|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The International Transport Forum (ITF) is offering to cover travel
costs and accommodation for a limited number of journalists from
non-European countries ( http://www.eltis.org
/discover/news/travel-grant- journalists-attend-transport-
ministers-summit- 0#sthash.VXhNrOxJ.dpuf). In our local parlance, the
ITF can be said to be offering "soli" to the journalists.
Is this offer of soli to journalists from less wealthy nations an
unethical practice, designed to corrupt them? Or is it a subsidy that
enhances information flow?
This is the essence of the debate that has engaged the minds of many
commentators in the last few days. It is fair to say that the
preponderance of the comments have taken a negative view of soli,
consistent with the position taken by the British High Commissioner in
his speech delivered at the IMANI event. Notwithstanding the avalanche
of criticisms, I am afraid that the case against 'soli' has not been
made. Soli, as used here and in the debate, refers to travel and
transport paid by an event organizer to journalists who cover the
event. It has three distinctive attributes: (i) it is a voluntary
payment by the event organizer; (ii) it is not conditional on type of
coverage; (iii) it is paid to all journalists.
Two mutually exclusive propositions have emerged from the debate: (1)
soli is inherently/incurably bad and unethical. As such, it must be
banned; (2) Soli is not inherently or incurably bad. In fact, it can
improve information flow. However, the soli process should be
improved. The first proposition appears to be the majority view.
The propositions are mutually exclusive because one cannot embrace
both, as some have done or attempted to do. For instance, one cannot
hold the view that soli is bad and must be banned at the same time
that one advocates that the soli process must be made more
transparent.
Transparency cannot cure a practice that is inherently bad or
unethical. Consider the payment of a contingent fee to the media
(i.e., I will pay you if you report a news item a certain way). That
is not just inherently unethical and unlawful but more important it
cannot be cured by being made transparent.
An inherently unethical practice cannot be clothed with propriety by
making it transparent. No amount of transparency or issuing receipts
will make bribing a policeman acceptable. According to Samson Lardy,
"soli is soli is soli." This is apposite and carries with it the
implication that soli cannot sometimes be a corrupt practice and
sometimes a best practice. As such, making soli payments transparent
or advertising its availability, as done by ITF, does not cure its
defect.
According to the majority proposition, the defect is fatal!
In contrast, I take the minority view that soli is not inherently a
corrupt practice. In fact, it is used everywhere in the world. In a
country like Ghana, where the media houses are poor, an anti soli
policy will actually worsen, not improve, corruption by shutting down
critical avenues to information.
While the condemnation of soli has been widespread, I find that nobody
has made a persuasive case that it is per se unethical or unlawful for
an organizer of an event to cover a journalist's travel and transport
expenses, especially where such coverage is publicly announced, is
directed to strengthening most, if not all, of our impoverished media
houses and is not conditional upon the nature of the coverage.
Still, I believe that the soli process can be improved. For instance,
the soli giver must preannounce the soli policy and identify all those
who are eligible for its enjoyment.
Moreover, the soli giver must advise the media houses of any soli
payments made to journalists to avoid double dipping (i.e., where the
journalist collects soli from both the event organizer and the
employer). Capping the amount that is paid for soli or indexing it to
the number of miles that the journalist must travel to cover the event
or even to the financial muscle of the media house are other ways to
improve the process.
In my opinion, the soli debate masks an important corrupt practice,
which I refer to as "tapoli." Tapoli is the bribing of a journalist to
procure a favorable coverage of a story or to disseminate misleading
information.
Tapoli is both unethical and criminal and serves no useful social
purposes. Tapoli corrupts journalists, poisons the information as
well, has no place in our society and those who practice it must be
pursued and punished. But tapoli is not to be confused with soli.
Soli differs from tapoli in several important respects. First, soli is
typically paid by NGOs (or other event organizers) who seek to draw
attention of the general public to topics that they address in
workshops or other capacity building activities. Second, soli payers
have little interest in influencing the content of the story to be
carried by the journalists as long as the event is publicized.
Frequently, sponsors of the NGO have stipulated such media coverage as
a condition precedent to funding the workshop. Third, soli is paid to
all attending journalists and is not conditioned on the content of
their coverage.
Hence, soli is not a contingent payment. Fourth, soli seeks to enhance
information flow and to improve the information environment. Fifth,
soli is small in magnitude and is normally put in a white envelope.
Au contraire, tapoli is typically paid by a "big man," or criminal who
seeks to make up or kill a story.
The story could involve the fabrication of negative news about a
political opponent, masking a fraud, a corrupt business/ political
practice, or covering up a criminal act. It follows that the main
rational for tapoli payments is to influence the content of the story.
By their very nature, tapoli involves covert operations, as such an
open to all payment will undermine the operation. Thus, tapoli is not
paid to all journalists. Given the sophistry required to execute the
fabrication or killing of a story, only seasoned journalists are
tapped for such missions. Thus, tapoli is a contingent payment and is
per se illegal. Clearly, tapoli seeks to poison the information well
by providing false information or suppressing truthful information.
Tapoli tends to be large in magnitude and is put in a brown envelope.
The current emphasis on soli is misplaced and can lead to policies
that reduce information flow, which can worsen the media landscape.
The proper emphasis should be put on identifying, prosecuting,
punishing and eliminating tapoli payments to journalists. Focusing on
soli, rather than tapoli, trivializes the real problem in our media
landscape.
Credit: S. Kwaku Asare
First published on Myjoyonline.com
