CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the study

It is common knowledge that journalists are professionals trying to do their job of news gathering and dissemination within a code of ethics. And as such professional code of ethics demands there is need for journalists to be objective and fair to all parties involved in any news story.

However, since journalists do not operate in a vacuum, and news is always centered on human beings, they cannot do what they think is right without pressures being put on them. Nowadays due to low salaries, disrespect for professional ethics, poor journalistic training among others, it is common practice to see journalists collecting cash for news, in what has been generally referred to as “gombo”.

Although the meaning of the “gombo or freebies syndrome” might vary contextually, it is often used to connect the little brown envelops delivered confidentially by a source to a reporter on a personal level denoting an informal contract between the source and the reporter where by both parties have certain obligations in the case of the reporter to cover the story in a positive and uncritical manner and jeopardize journalistic or editorial independence, or kill a story in the latter instance, the amount is quite high and it is tantamount to bribery (Skjerdal, 2010).

Acheampong and Jesse (2017) argue that the origin of brown envelope journalism remains mysterious to researchers. Kasoma (2000) suggested the history of brown envelope journalism dates back to the 18th century in the Western journalism. Forbes (2005) stressed that brown envelope journalism may have evolved in the UK in the 1990s.

To earth, Bartlett (1999) said brown envelopes was a critical element in the so-called “cash-for-questions affair”, in which lobbyists allegedly paid two members of the British parliament on behalf of the influential businessman Mohamed Al-Fayed to post specific questions on the agenda for the House of Commons. Forbes further contended The Guardian that exposed the affair in October 1994, reported that the cash was in brown envelopes. Consequently, brown envelopes evolved to mean the equivalence of news sources giving money to journalists.

Vaidya (2008) emphasize that informal incentives and bribes are common in African media practice. This is affirmative, considering that Africa journalists clearly understand the meaning of the word; although they are have different appellation to it.

In Nigeria, the “freebies Syndrome” is expressed in catchy phrases such as “Kela, gbermu, golden handshake, family support, transport” South Africa knows it as “cheque Book”; While in Cameroon it is known as “Gombo or Qua” meanwhile across many developed countries in Europe, it is called “Hospitality” (Skjerdal,2010; Ostunkeye, 2011), but whatever name it is called, the fact remains that this menace adversely affects the profession and its practitioners in varying degrees across the world.

According to Ronning (2009), it appears corruption is imbibed in the daily life of many people in a number of African societies. This course often involves informal exchanges of money, bribes, favours and information which have been institutionalized informally as part of the culture of many organizations, in some cases, even determining interpersonal relationships (Ronning, 2009;, Oshunkeye 2011; Mpagaze 2010).

According to Thembisa Fakude, the head of Research Relations at the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, there have been many incidences in Africa where journalists were bribed to either ignore or white wash certain stories about some politicians, in what has become commonly known as “brown envelope journalism” (Al Jazeera Media Network, 2016).

As opposed to Vaidya (2008), Tsetsura and Kruceberg (2011) argue that illicit payment in journalism practices are known worldwide. For instance, in China, it is called “Red envelope”, in Ukrain, it is described as “Jeansa” while in America, Russia, China and United Kingdom, it is called “Payola”, “Zakazukha”, “Red envelope”, and “Freebies” respectively.

Although, the meaning of the brown envelop might vary contextually, it is often used to connote the;

little brown envelop delivered confidentially by a source to a reporter on a personal level denoting an informal contract between the source and the reporter whereby both parties have certain obligations… in the case of the reporter to cover the story in a positive and uncritical manner (and jeopardize journalistic or editorial independence) … or to kill a story. In the latter instance, the amount is quite high and it is tantamount to bribery (Skjerdal, 2010:369).

Now, globally, the media profession requires journalists who are ethically and morally upright to refuse freebies or “gombo” in order to serve the good of their audiences in that a free and vibrant press is central to the processes of good governance (Vaidya, 2008). Vaidya (2008) quotes, “We pay our own way. We accept no gifts from news sources…” “Gifts in journalism are a form of bribe and should be declined”. Whenever collected, the brown envelope has the power of influencing the judgment of a reporter to distort the definition of news.

Journalism it should be noted, is a veritable workable for information dissemination, social mobilization and control. It is a means of public education and sensitization on important issues affecting the lives of people. The vehicle through which journalists fulfill this obligation to the society is the mass media, which comprise radio, television, films, books, sound recordings, newspapers, magazines, tape recordings, and the news media. In one way or the other, the society depends on the regular content of the mass media for information opinion, entertainment, ideas and a range of other resources.

The mass media serve as a mirror of the society, the conciliator, the gate-keeper of issues and events and as such an important institution in every society. As watchdogs of the society, journalists are expected to bridge the gap between the government and the society. In their actions, they are to be accountable to the members of the society.

