Gallup International perception survey done for Transparency International Zimbabwe gives the local media a saddening grading of six out of the ten most corrupt institutions in the country, sharing Mammon’s high table with the police, political parties, parliament, the civil service and the judiciary.
Read More
My experience as a journalist over the years gives me no reason to doubt this; indeed, the cash-for-coverage melanoma is so far-flung it is now dishonest to describe the media as the Fourth Estate.
By saying this, though, I do not intend to place myself in a controversial hyperbole, because I am convinced we still have a notable number of untainted journalists out there. There are those that flinch at the idea of selling a little of media love, out of gained principle; there are those that just do not have the chance to do so; and there are those that do not see it necessary. Yet we have so many who would scramble at the drop of a coin, and these are the lot about whom we should have all reason to grieve.
Bribery, shockingly, afflicts all tiers of the newsroom profile, right from the intern. It is easy for beneficiaries of bribery, chief among them politicians, musicians and artists, CEOs and industry captains as well as celebrities and underground mafia to overawe interns with thin envelopes because they are largely susceptible to that given their greenness. But it becomes more disturbing where more senior journalists and newsroom managers are the culprits, as is the case.
Newsroom bribery adorns two general forms, the direct and indirect. Direct bribery happens when journalists take bribes as gain for writing or spiking stories for the advantage of those that pay. Where stories are written, they are designed to portray an institution, body or personality in positive light or to dilute a crisis. In all cases, journalists overtly or subtly demand the bribes or the beneficiaries make the offer, again directly or subtly.
Indirect cash (or gifts) for coverage is tricky and scrambled, to the extent that, on the surface, it may not appear as though journalists or stables receive favours for positive coverage. There is indirect pressure on newsrooms, as when a corporate body, aware that a media outlet is pursuing a negative story around it, offers to give the stable advertisements. Here, it becomes difficult for the stable to run the damaging story because it needs the money to pay its workers. I know of many journalists who have, preposterously, been fired from their jobs for writing and running stories that attack the stable’s advertiser. The indirect genre also assumes more complex nuances, such as the unusually regular lunch or sundowner or selective promotions of, pay rises or lucrative assignments for journalists on a particular desks.
When you talk to journalists who dabble in bribery, you often get the impression that they are convinced the world owes them a salutary requiem for their despicable disposition. They moan about poor or delayed salaries and tell you that, after all, there is no harm in stashing some small envelope away. But nothing could be farther from the truth, for bribe taking in the media, like anywhere else, is absolutely an ethical abomination, to the extent that it can NEVER be justified. It undermines fundamental ethical values-truth, balance, objectivity, fairness-and leaves the news consumer the poorer. It gives journalism a bad name and takes away the watchdog brand from the profession.
Given the complexity that comes with bribery in the media, particularly as gatekeepers are involved and evidence is mostly hard to extract, is it possible to effectively deal with the malignancy? Yes, it is possible to stem it. Identifying and stunting bribery in the newsroom, though, requires elaborate and cautious approaches and calls on concerted efforts from news people, institutions and members of the public.
An essential step is to gain an appreciation of the signs and symptoms of media love merchandising, for that forms the basis for taking action against the culprits. More often than not, we tend to ignore manifestations of chequebook journalism, and this at our own peril. When a reporter presents a brilliant investigative story idea but later approaches the line editor with all sorts of excuses that he or she cannot proceed with it, there is need for the desk editor to sit back and reflect on what could be happening. There is need to take the reporter’s excuses with a pinch of salt, for it is possible that in the process of gathering information for the story, the journalist might have been given a gift to stop it. It would also be prudent to log the trend of failed diaries proffered by the reporter.
Another vital hint of newsroom bribery is the sudden accumulation of material wealth and a dramatic change in lifestyle among journalists. Generally, local journalists are poorly paid-and this in itself is a driver of corruption-so there is need to raise an eyebrow when a scribe starts changing posh cars and becomes a regular patron of five star hotels.
This is not to say local journalists cannot afford that kind of lifestyle. These days, people have become enterprising and a substantial number does not depend entirely on the miserly employer, to the extent that a junior reporter can own a car far better than that of his editor. Material accumulation becomes an issue when linked to a certain type of reportage, or, as it were, absence of it.
Editors and publishers have every reason to worry when there is an unusual quantum of positive stories on an individual or institution. While following up stories is a golden rule in the newsroom, it becomes suspicious when, for instance, the chief executive of a company becomes a regular feature in a newspaper, and all the time draped in the most superlative reportage-complete with personality profiles-even though he or she could be suffering critical reports elsewhere. In this case, there is need for a sharp eye for puffery disguised as news coverage.
Reporters who get bribes usually combine this stretched reportage with pieces that openly or clandestinely attack other persons or institutions, which could be the briber’s adversaries. Where they cannot help it, maybe because they are avoiding detection, culprits write diluted stories and sometimes deliberately invert pitches to give capital to their cash cows. I will suggest that where a senior reporter, editor or publisher picks up this trend, he or she should also consciously make observations on the reporter’s relationship with suspected beneficiaries. Quite often, journalists give themselves away through frequent visits by bribers to the newsroom, sometimes appearing together regularly at all sorts of places, exchanging cars or even clothes.
I have already hinted that role allocation in the fight against newsroom bribery is complicated since, in some cases, there is need to deploy guards to guard the guards. That means there is no absolute limit to the types of gatekeepers who should be involved in the fight. Below are some of the measures that can be adopted to arrest cases of bribery:
- Kill stories that indicate public relations stunts by reporters, even though there is no concrete evidence suggesting so.
- Summon suspicious reporters and be honest in your discussions with them about your suspicions if you are a line editor, editor or publisher.
- Re-assign stories where there is need.
- Reporters, institutions and members of the public should whistle blow where they detect cases of bribery, or formally making complaints to relevant media institutions, such as the Voluntary Media Council of Zimbabwe (VMCZ).
- Employers need to strictly enforce codes of conduct and take exemplary disciplinary steps where a journalist is found on the wrong side.
- Media organisations and institutions ought to take it upon themselves to conscientise journalists on ethical values through the distribution of codes of ethics, coupling this with training sessions where possible.
This article was first published on www.kubatana.net
Tawanda Majoni
Recent Comments