Cash for coverage

As the reporters shut off their mics and the cameramen (there were no camerawomen present) began unplugging extension cords and stowing their equipment into their bags, a representative from the human rights NGO that had hosted the press conference went around discretely; slipping a thousand shilling note to each of the journalists present.

“No, the money wasn’t a bribe,” the NGO’s administrator later insisted to me. “These journalists gave up part of their Sunday to come to our event. We wanted to appreciate them,” she said.  As it turned out this wasn’t the first time the NGO had “appreciated” members of the media. In fact, the organisation had a special budget to cater for these “tokens of appreciation.” It was standard practice the administrator revealed; expected by their media “friends” and observed by their non-profit partners.

To anyone who has worked in the media or PR in Kenya, none of this will sound strange. In any case, the practice of chai isn’t limited to the media industry. If government clerks, police officers, teachers, lawyers and healthcare workers require “something small” before they offer services they are paid to perform, what about journalists? As it is, reporters are notoriously underpaid. Many, even those affiliated to the larger media houses, are freelancers who often earn between Ksh 4,500 and 5,500 (US$52 – US$64). It’s not uncommon therefore, for journalists on starvation wages to ask for “lunch” or “transport”.

So what does this mean in the context of NGO communications? Among a number of journalists and NGO workers that I’ve worked with over the years, there seems to be a lack of ethical awareness because “everyone is doing it”. NGOs involved in the practice believe they are simply securing a service. Many are genuinely afraid of bad coverage or a black-out from the media. As for journalists (not all of them, mind you), the money they receive under the table subsidizes the poor wages they earn. Some also seem to believe they are doing NGOs “a favour” by covering them…after all politicians pay better.

Without getting into a deep discussion on ethics  — journalist Patience Nyange did an excellent job of this a couple of years ago in her blog post “On corrupt journalists and media houses” — here are a few reasons why I believe providing cash for coverage doesn’t work in the short or long term.

• It undermines development, democracy and good governance – A free press promotes accountability, transparency and government responsiveness — the very values in your mission statement. A free press allows multiple voices to be heard. A corrupt one can not possibly be a good watchdog when its own hands are dirty.

• It creates an uneven playing field for anyone unwilling orunable to engage in the practice of providing freebies and cash “incentives”.

• It doesn’t guarantee positive coverage – While there is a real fear that a journalist (extortionist?) may tarnish your name out of revenge (we’ve all heard horror stories), payment doesn’t guarantee positive coverage. Shocking but true. I asked the NGO administrator mentioned at the beginning of this post if she was pleased with the coverage her organisation had been getting. Her response, “They always misquote us, but what can we do?”

• In fact it doesn’t guarantee any coverage  – Before a story is published, it goes through an editor who may be sour because s/he missed his/her cut, or who may be too overwhelmed to notice the newsworthiness of the story, or who for any number of reasons (including lack of space, or more important news) may decide to trash the story.

What do you think?

I’d love to have your thoughts on the issue. What’s your take?