DEVELOPMENT

OF SUSTAINABLE

INDEPENDENT MEDIA

IN africa

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY

INDEX2008

sudan

rwanda

zimbabwe

somaliland

niger

republic of congo

senegal

democratic republic of congo

togo

tanzania

nigeria

sierra leone

namibia

uganda

gabon

benin

zambia

south africa

mozambique

botswana

burkina faso

burundi

cameroon

somalia

central african republic

chad

côte d’ivoire

djibouti

equatorial guinea

eritrea

ethiopia

the gambia

liberia

ghana

guinea

kenya

madagascar

malawi

mali

mauritania

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY

INDEX2008

The Development of Sustainable Independent Media in Africa

ii

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008

The Development of Sustainable Independent Media in Africa

www.irex.org/msi

Copyright © 2009 by IREX

IREX

2121 K Street, NW, Suite 700

Washington, DC 20037

E-mail: msi@irex.org

Phone: (202) 628-8188

Fax: (202) 628-8189

www.irex.org

Project manager: Leon Morse

IREX Project and Editorial Support: Andy Mosher, Lillie Paquette, Mark Whitehouse, Blake

Saville

Copyeditors: Carolyn Feola de Rugamas, Carolyn.Ink; Kelly Kramer, WORDtoWORD Editorial

Services; OmniStudio

Design and layout: OmniStudio

Printer: Kirby Lithographic Company, Inc.

Notice of Rights: Permission is granted to display, copy, and distribute the MSI in whole

or in part, provided that: (a) the materials are used with the acknowledgement “The Media

Sustainability Index (MSI) is a product of IREX with funding from USAID.”; (b) the MSI is used

solely for personal, noncommercial, or informational use; and (c) no modifications of the MSI are

made.

Acknowledgment: This publication was made possible through support provided by the

United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Cooperative Agreement No.

#DFD-A-00-05-00243 (MSI-MENA) via a Task Order by the Academy for Educational Development.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those of the panelists and other project

researchers and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or IREX.

ISSN 1546-0878

iii

USAID

USAID is an independent federal government agency that receives overall foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State.

Their work supports long-term and equitable economic growth and advances US foreign policy objectives by supporting:

• economic growth, agriculture and trade;

• global health; and,

• democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance.

USAID provides assistance in five regions of the world:

• Sub-Saharan Africa

• Asia

• Latin America and the Caribbean

• Europe and Eurasia

• The Middle East

With headquarters in Washington, DC, USAID’s strength is its field offices around the world. USAID works in close partnership

with private voluntary organizations, indigenous organizations, universities, American businesses, international agencies, other

governments, and other US government agencies. USAID has working relationships with more than 3,500 American companies

and over 300 US-based private voluntary organizations.

IREX

IREX is an international nonprofit organization providing leadership and innovative programs to improve the quality of educa-

tion, strengthen independent media, and foster pluralistic civil society development.

Founded in 1968, IREX has an annual portfolio of over $60 million and a staff of 500 professionals worldwide. IREX and its

partner IREX Europe deliver cross-cutting programs and consulting expertise in more than 100 countries.

Implementing Partners

IREX wishes to thank the following organizations that coordinated the fieldwork for and authored a number of the studies

herein:

Academy for Peace and Development (Somaliland) http://www.apd-somaliland.org/

The Inter Africa Network for Women, Media, Gender and Development (Senegal)

Journaliste en Danger (Democratic Republic of Congo) http://www.jed-afrique.org/

Liberia Media Center http://liberiamediacenter.net/

Media Foundation for West Africa (Ghana) http://www.mediafound.org/

Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe http://www.mmpz.org/

Multi-Service Information Systems Madagascar

National Union of Somali Journalists http://www.nusoj.org/

Sol Plaatje Institute for Media Leadership, Rhodes University School of Journalism and Media Studies (South Africa)

http://www.spiml.co.za/

AAFRICA

TAB

LE OF C

ON

TENTS

v

Introduction ..................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary .......................................................................................... ix

Methodology ..................................................................................................xvii

AfricaBenin .................................................................................................................. 3

Botswana ......................................................................................................... 13

Burkina Faso .................................................................................................... 27

Burundi ............................................................................................................ 37

Cameroon ........................................................................................................ 45

Central African Republic ................................................................................. 55

Chad ................................................................................................................. 63

Democratic Republic of Congo ...................................................................... 71

Republic of Congo .......................................................................................... 81

Côte d’Ivoire .................................................................................................... 89

Djibouti ............................................................................................................ 99

Equatorial Guinea ......................................................................................... 107

Eritrea ............................................................................................................ 115

Ethiopia .......................................................................................................... 123

Gabon ............................................................................................................ 135

The Gambia ................................................................................................... 143

Ghana ............................................................................................................. 157

Guinea ............................................................................................................ 167

Kenya ............................................................................................................. 179

Liberia ............................................................................................................ 189

Madagascar ................................................................................................... 201

Malawi ........................................................................................................... 213

Mali ................................................................................................................ 225

Mauritania ..................................................................................................... 235

Mozambique ................................................................................................. 247

Namibia .......................................................................................................... 259

Niger .............................................................................................................. 269

Nigeria ........................................................................................................... 279

Rwanda .......................................................................................................... 291

Senegal .......................................................................................................... 301

Sierra Leone ................................................................................................... 313

Somalia .......................................................................................................... 325

Somaliland ..................................................................................................... 333

South Africa ................................................................................................... 345

Sudan ............................................................................................................. 357

Tanzania ......................................................................................................... 367

Togo ............................................................................................................... 375

Uganda .......................................................................................................... 383

Zambia ........................................................................................................... 393

Zimbabwe ...................................................................................................... 405

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008vi

Although many panels pointed out the effects of government or economic

pressures on the editorial integrity of media outlets, some panels recognized

that this was a two-way street. While the media are pressured to serve a

political or business master, they also accept this fate, and often too easily.

vii

INTRODUCTIONIN

TRO

DU

CTIO

N

INTRODUCTION

II am pleased to introduce the 2008 Africa Media Sustainability Index (MSI), the second such study of the region. The MSI provides an analysis of the media environment in 40 countries of Sub-Saharan Africa during 2008. The MSI was first conceived in 2000 and launched in Europe and Eurasia in 2001, in cooperation with

the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Since that time, it has become a universally

recognized reference for benchmarking and assessing changes in media systems across Africa, Europe and

Eurasia, and the Middle East.

The MSI allows policymakers and implementers to analyze media systems and determine the areas in which

media development assistance can improve citizens’ access to news and information. Armed with knowledge,

citizens can help improve the quality of governance through participatory and democratic mechanisms, and

help government and civil society actors devise solutions to pervasive issues such as poverty, healthcare,

conflict, and education.

The MSI also provides important information for the media and media advocates in each country and region.

The MSI reflects the expert opinions of media professionals in each country and its results inform the media

community, civil society, and governments of the strengths and weaknesses of the sector. IREX continues to

encourage professionals in their vital efforts at developing independent and sustainable media in their own

countries or, in many cases, preserving alternative voices in the face of repressive governments.

IREX would like to thank all those who contributed to the publication of the Media Sustainability Index

2008. Participants, moderators, authors, and observers for each country, listed after each chapter, provided

the primary analysis for this project. At IREX, Leon Morse managed the MSI with editorial and administrative

assistance from Blake Saville and Lillie Paquette. USAID has been a consistent supporter of the MSI, helping

to develop the project and ensure its ongoing implementation.

We hope you will find this report useful, and we welcome any feedback.