However, in recent times, the “gombo or freebies syndrome” seems to be having crippling effects on journalism practice in Cameroon, leading to the decline in quality, values and public morality among journalists in Cameroon. At present, it is said that truth, accuracy, fairness, balance and objectivity are fast becoming fantasies in a place like Fako Division of the South West Region of Cameroonian journalism because of this cankerworm called “gombo”.

Lengel (2010), Hasty (2005) and Sanders (2003), assert that even small gifts given to journalists in the course of covering events, can be categorized as bribery, thus criminalizing the giving and taking process.

The “gombo” syndrome manifests itself in all areas of journalistic practices. For instance, getting journalists to cover events has long required an informal payment of some sort. In addition, getting them to publish stories appears to be no different with “gombo journalism”. The reach of the “gombo syndrome” in journalism seems undeniable even if it has a new form of news communication.

Omenugha and Oji (2010), narrate how the issue of ethical conduct of journalists came up in a workshop that was organized for journalists in Anambra State of the Nigeria, by the state Ministry of Information. The journalists at the workshop made no pretense about their receiving forms of payment for themselves or for their media, houses to publish stories. According to them, how could they do otherwise when they receive poor and irregular salaries, some media houses do not have salary system at all.

Omenugha and Oji (2010) further argue that journalists’ chances of survival depend on how much he or she gets from news sources. They explained that the harsh economic situation has a telling effect on their job. This example is not different from journalism practice here in Cameroon; for the Cameroonian society, they noted is corrupt, thereby increasing their difficulty in being ethical in an “unethical world”, such as Cameroon.

In addition, publishers, they reiterated complain of high cost of production and as such use that as an excuse to deny them their wages.

From the above perspective, it is clear that quite often, those journalists who accept “gombo or freebies” defend their actions with statements such as “if you don’t eat, you starve”; if you cannot beat them, join them”, “eat or you will be eaten” etc…In other words, journalists encourage themselves to make money on their own in whatever manner they deem fit thereby propagating the “gombo syndrome” in journalism.

Journalists cannot afford this kind of false comfort. As watchdogs, Akinfeleye (2007) argues that journalists have the sacred duty to guard and guide the society on the path of equity and fairness, and expose acts of injustice and their perpetrators. In times of peace, journalists are to act as enablers.

Oshunkeye (2011 in Quansah, Ko-gyima & Boateng, 2012:1) says brown envelope is a euphemism for corruption in the media. Borrowing the words of Reverend Jim Bakker, a former American minister of the Assemblies of God Church, Oshunkeye said “corruption, like a virulent cancer, blights what it touches. If it perches on a preacher, it makes him teach the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. Indeed, so devastating is the cancer of corruption that when it afflicts a judge, he stands the law on its head and perverts justice.

In the same manner, in our noble profession of journalism, when a journalist gets hooked on the brown envelope malaise, professionalism and ethics get crucified” Certainly, news values as objectivity, fairness or accuracy are swept under the carpet” (Oshunkeye, 2011 in Quansah , Ko-gyima & Boateng, 2012:1).

Quansah , Ko-gyima and Boateng (2012:1) further note that the perception held by many critics is that brown envelope journalism is venomous to best journalistic practices especially in democratic societies as it influences editorial decision making processes. Lengel, (2000) also equates brown envelope to bribery when she said “the payment of news coverage, so called because payments are reportedly delivered in plain, unmarked brown envelopes.

Such payments are tantamount to bribes. In totality brown envelope undermines the journalist’s independence as the facts of stories are often distorted to suit the interest of news sources that have money to pay for coverage. Journalists and editors who turn up events such as news conferences, workshops, annual general meetings of banks or seminars are those who are paid to run stories for the news sources”.

Quansah, Ko-gyima and Boateng (2012:1) argued that the perception of brown envelope journalism is one that has been extensively discussed by media personnel. According to Ransford Tetteh, President of the Ghana Journalist Association, ethical standard in journalism in Ghana is not the best.

“The demand for money after covering events is a major challenge to professional conduct…debate about soli (short for solidarity) will not end here… This is something we all came to meet” (Tetteh, 2012). He however maintained that the situation where some journalists threaten not to publish a story if they are not paid brown envelope must be discouraged. “Sometimes some of us fight over food, water and even drinks.

This reduces the value people attach to the profession. Let us give our great profession credibility and dignity” (Tetteh, 2012). Besides this, Spence (2008) argued that bribery for news coverage undermines the integrity, and impartiality of media reporting culminating in the widespread practice of fictional news, biased news or news for sale. Thus, it is necessary to identify the effects associated with “gombo” collection in our local context.

Check out: Journalism Project Topics with Materials