupation that contributed to the advancement of the digital technology sector.”
The invitation letter shows that the media house recognised you as an expert and invited you as a thought leader to voluntarily write.
Another instance where a newspaper publication can work is when it serves as third party external validation. Let’s say, you spoke at a reputable conference, the media covered the event, and you were interviewed as one of the speakers. When presenting your speaking evidence, you can add that publication as third party validation of your claim. Surprisingly, this can be used in any criterion as a third party validation of evidence claim.
I hope this answers your question.
All the best.
The Guardian Nigeria is a credible, nationally recognised newspaper - it’s not some niche blog. So credibility of the outlet is not the issue here.
The issue is what the piece actually does and which criteria it’s being used for.
If it’s press coverage about you - that belongs under MC, not OC2. MC is where Tech Nation looks for “national or international recognition” through media coverage. Using it for OC2 is a category error and assessors will flag it.
If it’s an op-ed written by you - it can count for OC2, but the bar is specific. The official guide describes it as “an op-ed or news article that exemplifies thought leadership.” Having helped dozens of applicants through this, assessors are ruthless about this distinction. From actual rejection feedback: “The Op-Ed article is fairly basic and does not amount to thought leadership” and separately, “opinion pieces cover basic topics without pioneering or original thought leadership.”
Thank you for your detailed and clear explanation. Genuinely appreciate it 
Thank you so much for providing idea from different angles I will try to bring thought leadership up during my writing.
@Akash_Joshi and @Raphael
A follow-up question based on your review. For an AI engineer, Will a co-authored publication like this in a journal work for OC2:
“Leveraging Explainable AI and Population Health Data to Uncover Hidden Risk Profiles and Enable Personalised Care” ?
A peer-reviewed journal paper sits more naturally under OC4 than OC2. OC4 covers academic contributions to the digital technology sector including peer-reviewed publications, and a paper on explainable AI applied to population health is squarely in that category.
OC2 wants voluntary activity outside your immediate occupation as an AI engineer. If the research was done as part of your paid work, or the topic sits inside your day-to-day role, it fails the ‘outside occupation’ test regardless of where it was published. If it was independent research done in your own time and the paper shows thought leadership beyond your job, it can support OC2, but assessors will still question why it isn’t under OC4 where it fits more cleanly.
Co-authorship isn’t automatically a problem, though first authorship carries more weight. Pair the paper with citation data, downstream implementation by other researchers, or conference presentations to strengthen whichever criterion you place it under.