Sincerely,

W. Robert Pearson

President, IREX

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008viii

Partisan speech is an acceptable component of a free press and, more broadly,

freedom of speech. Nonetheless, a plurality of media outlets with independent

and balanced voices goes a long way toward insulating the media as a whole

from direct political pressure.

ix

EXEC

UTIv

E SUM

MA

RY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIvE SUMMARY

TThe 2008 edition of the Africa Media Sustainability Index (MSI) includes 40 individual studies, up from 37 nations in the 2006/2007 edition. The latest report adds studies from Gabon and Liberia, plus a separate study for Somaliland. Being the second MSI study of the region, it is too soon to draw development

trajectories for the media in these countries, individually or as a whole.

This edition of the Africa MSI does show some noteworthy developments, however. For example, several

of the countries in southern Africa, the overall leaders last year, experienced reductions in their scores.

Objective 5, Supporting Institutions, last year’s strongest objective overall, suffered a similar decline.

Objective 2, Professional Journalism, and Objective 4, Business Management, the two weakest objectives

last year, improved in many countries but their continent-wide averages remained the same.

A number of common themes also emerged from our diverse panels. In particular, panelists discussed

the relationship between the media, government, and the public. Although many panels pointed out

the effects of government or economic pressures on the editorial integrity of media outlets, some panels

recognized that this was a two-way street. While the media are pressured to serve a political or business

master, they also accept this fate, and often too easily. The result is that their standing with the public

comes into question. In at least one panel discussion, panelists recommended that the media act more like

businesses in their external relations and less like public relations firms.

Our analysis below is both quantitative and qualitative, but it is not intended to be exhaustive, and

neither are any of the recommendations made here. The MSI is designed to serve as a summary of overall

developments, and a starting point for further research by local media practitioners, international media

development workers, academics, and others. IREX intends for the MSI results to serve as one tool in the

diverse conversation about media development, and to support advocacy efforts aimed at improving the

media’s ability to inform the public in the countries under study. To that end, IREX provides all previous

editions of the MSI and spreadsheets with combined scoring data on its website, www.irex.org/msi.

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008x

Developments in the Objectives

As an overall average, scores for Africa did not change

remarkably between the 2006/2007 and 2008 editions.

The continental average fell by a slight 0.03 points, with

18 countries slipping in their scores, 11 gaining, and eight

remaining unchanged. The performance on most of the

objectives mirrored the overall performance.

Objective 1, Freedom of Speech, gained slightly, up 0.04, with

an equal number of countries (11) gaining and losing strength,

and the balance remaining unchanged. Panelists complained of

many of the same problems as last year, particularly the uneven

application of laws. While praising, in most cases, the laws as

written, panelists frequently detailed the capricious application

of justice by government officials, who ignored laws and

implement statutes that contravene constitutional guarantees.

Harassment of and attacks on journalists continued to be a

problem, although several panels suggested such instances

are becoming less frequent. Unfortunately, others reported

an increase in such cases, chiefly in countries that had suffered

some kind of political instability over the past year. Most panels

pointed to freedom of information as not improving.

Freedom of the media to access and use foreign news reports

in their domestic reporting remained a strong indicator, as did

access to the journalism profession. However, in the case of

the latter, a few panels reported attempts by the authorities

to regulate who may practice journalism. Broadcast licensing

appears to be improving in its professionalism to a limited

degree. Libel, although still subject to criminal fines and even

jail in many countries, seemed to be relied upon less in some

countries as a means to pressure the media (or more cases are

settled without the intervention of courts), although in others

it is still used as a way to cow the media.

Staying relatively strong, Objective 3, Plurality of News,

generally received higher scores from panelists and its

continent-wide average was 2.00. Panelists pointed to

familiar strengths, such as multiple sources of news—even

if they were sometimes disappointed in the variety of

viewpoints and depth of news—and citizens’ ability to freely

access media. Many independent broadcasters do produce

their own news and that differentiates them from sources

generated by the state.

However, the duality between plurality of media in cities

and paucity in rural areas is not being addressed sufficiently.

Panelists almost universally point out the difficulties citizens in

small towns and the rural areas have in accessing any type of

media, new or old. Further, news agencies at the national level

seem to be suffering, and more and more may become extinct

in the future. State broadcasting was a mixed bag, as some

panels reported improvement in balance, while others seemed

to think that content was edging more toward propaganda.

Last year’s two lowest-scoring objectives, Objective

2, Professional Journalism, and Objective 4, Business

Management, stayed in the lowest spots again this year.

Although the continental average for each barely changed,

the scores of more countries improved or stayed the same

rather than fell. Nonetheless, panelists pointed to the same

mutually reinforcing negative attributes that keep the

media from moving forward. Specifically, weak economies

and a small pool of advertisers create reliance on business

or political patrons who expect positive coverage in return.

In such a situation, truly independent reporting is difficult

to sustain, even if a cadre of well-trained journalists exists.

And biased reporting pulls the media into the political fray,

typically with negative consequences. This issue is described

below in more detail.

One positive development is that more panels described

the use of market research by their media, even if it is still

rudimentary. Although media are not yet fully using this

data to inform strategic planning, there is at least, it would

appear, a growing awareness and desire to tailor content to

citizens’ interests.

Objective 5, Supporting Institutions, suffered the worst loss in

overall score. In 19 countries the score fell, for a total average

loss of 0.14. To put this in context, the next largest change in

the continental average was -0.04 for Objective 3 and 0.04

for Objective 1. Panelists generally criticized the ability of

professional associations to create real change, and pointed

to, in many cases, the absence of active trade associations.

A number of factors contribute to the inability of strong

associations to develop, such as political divisions, competition,

adversarial relations between owners and journalists, and a

lack of resources. Likewise, supporting NGOs, although these

do exist in most countries and often make valiant efforts,

have a hard time achieving lasting success in their attempts to

further civic freedoms, including freedom of the press. Finally,

civil society organizations will struggle if their governments’

support is only lukewarm—or simply antithetical—to including

citizen points of view in their decision-making.

Panelists in Namibia indicated that the emergence of an opposition political party generated more government focus on the media; they also complained about coverage of the opposition party in the publicly supported media and fairness in the distribution of broadcast licenses.

xi

Notable Country Developments

Perhaps the most surprising change in country scores came

from several of the countries in southern Africa, namely

Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Zambia. As a group,

last year they had the some of the highest scores, not only

in Africa but also in the three regions studied by the MSI.

Most of them are still in the category of top-scoring African

countries, but it is somewhat alarming that they all received

such downgrades.

These lower scores were backed up by observations of

the panelists, including returning panelists who mostly

downgraded their scores in line with the panels as a whole.

Generally speaking, panelists pointed to increasing political

pressure as the main reason for these declines, and the

pressure had repercussions not only on freedom of speech, but

on most other aspects of the media.

To explain its lower scores, Botswana’s panel cited new

legislation designed to protect national security that allows

the government to erode freedoms of the press and chip away

at issues of media ownership. Panelists in Namibia indicated

that the emergence of an opposition political party generated

more government focus on the media; they also complained

about coverage of the opposition party in the publicly

supported media and fairness in the distribution of broadcast

licenses. In South Africa the run-up to the presidential election

took its toll on the media, as well. In particular, panelists

noted concerns about on-going scandals with the public

broadcaster, including the blacklisting of journalists critical

of the ruling party. Zambia still suffers from the stalled

conversion of its state broadcaster into a public one, and

media reporting critical stories are suffering harassment and

threats of government closure.

