During the orientation for my fellowship last year, in a section about ethics, they told us we should expect to encounter "brown-envelope journalism" at some point -- that is, stories being written (or not written) in exchange for bribes.
I didn't think much about it, and honestly, didn't really expect to find it, not in any visible way. Wrong! While it's true that any form of ethical impropriety at this level is a fireable offence at New Vision -- and someone was in fact fired last week -- that certainly hasn't wiped it out. When I do the ethics portion of my training out at the rural newspapers, and include a scenario for them to work out in which an official of an NGO (Non-governmental organization, or nonprofit) gives the journalist one of these envelopes "in appreciation for past coverage," they all recognize it, laugh a bit self-consciously, and acknowledge that it is still very much part of the journalism scene.
There are reasons for this. One is that many of the journalists (all of them in the rural papers) are freelancers who make nearly nothing for what they write, and still have to pay for airtime on their mobile phones. One is that the NGOs -- a good number of them anyway -- badly need publicity as a way of showing "impact," and so they are not shy about trying to buy that publicity. We talk to the reporters in very clear terms about this: you have to make a choice, between working for the readers and selling yourself and your reputation. (We also acknowledge the media companies share some of the responsibility for the low pay scales.) But we know -- and they are honest about this as well -- that many of them will keep doing it, given the opportunity.
The government and politicians do it, too. A guy I know who worked with radio stations remembers that after the last election, an official of one of the parties approached a reporter who had covered the campaign and gave him an envelope with a good sum of money in it. He took it.
I don't know how pervasive it is. I don't think it is hugely pervasive. But it is there, enough so to be recognized by all (editors at the main office get calls occasionally from NGOs asking why their story wasn't published, after they paid good money for it), and it's one of the the things that needs to disappear entirely before this "free press" thing is fully realized here.
3 comments:
They call it "transport."
Most of the time your paper doesn't pay your transport, and all of the sudden, someone offers you money for transport, and it just seems so nice to think of not having to take it out of your per article paycheck.
This has happened to me more than once, but I'm not going to sit on a high horse - the thing is, I can afford NOT to take it. What if that journalist has to pay school fees that month? At the end of the day, I tend to think that things like this aren't going to change. It's part of the landscape here.
In terms of advancing journalism, I think more has to be done in other sectors than this. (Not that this isn't important as well.)
But how about computers? I think they could use some more computers. I'm a journalist for the Daily Monitor and I do some upcountry coverage where I work with local reporters and they all base themselves out of Internet Cafes. A few places have bureau offices, but not many. Some reporters I know don't even get a free copy of the newspaper.
All that being said, I'm putting the horse very far in front of the cart - because I know NOTHING about the Knight Fellowship, which I've just googled, because hey, I'm a journalist, that's what I do. (Check me out: www.glennagordon.com and some more personal writing on my blog www.ugandascarlettlion.blogspot.com) But my internet is slow and I'm eager to post this comment,
so, what I'm trying to say, is I'd like to know more about the Knight Fellowship - I'd even like to write a feature about one of the training courses for Daily Monitor. Let me know if you're game. I know this post sounds critical, but I'm open to seeing work being done and just how journalists here are being trained - I'm very curious. GG/SL
Hi Glenna, and thanks. What you say is indeed true. They do just call it “transport” sometimes, and sometimes they call it “lunch” or something else that sounds less ethically dubious than “money.” And yes indeed, there are many things to say on the other side. Not only do they have no computer, and no expense money for transport, they often don’t even have reimbursement for telephone airtime. So when I teach journalists that they should write stories with more than a single source, of course many of them are thinking: I barely can pay for ONE call with the pathetic amount I receive for this story, much less two. And that’s true.
And yes: there are numerous other place where this problem has its roots. One of them is lousy pay and the bizarre freelance structure here. One of them is the NGO system in which some of these do-gooder organizations seem just fine with the idea of paying for articles (through cash or “transport” or whatever) so they can show a flattering article to their funders. One of them is the sad state of the economy in general. And so forth.
But is it so bad, in the midst of all this, to tell journalists that they CAN make a choice? That there is a reason why it is better not to feel obliged to the people you’re writing about? Certainly these journalists understand that principle, even if they also say it may not be realistic. And the fact they understand it, and passionately discuss it, is at least encouraging to me that the situation can and will change.
-- Bill
I never disagree with opening a dialogue. It does indeed sound encouraging that there is a passoniate discussion among journalists - and therefore and inkling of the idea that perhaps this isn't the best way to get things done, even if it's the only way to get things done. I hope that some of the discussions include qualitative suggestions to editors (like paying for airtime) that would make it easier for journalists to pass up "transport" and "lunch money."
Post a Comment