Uganda’s mainstream media landscape is now tasting the bitter Pangent mulondo-esque horrendous flavour of a government that lingers too long, wrestling with the shadows of control that stifle its little voice. Under the weight of an overreaching government, whose incumbency has kept the national debt growing, hence heavy taxation of almost every sector, the essence of journalism—fairness, balance, and clarity as taught in media school—struggles to breathe, seized in a web of financial sponsorships and heavy state interference. Increased Threats to Freedom of Expression in Uganda, a deeply resourceful report exposes the ‘rotten’ underbelly of the media environment, revealing the alarming challenges that suffocate independent journalism, and we can’t agree any less.
Media owners in Uganda are contending with a complex set of challenges that make it increasingly difficult to operate media businesses effectively. As aforementioned, and as Version1.com suggests, one of the most pressing issues they face is the burden of heavy taxes, particularly income tax, significantly reducing their overall profitability. Netsuite.com states plainly: ‘Media costs are not the straight expenses they used to be when the primary expenses were production costs and media buys to place finished ads. Accounting for media costs is more complicated now with marketing spending spread across many digital platforms… This requires more careful bookkeeping and accounting… as many media are paid based on results…and accurate view of performance.’
Similar to Orina Callen Bosibori’s argument in her research paper to the University of Nairobi we suppose that this overwhelming financial situation is compounded in trying to balance the following: high electricity tariffs; running a media outfit requires substantial daily electricity consumption to power equipment, broadcast signals, and maintain operational facilities. Many media outlets are forced to rely on gallons of petrol and diesel to run generators due to frequent electricity load-shedding, which disrupts power supply and makes it challenging to maintain consistent operations. The need for fuel further escalates operational expenses. Moreover, they must manage employee salaries and other operational costs to keep their teams’ pockets smiling! However, as profits dwindle under the weight of these financial burdens, media owners often find themselves unable to pay competitive salaries. This inability tends to lead to low morale among employees and a decline in the quality of media output and turnover, as overworked staff struggle to put food on the table.
Faced with these overwhelming challenges, many media owners feel compelled to compromise some fundamental principles of journalism to survive in an increasingly tough industry.
This introduces the widespread practice of heavy sponsorship of radio and TV programs and newspaper articles, including news bulletins. Such sponsorship often stems from corporate entities and political figures who effectively ‘buy’ news gatherers to produce even ‘fabricated stories’ about them, whether positive or negative or a mix. Some of the largest corporate advertisers in Uganda include Airtel, MTN, Uganda Breweries Ltd, Nile Breweries, Uganda Lottery, various Hotels, Kituzi drink, Buganda Kumbucha drink, Movit, Unilever, Mukwano Group of Companies, Skypins Tours and Travels, and a cross-section of property dealers, etc. The biggest beneficiaries of this sponsorship include NBS, Bukedde TV, NTV, Sanyuka TV, Spark TV, BBS, Salt Media, Super FM, Galaxy FM, Bukedde FM, and CBS Radio.
When such media houses rely heavily on sponsorships, their ability to report impartially is compromised. Sponsored content often prioritizes the interests of sponsors over objective journalism, unlocking the door to biased reporting; news coverage may favour the sponsor’s agenda, sidelining critical issues and alternative viewpoints that do not align with their interests.
Audiences are increasingly becoming aware of these sponsorships and may perceive news as less credible or trustworthy. Research indicates that groups feeling unfairly covered are less likely to trust the media, which can lead to a broader disengagement from reputable news sources. This erosion of trust undermines the media’s role as a watchdog and diminishes its effectiveness in informing the public.
When Telecom X sponsors XTV’s news bulletin, the financial dependency creates an inherent conflict of interest. If Telecom X faces allegations regarding unfair pricing of call and data tariffs, poor product quality like handsets or data devices, or adverse effects of its infrastructure (like mast towers), XTV may choose not to report these issues. This behaviour stems from a desire to maintain the sponsorship relationship, which is crucial for the station’s revenue. The fear of losing financial support can lead to self-censorship among journalists and editors, resulting in a media landscape where critical issues are overlooked or downplayed.