Political turmoil lowered scores in Kenya and Madagascar. Of

particular concern for the panelists in Kenya is the fear that

both opposition and ruling party politicians are beginning

to work together to silence independent voices in the

media. The proof of this for the panelists was the passage of

harsh legislation intended to heavily regulate the media. In

Madagascar, a sharp political rivalry between the president

and mayor of Antananarivo was already impacting the media

when the panel discussion was held; in the first quarter of

2009 it resulted in the ouster of the president by the army.

On a positive note, Niger passed legislation allowing the

expansion of private broadcast media and lifting restrictions

that prevented community radio stations from broadcasting

news programs. Also, Malawi and Tanzania both showed solid

growth. Panelists in Malawi were optimistic after the media

exposed instances of corruption and the government took

corrective action as a result. In Tanzania panelists pointed to

improvements in broadcast licensing and balance in the bulk

of reporting.

Journalism Quality and the Media’s Relationships

Reading the studies herein, some common themes begin

to emerge that expose pressure points on the media and

its ability to serve as the “fourth estate.” Identifying these

pressure points can be one way to begin to unravel the

problems facing the media sector. However, the pressure

points can sometimes be self-inflicted, even if brought on out

of necessity.

Real or alleged ethical or other abuses by some media outlets

are not a valid excuse for a government to limit media

freedom. In fact, actions taken by governments to limit press

freedom typically slow the media’s progress toward better

practices and can reinforce bad habits.

However, media professionals at all levels can still choose the

tone, content, and adherence to good journalism practices

and ethics in their reports. In deciding to be partisan, a media

outlet enters the political fray, which in some countries

is a dangerous business. Partisan speech is an acceptable

component of a free press and, more broadly, freedom

of speech. Nonetheless, a plurality of media outlets with

independent and balanced voices goes a long way toward

insulating the media as a whole from direct political pressure.

In many countries the media have decided not to, or have

been unable to choose to, transcend overt partisanship.

Further, partisan reporting often leads to gross violations

of ethics. This makes media outlets and journalists an easy

target for lawsuits, which are typically presided over by a

non-independent judiciary. Many examples exist of good

reporting resulting in a journalist on the losing side of a lawsuit,

facing fines or jail time. However, it is much more difficult to

generate the sympathy of one’s professional colleagues, not to

mention the public at-large, if one is being persecuted while

also flagrantly violating standards of journalism.

EXECUTIvE SUMMARY

Freedom of the media to access and use foreign news reports in their domestic reporting remained a strong indicator, as did access to the journalism profession. However, in the case of the latter, a few panels reported attempts by the authorities to regulate who may practice journalism.

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008xii

A panelist in Madagascar gave an example of how such

reporting further creates ill will between the media and

government. Journalists reporting on the resignation of a

senior government official characterized it as “desertion.”

The panelist noted how this increased the government’s

mistrust of journalists. A panelist from the Central African

Republic said that the private press there covers “all the

major issues, but it also excels at wheeling and dealing, and

presents black as white, especially on political issues, in order

to sell more copies.”

One of the key obstacles to better reporting—freedom of

information—is clearly in the hands of the government.

Officials who suborn corruption and misuse public funds are

unlikely to release reliable public information to the media.

Until they do, this will continue to be a serious impediment

to the work of journalists. For example, a panelist from

Guinea offered this insight: “When you contact an office,…

you will be sent from one official to the other, and eventually

you will not get reliable information. So then, we must use

euphemisms and rely on rumors, because we still need to

write something.” Regimes bent on silencing critical voices

rely on this shortcoming as a way to prove media outlets are

unreliable because they print inaccurate information about an

official or government agency.

Lackluster or unethical reporting also diminishes the public’s

trust in the media and the value it places on media products.

A panelist in the Central African Republic noted that

journalists “do not treat key events and issues as they should.

Often they do not check their information, and they are not

fair. The result is that their intentions seem malicious, harmful,

and dishonest.”

Further, media outlets need to make an effort to cover a

range of issues beyond politics and government programs to

win public support. The Zambia study concluded, “Journalists

do not know what is key. They fail to identify issues worth

reporting, and simply report on who has said what. For

example, issues dealing with environmental degradation

and rising food prices rarely find space in the media, unless

another news source reports on them.” This latter point is

important, as it implies that one good media outlet can create

a more vibrant media sector by serving as a news leader.

Others will likely follow to remain competitive.

Even if good reporting happens, it often never sees the light

of day. A panelist from the Central African Republic explained,

“Journalists showing professionalism may be fired because

they bother the shady sponsors of the respective media.”

Developing a more solid business footing is one way media

can empower themselves and become less dependent on a

few powerful advertisers or sponsors.

One step the media can take is to change their perceptions

of their place in the local business environment. Rather than

serving as a public-relations vehicle for politicians or key

businesses, as many do, they should think more as a business.

By adopting a business approach to running its operation,

many outlets could help bring the media closer to normalized

business operations.

The panelists in Niger demonstrated one of the things that

frequently hold the media back, the inability to look past

competitive rivalry and secure better conditions for the

industry as a whole. “While it is the [Higher Communications

Council’s] responsibility to regulate the advertising market,

media managers can also take collective initiatives. On this

point, Ameth, the manager of Multi-Com advertising agency,

tried to show the panelists that the situation could change

very easily if media managers should agree to negotiate with

communication agencies and advertising departments. But his

proposition was not considered appropriate by some of the

panelists, who did not hide their distrust of go-betweens.”

In addition, media in most countries in Africa—for that matter

most countries the MSI studies—have not adopted practices

that facilitate solid business-to-business relationships. The

Niger discussion continued: “That crisis of trust would also be

overcome if reliable statistical data concerning the media—

such as audience ratings, print runs, and sales figures—were

regularly processed and made available to the public. But such

data is unavailable, making it difficult even for advertisers

to decide wisely which media outlets they should choose as

carriers for their messages.”

Enhancing the performance and sustainability of a media

sector is complicated, with many actors influencing the

outcome, some intractable in their opposition to reform.

However, serious media outlets, on their own, can

make choices that improve their chances of openly and

professionally informing the public.

For example, a panelist from Guinea offered this insight: “When you contact an office,…you will be sent from one official to the other, and eventually you will not get reliable information. So then, we must use euphemisms and rely on rumors, because we still need to write something.”

xiiiEXECUTIvE SUMMARY

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE NEAR SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008: OVERALL AVERAGE SCORES

□□ Eritrea (0.26) □c Eq. Guinea (0.79)

□b Cent. Afr. Rep. (1.47)□□ Djibouti (1.38)□b Ethiopia (1.35)□b Sudan (1.47)□c Zimbabwe (1.15)

□c Burundi (1.95)□c Cameroon (1.55)□c Chad (1.76)□b D. R. Congo (1.73)□b Rep. Congo (1.63)

Gabon (1.81)□□ The Gambia (1.68)□c Mali (1.97)□b Mauritania (1.93)□c Somalia (1.52)

Somaliland (1.83)□c Togo (1.56)□c Zambia (1.89)

□□ Benin (2.23)□c Botswana (2.34)□b Burkina Faso (2.14)□c Côte d’Ivoire (2.01)□c Ghana (2.45)□□ Guinea (2.21)□c Kenya (2.13)

Liberia (2.04)□c Madagascar (2.01)□b Malawi (2.47)□□ Mozambique (2.19)□c Namibia (2.50)□□ Niger (2.03)□c Nigeria (2.04)□b Rwanda (2.40)□c Senegal (2.07)□b Sierra Leone (2.16)□b Tanzania (2.43)□□ Uganda (2.43) □c South Africa (2.77)

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE NEAR SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008: FREEDOM OF SPEECH

□□ Eritrea (0.14)□c Zimbabwe (0.49)

□c Cameroon (1.31)□b The Gambia (1.38)□c Eq. Guinea (1.11)□b Ethiopia (1.36)□□ Somalia (1.32)□b Sudan (1.47)

□c Chad (1.91)□b D.R. Congo (1.76)□b Rep. Congo (1.72)□□ Djibouti (1.54)

Gabon (1.99)□□ Madagascar (1.98)□b Mauritania (1.97)□c Nigeria (1.58)□□ Zambia (1.98)

□c Benin (2.28)□□ Burkina Faso (2.23)□□ Burundi (2.13)□b Cent. Afr. Rep. (2.03)□c Côte d’Ivoire (2.10)□□ Guinea (2.15)□□ Kenya (2.08)

Liberia (2.24)□b Malawi (2.46)□c Mali (2.37)□□ Mozambique (2.27)□c Niger (2.10)□□ Senegal (2.02)□□ Sierra Leone (2.36)

Somaliland (2.11)□b Togo (2.43)□□ Uganda (2.36)

□□ Botswana (2.60)□□ Ghana (2.67)□c Namibia (2.58)□b Rwanda (2.69)□b Tanzania (2.65) □c South Africa (3.17)

CHANGE SINCE 2006/2007b (increase greater than .10) □ (little or no change) c (decrease greater than .10)

IREX included Gabon, Liberia, and Somaliland for the first time in the current edition.

Scores for 2006/2007 are available online at http://www.irex.org/programs/MSI_Africa/20067/index.asp

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008xiv

CHANGE SINCE 2006/2007b (increase greater than .10) □ (little or no change) c (decrease greater than .10)

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE NEAR SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008: PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM

□c Eq. Guinea (0.84)□b Eritrea (0.51)□□ Zimbabwe (0.95)

□b D.R. Congo (1.40)□b Rep. Congo (1.48)□c Côte d’Ivoire (1.48)□□ Djibouti (1.43)□c Ethiopia (1.47)□c Sudan (1.42)□c Togo (1.30)

□b Burkina Faso (1.86)□c Cameroon (1.51)□b Cent. Afr. Rep. (1.63)

Gabon (1.60)□□ The Gambia (1.96)

Liberia (1.95)□□ Mali (1.85)□b Mauritania (1.98)□□ Nigeria (1.89)□c Somalia (1.52)

Somaliland (1.64)□c Zambia (1.84)

□□ Benin (2.04)□c Botswana (2.33)□c Burundi (2.06)□b Chad (2.03)□b Ghana (2.20)□b Guinea (2.20)□c Kenya (2.08)□□ Madagascar (2.01)□b Malawi (2.31)□□ Mozambique (2.06)□c Namibia (2.16)□b Niger (2.02)□b Rwanda (2.30)□□ Senegal (2.09)□b Sierra Leone (2.04)□b Tanzania (2.08)□□ Uganda (2.28) □c South Africa (2.61)

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE NEAR SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008: PLURALITY OF NEWS SOURCES

□□ Eritrea (0.25)

□c Eq. Guinea (0.80)□b Zimbabwe (0.84)

□c Djibouti (1.35)□b Ethiopia (1.38)□c Togo (1.46)

□□ Cameroon (1.91)□□ Cent. Afr. Rep. (1.52)□c Chad (1.54)□c Rep. Congo (1.94)□□ The Gambia (1.82)□c Somalia (1.65)

Somaliland (1.87)□b Sudan (1.61)

□c Benin (2.43)□c Botswana (2.21)□b Burkina Faso (2.17)□□ Burundi (2.21)□b D.R. Congo (2.17)□□ Côte d’Ivoire (2.33)

Gabon (2.38)□c Ghana (2.47)□□ Guinea (2.43)□c Kenya (2.04)

Liberia (2.02)□c Madagascar (2.06)□c Mali (2.09)□b Mauritania (2.02)□□ Mozambique (2.34)□c Namibia (2.49)□□ Niger (2.23)□□ Nigeria (2.12)□c Senegal (2.30)□b Sierra Leone (2.26)□c Zambia (2.02)

□b Malawi (2.58)□□ Rwanda (2.78)□c South Africa (2.59)□b Tanzania (2.59)□□ Uganda (2.56)

IREX included Gabon, Liberia, and Somaliland for the first time in the current edition.

Scores for 2006/2007 are available online at http://www.irex.org/programs/MSI_Africa/20067/index.asp

xvEXECUTIvE SUMMARY

CHANGE SINCE 2006/2007b (increase greater than .10) □ (little or no change) c (decrease greater than .10)

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE NEAR SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

□b Eq. Guinea (0.47)□c Eritrea (0.14) □b Cent. Afr. Rep. (0.84)

□□ Benin (1.35)□□ Burundi (1.27)□□ Cameroon (1.33)□b Chad (1.37)□b D.R. Congo (1.32)□b Rep. Congo (1.37)□c Djibouti (1.18)□c Ethiopia (1.43)

Gabon (1.07)□□ Niger (1.46)□b Sierra Leone (1.48)□b Somalia (1.45)□b Togo (1.04)□c Zambia (1.40)

□b Burkina Faso (1.81)□c Côte d’Ivoire (1.70)□c The Gambia (1.52)□c Guinea (1.95)

Liberia (1.55)□c Madagascar (1.88)□b Mali (1.62)□b Mauritania (1.76)□□ Mozambique (1.91)□c Senegal (1.57)

Somaliland (1.54)□b Sudan (1.58)□c Zimbabwe (1.58)

□b Botswana (2.21)□c Ghana (2.13)□c Kenya (2.21)□b Malawi (2.43)□c Nigeria (2.24)□□ Rwanda (2.04)□b Tanzania (2.21)□b Uganda (2.25)

□c Namibia (2.63)□c South Africa (2.76)

UNSUSTAINABLE UNSUSTAINABLE NEAR SUSTAINABLE ANTI-FREE PRESS MIXED SYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY

0 – 0.50 0.51 – 1.00 1.01 – 1.50 1.51 – 2.00 2.01 – 2.50 2.51 – 3.00 3.01 – 3.50 3.51 – 4.00

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008: SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS

□□ Eritrea (0.25) □c Eq. Guinea (0.73)

□c Cent. Afr. Rep. (1.35)□b Djibouti (1.38)□c Ethiopia (1.08)□□ Sudan (1.29)

□c Cameroon (1.68)□c Chad (1.93)□c D.R. Congo (2.00)□□ Rep. Congo (1.63)□□ The Gambia (1.69)□c Mali (1.94)□b Mauritania (1.92)□c Somalia (1.67)□□ Togo (1.58) □□ Zimbabwe (1.89)

□c Botswana (2.34)□c Burundi (2.07)□□ Côte d’Ivoire (2.43)

Gabon (2.02)□c Guinea (2.31)□c Kenya (2.25)

Liberia (2.44)□c Madagascar (2.11)□□ Mozambique (2.37)□b Niger (2.35)□c Nigeria (2.38)□b Rwanda (2.19)□c Senegal (2.40)

Somaliland (2.01)□c Zambia (2.20)

□b Burkina Faso (2.64)□c Ghana (2.79)□b Malawi (2.55)□b Namibia (2.66)□b Sierra Leone (2.66)□c South Africa (2.72)□□ Tanzania (2.63)□□ Uganda (2.67) □□ Benin (3.07)

IREX included Gabon, Liberia, and Somaliland for the first time in the current edition.