The failure to report on significant issues related to Telecom X can severely undermine public trust in the media. Audiences perceive XTV as biased or untrustworthy if they notice a pattern of ignoring negative stories about its sponsor. Moreover, if Telecom X’s products are found less satisfying than advertised—such as inflated claims about service quality or reliability—XTV’s credibility is further jeopardized. Viewers may question the integrity of the news outlet, suspecting that it is complicit in misleading advertising rather than serving as an independent source of information. If Telecom X’s sponsorship suppresses critical reporting, it creates an environment where only favourable narratives are presented.
On April 30 2023, The Monitor ran a big slapping story: Gov’t should support rural radio stations! It is an OMGing headline that we shall use to explain the second major trend impacting media integrity in Uganda: the state’s interference in media freedom, which occurs through various overt and covert means. This interference, born out of a certain level of financial desperation on the part of the media, not only compromises journalistic independence but also stifles the diversity of opinions essential for a healthy democracy.
One of the most significant ways the government exerts control over the media is through the licensing process. The state often has the power to grant or deny permits to media outlets, which can lead to a biased media landscape. Outlets that align with government narratives are more likely to receive licenses, while those that challenge or criticize the government may be denied or face bureaucratic hurdles. This creates a chilling effect, discouraging potential new voices from entering the market due to fears of not being granted the necessary permissions to operate.
Once licensed, media outlets often face pressure to adhere to specific content regulations that favour state perspectives. This can include direct censorship—where government officials demand that certain stories be killed or altered—or more subtle forms of pressure, such as informal warnings or threats against journalists who report unfavourably on government actions.
The state may also use legal threats as a tool for intimidation. Felix Osike of New Vision suggests that criminalisation of media offences is unfavourable to media, and yes indeed it is! When laws concerning defamation, sedition, or national security are used against journalists and media houses that dare to publish critical content, the fear of legal repercussions deters journalists from pursuing investigative stories or reporting on issues that could provoke government ire. This legal framework effectively silences dissenting voices and curtails critical reporting.
In more covert ways, state surveillance and harassment have often been creating an atmosphere of fear among journalists, as far as the opposition is concerned. Reports have surfaced of journalists being monitored, harassed, or even detained for their work. Such tactics serve to intimidate not only those directly targeted but also their colleagues who may reconsider their editorial choices in light of potential repercussions.
In Uganda, there are persistent allegations in the corridors of power to the effect that state officials engage in corrupt practices requiring media owners to allocate shares in their companies in exchange for broadcasting licenses. In a country where everything is as bad as it is possible, this arrangement allows government personalities—the big turks to acquire equity in media outlets, enabling them to earn dividends from shares obtained through dubious means.
This corrupt practice creates a troubling dynamic where media outlets become beholden to government interests rather than serving the public good. It goes without saying that media owners, who in such situations are reduced to half-owners, do feel pressured to comply with these demands, effectively turning journalism into a transactional relationship rather than an independent pursuit of truth. As a result, critical reporting is stifled, and the media’s role as a watchdog is compromised, leading to a landscape where the public is deprived of unbiased information essential for informed decision-making. Government officials are slowly, steadily and effectively buying freedom of speech, controlling what the public hears and sees while silencing dissenting voices. By manipulating media narratives, they dictate information flow, regulating the gate-keeping process, and ensuring only state-approved messages reach the masses.
This corruption extends to milking money from private sector players for personal gain. Media owners, desperate to maintain their licenses and financial viability, often comply with demands for favorable coverage, leading to a corrupt cycle where profits are shared with state bigwigs without any tangible investment—essentially reaping where they (state bigwigs) have not sown.
This corruption severely undermines journalistic integrity. When media organizations prioritize the interests of state officials over their commitment to unbiased reporting, the quality of news diminishes. Journalists may be coerced into softening critical stories, omitting important facts, or presenting government narratives without question. This not only distorts public perception but also erodes the fundamental principles of journalism, which hinge on accountability, transparency, and the pursuit of truth.
The implications for investigative journalism are particularly dire. Investigative reporting often requires significant resources and a willingness to challenge powerful entities. However, when media outlets are financially tied to the state through corruption, they may shy away from pursuing stories that could expose wrongdoing or inefficiency within government operations. This lack of accountability allows corruption and mismanagement to flourish unchecked, further damaging public trust in both the media and governmental institutions.
In the end we all need to hum ‘Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya‘ for our beloved mainstream media.