Scores for 2006/2007 are available online at http://www.irex.org/programs/MSI_Africa/20067/index.asp

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008xvi

The continental average fell by a slight 0.03 points, with 18 countries slipping

in their scores, 11 gaining, and eight remaining unchanged.

xvii

I METHO

DO

LOG

Y

METHODOLOGY

METHODOLOGY

IREX prepared the Media Sustainability Index (MSI) in cooperation with the United States Agency for

International Development (USAID) as a tool to assess the development of independent media systems over

time and across countries. IREX staff, USAID, and other media development professionals contributed to the

development of this assessment tool.

The MSI assesses five “objectives” in shaping a successful media system:

1. Legal and social norms protect and promote free speech and access to public information.

2. Journalism meets professional standards of quality.

3. Multiple news sources provide citizens with reliable and objective news.

4. Independent media are well-managed businesses, allowing editorial independence.

5. Supporting institutions function in the professional interests of independent media.

These objectives were judged to be the most important aspects of a sustainable and professional

independent media system and served as the criteria against which countries were rated. A score was

attained for each objective by rating seven to nine indicators, which determine how well a country meets

that objective. The objectives, indicators, and scoring system are presented below.

The scoring is done in two parts. First, a panel of experts is assembled in each country, drawn from

representatives of local media, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), professional associations, and

media-development implementers. Panel participants are provided with the objectives and indicators and

an explanation of the scoring system. Each panelist individually reviewed the information and scored each

objective. The panelists then assembled to discuss the objectives and indicators, and to devise combined

scores and analyses. The panel moderator, in most cases a host-country media or NGO representative,

prepares a written analysis of the discussion, which is subsequently edited by IREX representatives.

The panelists’ scores are reviewed by IREX, in-country staff and/or Washington, DC, media staff, which then

score the countries independently of the MSI panel. Using the combination of scores, the final scores are

determined. This method allows the MSI scores to reflect both local media insiders’ views and the views of

international media-development professionals.

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 2008xviii

I. Objectives and Indicators

LEGAL AND SOCIAL NORMS PROTECT AND PROMOTE FREE SPEECH AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION.

FREE-SPEECH INDICATORS:

> Legal and social protections of free speech exist and are enforced.

> Licensing of broadcast media is fair, competitive, and apolitical.

> Market entry and tax structure for media are fair and comparable to other industries.

> Crimes against journalists or media outlets are prosecuted vigorously, but occurrences of such crimes are rare.

> State or public media do not receive preferential legal treatment, and law guarantees editorial independence.

> Libel is a civil law issue; public officials are held to higher standards, and offended parties must prove falsity and malice.

> Public information is easily accessible; right of access to information is equally enforced for all media and journalists.

> Media outlets have unrestricted access to information; this is equally enforced for all media and journalists.

> Entry into the journalism profession is free, and government imposes no licensing, restrictions, or special rights for journalists.

JOURNALISM MEETS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF qUALITY.

PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM INDICATORS:

> Reporting is fair, objective, and well sourced.

> Journalists follow recognized and accepted ethical standards.

> Journalists and editors do not practice self-censorship.

> Journalists cover key events and issues.

> Pay levels for journalists and other media professionals are sufficiently high to discourage corruption.

> Entertainment programming does not eclipse news and information programming.

> Technical facilities and equipment for gathering, producing, and distributing news are modern and efficient.

> quality niche reporting and programming exists (investigative, economics/business, local, political).

MULTIPLE NEWS SOURCES PROvIDE CITIZENS WITH RELIABLE AND OBJECTIvE NEWS.

PLURALITY OF NEWS SOURCES INDICATORS:

> A plurality of affordable public and private news sources (e.g., print, broadcast, Internet) exists.

> Citizens’ access to domestic or international media is not restricted.

> State or public media reflect the views of the entire political spectrum, are nonpartisan, and serve the public interest.

> Independent news agencies gather and distribute news for print and broadcast media.

> Independent broadcast media produce their own news programs.

> Transparency of media ownership allows consumers to judge objectivity of news; media ownership is not concentrated in a few conglomerates.

> A broad spectrum of social interests are reflected and represented in the media, including minority-language information sources.

INDEPENDENT MEDIA ARE WELL-MANAGED BUSINESSES, ALLOWING EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INDICATORS:

> Media outlets and supporting firms operate as efficient, professional, and profit-generating businesses.

> Media receive revenue from a multitude of sources.

> Advertising agencies and related industries support an advertising market.

> Advertising revenue as a percentage of total revenue is in line with accepted standards at commercial outlets.

> Independent media do not receive government subsidies.

> Market research is used to formulate strategic plans, enhance advertising revenue, and tailor products to the needs and interests of audiences.

> Broadcast ratings and circulation figures are reliably and independently produced.

xixMETHODOLOGY

II. Scoring System

A. Indicator Scoring

Each indicator is scored using the following system:

0 = Country does not meet the indicator; government or social

forces may actively oppose its implementation.

1 = Country minimally meets aspects of the indicator; forces

may not actively oppose its implementation, but business

environment may not support it and government or profession

do not fully and actively support change.

2 = Country has begun to meet many aspects of the indicator,

but progress may be too recent to judge or still dependent on

current government or political forces.

3 = Country meets most aspects of the indicator; implementation

of the indicator has occurred over several years and/or through

changes in government, indicating likely sustainability.

4 = Country meets the aspects of the indicator; implementation

has remained intact over multiple changes in government,

economic fluctuations, changes in public opinion, and/or

changing social conventions.

B. Objective and Overall Scoring

The averages of all the indicators are then averaged to obtain

a single, overall score for each objective. Objective scores are

averaged to provide an overall score for the country. IREX

interprets the overall scores as follows:

Unsustainable, Anti-Free Press (0-1): Country does not meet or

only minimally meets objectives. Government and laws actively

hinder free media development, professionalism is low, and

media-industry activity is minimal.

Unsustainable Mixed System (1-2): Country minimally meets

objectives, with segments of the legal system and government

opposed to a free media system. Evident progress in free-press

advocacy, increased professionalism, and new media businesses

may be too recent to judge sustainability.

Near Sustainability (2-3): Country has progressed in meeting

multiple objectives, with legal norms, professionalism, and

the business environment supportive of independent media.

Advances have survived changes in government and have

been codified in law and practice. However, more time may

be needed to ensure that change is enduring and that

increased professionalism and the media business environment

are sustainable.

Sustainable (3-4): Country has media that are considered

generally professional, free, and sustainable, or to be approaching

these objectives. Systems supporting independent media have

survived multiple governments, economic fluctuations, and

changes in public opinion or social conventions.

SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS FUNCTION IN THE PROFESSIONAL INTERESTS OF INDEPENDENT MEDIA.

SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS INDICATORS:

> Trade associations represent the interests of private media owners and provide member services.

> Professional associations work to protect journalists’ rights.

> NGOs support free speech and independent media.

> quality journalism degree programs that provide substantial practical experience exist.

> Short-term training and in-service training programs allow journalists to upgrade skills or acquire new skills.

> Sources of newsprint and printing facilities are in private hands, apolitical, and unrestricted.

> Channels of media distribution (kiosks, transmitters, Internet) are private, apolitical, and unrestricted.

AAFRICA

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 20082

Leading journalists pointed to the dispute between the executive branch and

the Higher Audio-Visual and Communications Authority (HAVCA) as a

particularly ominous sign that the government of Benin—viewed widely as

one of Africa’s most stable democracies—was seeking to exert control over the

broadcast media.

BENIN

3

INTRODUCTION

BENIN

JJust two years after Beninese media were rated the freest in Africa by Reporters Without Borders, press freedom in the tiny West African country is on a downturn that shows little sign of reversing. Reporters Without Borders’ 2008 rankings listed Benin 11th in press freedom among African nations, falling from its ninth-place ranking

in 2007. Late in 2008, a Beninese media workers’ union issued a statement documenting a host of rights

infringements: imprisonments, beatings, and police interrogations of journalists; politically motivated transfers

of journalists working for state media; the forming of non-aggression and propaganda agreements between

the office of President Thomas Boni Yayi and the media; and the conflict between the executive branch and the

agency that regulates media, regarding the granting of frequencies to new television and radio stations.

Leading journalists pointed to the dispute between the executive branch and the Higher Audio-visual and

Communications Authority (HAvCA) as a particularly ominous sign that the government of Benin—viewed

widely as one of Africa’s most stable democracies—was seeking to exert control over the broadcast media.

The conflict, which came to be known as “the war of the frequencies,” highlighted the serious risks that

arise when the institutions responsible for enforcing media law fight over interpretations.

The dispute began to unfold on January 30, 2008, when HAvCA granted new frequencies to the winners

of a competition for the installation and operation of private radio and television stations. Three days

later, the minister in charge of communications and information technology expressed disapproval of

the procedures that led to the granting of the new frequencies, and the government asked the Benin

Constitutional Court to overturn HAvCA’s decision. The government claimed that HAvCA could not grant

new frequencies without the ministry’s technical approval, and said that the ministry “is clearly opposed

to any new frequency granting for legal, technical, and security reasons.” Though HAvCA cited legislation

dating to 1997 that granted the agency discretion to award frequencies, the court ruled in favor of the

ministry at the end of February, saying that HAvCA had violated the constitution.

Troubling signs about the future of Beninese media have emerged from within the journalism profession as

well. Journalists continue to work under deplorable conditions, and the quality of their work has suffered.

Media advocates acknowledge that reporting is often incomplete or biased—a situation they attribute to

low pay, poor management, and pressure from powerful individuals inside and outside of government.

Benin’s overall MSI score is essentially unchanged compared to last year, although objective scores showed

some movement. Objective 1, freedom of speech, and Objective 3, plurality of news sources, both received

slightly lower scores; while the other three objectives remained more or less the same. The range of scores

also remained similar to last year, with Objective 4, business management, receiving by far the worst score;

and Objective 5, supporting institutions, receiving the best score. The other objectives fell in the lower half

of the “near sustainability” range.

BENIN

OVERALLSCORE:2.23

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 20084

BENIN AT A GLANCEMEDIA-SPECIFIC

> Number of active print outlets, radio stations, television stations: Print: 53 total (28 daily newspapers, 25 periodicals); Radio: 73; Television Stations: 5, including 1 public channel

> Newspaper circulation statistics: Top three by circulation: La Nation (state-owned), Le Matinal (private), Fraternité (privately owned)

> Broadcast ratings: Top three radio stations: National Radio (state-owned), Golfe FM (state-owned), Capp FM

> Television channel ratings: Top three: National television (public channel), Canal3 (privately-owned channel), Golfe Tv (privately-owned).

> News agencies: Agence Bénin Presse (state-owned), Agence de presse Médiane Afrique (private), Agence Proximités (privatly owned)

> Annual advertising revenue in media sector: N/A

> Internet usage: 150,000 (2007 est., CIA World Factbook)

GENERAL

> Population: 8,791,832 (14 May, 2009 est., CIA World Factbook)

> Capital city: Porto-Novo

> Ethnic groups (% of population): Fon 39.2%, Adja 15.2%, Yoruba 12.3%, Bariba 9.2%, Peulh 7%, Ottamari 6.1%, Yoa-Lokpa 4%, Dendi 2.5%, other 1.6%, unspecified 2.9% (2002 census, CIA World Factbook)

> Religions (% of population): Christian 42.8%, Muslim 24.4%, vodoun 17.3%, other 15.5% (2002 census, CIA World Factbook)

> Languages (% of population): French (official), Fon and Yoruba (most common vernaculars in south), tribal languages (at least six major ones in north) (CIA World Factbook)

> GNI (2008-Atlas): $5.120 billion (World Bank Development Indicators, revised 2009)

> GNI per capita (2008-PPP): $1,310 (World Bank Development Indicators, 2009)

> Literacy rate: 34.7% (male 47.9%, female 23.3%) (2002 census, CIA World Factbook)

> President or top authority: President Thomas Yayi Boni (since April 6, 2006)

2.45

2.28

1.95 2.

04

2.70

2.43

1.29 1.35

3.02 3.07

2008

2008

2008

2008

2008

2006

-07

2006

-07

2006

-07

2006

-07

2006

-07

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX: BENIN

SUST

AIN

AB

ILIT

Y

OBJECTIVES

UN

SUST

AIN

ABL

EM

IXED

SYS

TEM

NEA

RSU

STA

INA

BILI

TYSU

STA

INA

BLE

UN

SUST

AIN

ABL

EA

NTI

-FRE

E PR

ESS

Unsustainable, Anti-Free Press (0-1): Country does not meet or only minimally meets objectives. Government and laws actively hinder free media development, professionalism is low, and media-industry activity is minimal.

Unsustainable Mixed System (1-2): Country minimally meets objectives, with segments of the legal system and government opposed to a free media system. Evident progress in free-press advocacy, increased professionalism, and new media businesses may be too recent to judge sustainability.

Near Sustainability (2-3): Country has progressed in meeting multiple objectives, with legal norms, professionalism, and the business environment supportive of independent media. Advances have survived changes in government and have been codified in law and practice. However, more time may be needed to ensure that change is enduring and that increased professionalism and the media business environment are sustainable.

Sustainable (3-4): Country has media that are considered generally professional, free, and sustainable, or to be approaching these objectives. Systems supporting independent media have survived multiple governments, economic fluctuations, and changes in public opinion or social conventions.

FREESPEECH

PROFESSIONALJOURNALISM

PLURALITY OFNEWS SOURCES

BUSINESSMANAGEMENT

SUPPORTINGINSTITUTIONS

5BENIN

OBJECTIVE 1: FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Benin Objective Score: 2.28

Benin’s freedom of speech score slipped slightly compared

to last year, as the scores fell for a number of indicators.

In particular, panelists decreased scores for Indicator 2

(broadcast licensing) and Indicator 5 (legal guarantees of

editorial independence for state media). Indicator 1 (legal

protections support free speech) and Indicator 4 (attacks

on journalists) also experienced a decline. Despite its slide,

Indicator 4 still managed to score about a point higher than

the overall objective score, as did Indicator 8 (media access

to foreign news sources) and Indicator 9 (free entry to the

journalism profession). However, indicators 5, 6 (libel laws),

and 7 (access to information) all scored about a point lower.

One indicator increased its score: Indicator 3 (market entry

and tax treatment).

Freedom of speech is guaranteed by Benin’s 1991

constitution. Article 23 of the constitution recognizes the

right of every person to freedom of thought, opinion, and

expression within the legal bounds of public order. Article

24 states that freedom of the press is recognized and

guaranteed by the state. In practice, however, the media must

exercise these freedoms in a restrictive legal environment.

“The constitution recognizes the freedom of speech, of which

the press is a direct manifestation. But on the other hand,

there are still liberty-killing and obsolete laws,” said panelist

Edouard Loko, director of the daily newspaper Le Progres and

president of the Benin press management organization.

Many of the laws that affect the media and its operations

date to the period before 1990, when Benin abandoned

Marxist-Leninist central controls for multi-party democracy.

For example, Law 60-12, passed in 1960, limits the freedom

of the press and stipulates prison sentences for journalists

convicted of press offenses. And Order No. 69-22 PR/MJL,

from 1969, provides for the suppression of attacks on public

order and bans the spread, publication, distribution, and

reproduction of false news.

Licensing of broadcast media has been free and open since

1990, but the conflict between HAvCA and the government

over the granting of frequencies suggests that the process

is not as free as it appears. According to panelists, the

government’s annulment the decision of HAvCA to grant new

frequencies—even though HAvCA’s equitable, competitive,

and apolitical action was not questioned—is evidence

that the government desires to control the broadcast

media. Analyzing this conflict, panelists said that the

frequency granting process was more transparent than the

government’s management of the controversy that sprang

from the grants. “The administration even dispatched a

team of public servants and policemen to cut the power and

seal off the equipment of a newly licensed radio station,”1

said panelist Abel Gbètoénonmon, a journalist and member

of a platform reuniting civil society organizations. While

recognizing that licensees and citizens have the option of

challenging the decisions of HAvCA, panelists regretted that

the constitutional court’s decision cannot be appealed.

Taxation is the same for Benin’s media as for other

businesses—a situation long opposed by media owners, given

the nature of the media and the role they play in society.

Supplies and equipment involved in production are taxed in

the same way as materials used by other types of companies.

Nonetheless, when they are incorporated, media companies

are subject to different financial and administrative

obligations according to their medium: press, radio, or

television. Thus, while all a newspaper owner must do is to

file a statement, the other media are forced to complete

full legal and financial paperwork. After that, all media

companies are taxed equally, based on their sales figures.

The panelists agreed that journalists are not murdered in

Benin. From time to time, however, journalists are roughed

up by police officers, who go unpunished. This situation may

be explained by the fact that Benin still has no laws designed

to expressly protect journalists. Mobilizing by human rights

organizations is the only response when the physical integrity

of a journalist is violated by the police. No media company has

ever been subjected to vandalism or sabotage, panelists said.

1 On March 31, 2008, after the annulment of the decision of HAvCA by the constitutional court, a delegation of representatives of the ministry of communication, accompanied by a police squad, raided a newly licensed radio station while it was conducting tests. The group cut the station’s power and sealed off its equipment. HAvCA denounced this intervention and submitted a complaint to the constitutional court, which ruled: “The measures taken cannot be construed as a government intervention sanctioning an unlicensed radio station, which is a prerogative of HAvCA, but rather as law enforcement against a radio station that broadcasts in violation of a decision of the Constitutional Court.”

“The constitution recognizes the freedom of speech, of which the press is a direct manifestation. But on the other hand, there are still liberty-killing and obsolete laws,” said panelist Edouard Loko, director of the daily newspaper Le Progres and president of the Benin press management organization.

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 20086

The law states clearly that all journalists should have access

to news sources, but those working for state media generally

enjoy exceptional favoritism, as long as they are not covering

news that is damaging to the interests of the authorities.

They also have greater access to news events involving the

government. Such favoritism may explain why journalists from

the state media and public broadcasters believe that they

must ally themselves with members of the government or

other politicians, who appoint their managers. The need for

government advertising and other support discourages state

media managers from upsetting their influential patrons.

In Benin, libel is considered a media offense if it allegedly is

committed through the media, and a common law offense if

by other means. Civil law cases place the burden of proof on

the plaintiff, but when the media are involved, the defendant

journalist must show that the alleged slander is true. Panelists

said that it is difficult for a journalist to provide evidence

because of the length of the process and the nature of the

required documents. The journalist has seven days from the

notification that a case has been submitted to the court to

notify the attorney general or the plaintiff of the facts he

or she intends to prove as true, as well as provide copies

of all documents and names and addresses of witnesses.

Journalists typically have difficulty obtaining the necessary

copies, especially if the documents are in the hands of the

government. Also, not many journalists dare to appear in

court and testify against a well-known person.

The principle of free access to information is stated in Law

No. 92-021, but no further regulations detail how such access

works in practice. Journalists must find a way to acquire the

information that they seek. Furthermore, any information

that a journalist has that has been labeled as “confidential,”

regardless of the necessity of keeping it secret, can result in a

jail sentence.

Access to international news is not restricted. The Beninese

media surf the Internet for news, and some use news

from the Internet and broadcast news agencies based

on a partnership agreement with almost no financial

compensation. Dispatches from the international news

agencies are rarely used by the Beninese media because of

the extremely high subscription rates. Foreign publications,

particularly from neighboring Nigeria, are widely distributed

in the capital city of Cotonou without controls or restrictions,

despite existing legal provisions to this effect.

Panelists recognized that no law restricts access to the

journalistic profession. The government influences neither

admission to journalism schools nor recruitment of journalists

by media outlets. It has no influence on professional

associations. However, by regulating the issuance of press cards,

HAvCA has in effect set forth criteria determining who can

be a journalist. In addition, special accreditation is required to

cover certain events (heads of state meetings, national holidays,

etc.) and is issued by the relevant government agencies. But

“governmental control stops there, and such control within the

event sites is simply for security reasons,” according to panelist

Célestin Akpovo, a university professor, former journalist, and

president of the private press union of Benin.

OBJECTIVE 2: PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM

Benin Objective Score: 2.04

Although overall the score for this objective showed little

change, the panelists did assess some of the indicators

differently this year. Indicators 1 (reporting is fair and

well-sourced), 3 (self-censorship), and 4 (journalists cover

key events) showed improvement, while Indicator 6 (balance

of entertainment and news) and Indicator 7 (modern

equipment) ended up with lower scores. Most of the

LEGAL AND SOCIAL NORMS PROTECT AND PROMOTE FREE SPEECH AND ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION.

FREE-SPEECH INDICATORS:

> Legal and social protections of free speech exist and are enforced.

> Licensing of broadcast media is fair, competitive, and apolitical.

> Market entry and tax structure for media are fair and comparable to other industries.

> Crimes against journalists or media outlets are prosecuted vigorously, but occurrences of such crimes are rare.

> State or public media do not receive preferential legal treatment, and law guarantees editorial independence.

> Libel is a civil law issue; public officials are held to higher standards, and offended parties must prove falsity and malice.

> Public information is easily accessible; right of access to information is equally enforced for all media and journalists.

> Media outlets have unrestricted access to information; this is equally enforced for all media and journalists.

> Entry into the journalism profession is free, and government imposes no licensing, restrictions, or special rights for journalists.

“Sometimes we have felt ashamed by the work of our fellow journalists,” said François Awoudo, a journalist and former president of the Observatory for Ethics and Responsibility in Media.

7BENIN

indicators stayed within a half point of the overall score,

with two exceptions: Indicator 4 scored about a point higher,

while Indicator 5 (pay levels for journalists) was again the

lowest-scoring indicator, coming in about a point lower than

the overall objective score.

Beninese journalists’ work is not rigorous. While panelists

acknowledged that factors outside of newsrooms influence

the quality of the journalists’ work, they also recognized

that journalists could hardly do better jobs because of their

undesirable work and living conditions.

Journalists are most often accused of not checking and

verifying information sufficiently. Many people complain that

journalists do not work hard enough to get to know all sides

of a story before reporting the story. Panelists said that it is

awkward to see people who are granted a right of response

lecturing journalists on journalism. “Sometimes we have felt

ashamed by the work of our fellow journalists,” said François

Awoudo, a journalist and former president of the Observatory

for Ethics and Responsibility in Media.

Some panelists said that journalists—particularly younger

ones—are offered per diem allowances and other gifts in the

hope that they will skew their articles in a certain direction.

Clément Adéchian, managing editor of the daily newspaper

L’Informateur, asked the participants, “How can you expect

a paid report to be fair?” But Loko called that “a borderline,

half-true excuse.” According to him, money and gifts do not

always explain the mistakes in the Beninese media.

The panelists said that another weakness of journalists is

that they do not prepare sufficiently for broadcast debates

or other discussions. Either the journalist has no command

of the topic or the guest is oblivious to it. Panelist Urbain

Amégbédji, an NGO leader, said that there are a rare few

journalists who do an admirable job leading a debate or

conducting an interview.

The Beninese media adopted a code of ethics in September

1999. The code follows the example of other African

countries and takes on the pivotal issues of the profession.

Through training sessions, media professionals have been

made aware of the contents of the code, although there

are still some opponents to it. The code is regularly violated,

often through the publication of false news, slander, false

accusations, and mixtures of facts and hearsay.

Self-censorship, said Maurille Agbokou, managing director

of the daily newspaper Adjinakou, “is part of the trade. Not

everything is said out loud. But journalists often practice

self-censorship because there is a threat from the outside.”

Often, journalists do not discuss some topics for fear of

ending up in court. But more frequently, they are afraid

of upsetting business relations with certain companies by

writing about certain topics that might be damaging to the

companies—particularly advertisers. For example, there are

publication managers who were not able to renew their

contracts with a state-run company because they dared to

expose the obsolete nature of its infrastructure. When big

commercial and financial advantages are at play, the owner

of the media outlet will give indications, or even orders,

about how a topic must be covered, if at all. “If my journalist

does not walk the line, I will sack him to protect the interests

of the company,” Adéchain concluded.

Self-censorship aside, panelists were unanimous that there

is no outright taboo topic in the Beninese media. Some

topics are addressed with caution, such as those subject to

legal restrictions and those that can only be addressed with

caution, such as national defense and safety, and pending

court cases.

Salaries among Beninese media fall into two categories:

journalists in the state media that are employed and paid

regularly, and those in the private media who receive virtually

no salary. In the private media, the poor salary structure

favors corruption. Some outlets even ask event organizers to

pay reporters’ transportation and bed and board expenses. To

survive, some journalists agree to write stories proposed by

politicians in exchange for money.

To limit corruption in sensitive sectors such as justice and

tax administration, the Beninese government substantially

increased the magistrates’ and tax agents’ salaries, yet no

such steps have ever been taken with journalists’ salaries.

All the broadcast media have specific time slots for news

but dedicate more airtime for entertainment programming

JOURNALISM MEETS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS OF qUALITY.

PROFESSIONAL JOURNALISM INDICATORS:

> Reporting is fair, objective, and well sourced.

> Journalists follow recognized and accepted ethical standards.

> Journalists and editors do not practice self-censorship.

> Journalists cover key events and issues.

> Pay levels for journalists and other media professionals are sufficiently high to discourage corruption.

> Entertainment programming does not eclipse news and information programming.

> Technical facilities and equipment for gathering, producing, and distributing news are modern and efficient.

> quality niche reporting and programming exists (investigative, economics/business, local, political).

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 20088

(interactive and reality shows). In a typical 24-hour period,

only a third of the time is used for newscasts and the rest is

entertainment.

Equipment quality in the written press has improved, but

the broadcast sector has serious equipment problems. The

image quality on television programs is an indicator the

obsolete technical equipment (cameras and editing rooms)

being used. Radio stations still use analog recorders, which

affects the sound quality of reports and shows produced

outside the studio.

All newspapers have correspondents throughout the country

who send in field reports. The same is true for television

stations, which have transmitters in the larger inland

cities. But the production issue is tied to the availability of

personnel and materials. Many panelists said that the state

broadcast media address topics much more selectively and

acknowledge all the country’s ethnic groups. In contrast,

all local (private, commercial, or community) radio stations

produce shows that are potentially interesting to ethnic

groups living only in their coverage area.

OBJECTIVE 3: PLURALITY OF NEWS

Benin Objective Score: 2.43

This objective experienced a modest drop in score, from

2.70 to 2.43. The change was caused by lower scores in four

indicators: 1 (plurality of news sources), 2 (citizen access to

media), 3 (objectivity of state media), and 6 (transparency

of media ownership). Indicators 3 and 6 represented the

lowest-scoring indicators, coming in a point lower than the

overall objective score. Indicator 2 and Indicator 7 (media

coverage of minority issues) scored higher by a point and a

half-point, respectively.

Despite a strong presence in urban areas, the written press still

struggles to reach rural populations because of an undeveloped

distribution system. This shortcoming is compensated by local

radio stations, which relay the news published in newspapers in

their news reports and press reviews.

Citizens’ access to national and international, audio-visual,

and written media is unlimited. Access to the Internet is free

of restrictions, but panelists pointed out that the Internet

is accessed only by a very few, due to lack of financial and

technical means. The government has exempted all imported

computers from customs tax.

The panelists agreed that the state media do a great deal

for cultural promotion. But they also said that the state

media do not reflect the full spectrum of public opinion

and are influenced by the government. The state appoints

media managers, and the airtime dedicated to the activities

and viewpoints of members of government is much greater

than the airtime allotted to opposition parties and apolitical

organizations. However, within a hierarchy that aims to

please the government, a few journalists are fighting so that

the state media fulfill their public service obligations.

Benin has two private press agencies, Médiane Afrique and

Proximités. Because they are having trouble making their

services profitable, they also conduct such secondary activities

as training, studies, and research. Limited revenues do not

allow newspapers to use the services of a press agency.

Instead, they use information they find on the Internet.

In a highly competitive environment, private radio stations

provide programming targeted to the populations living in

their coverage areas. But in terms of quality, these productions

cannot be compared to the national radio stations’

productions, which are dedicated to a larger audience.

Determining the financial sources of private media is

difficult. The true owners hide behind dummy corporations,

so the public cannot measure the degree of objectivity of the

MULTIPLE NEWS SOURCES PROvIDE CITIZENS WITH RELIABLE AND OBJECTIvE NEWS.

PLURALITY OF NEWS SOURCES INDICATORS:

> A plurality of affordable public and private news sources (e.g., print, broadcast, Internet) exists.

> Citizens’ access to domestic or international media is not restricted.

> State or public media reflect the views of the entire political spectrum, are nonpartisan, and serve the public interest.

> Independent news agencies gather and distribute news for print and broadcast media.

> Independent broadcast media produce their own news programs.

> Transparency of media ownership allows consumers to judge objectivity of news; media ownership is not concentrated in a few conglomerates.

> A broad spectrum of social interests are reflected and represented in the media, including minority-language information sources.

The panelists agreed that the state media do a great deal for cultural promotion. But they also said that the state media do not reflect the full spectrum of public opinion and are influenced by the government.

9BENIN

news distributed by these outlets. Sometimes politicians or

businesspeople try to use the media to protect their interests,

seeking to influence editorial content. Panelists knew of no

foreign investment in Beninese media at present.

Beninese media are subject to only a few (mostly

socio-cultural) restrictions on certain topics. Most social

interests are represented, through local radio stations

with cultural or religious programming and press outlets

specializing in areas such as finance, education and sports.

OBJECTIVE 4: BUSINESS MANAGEMENT

Benin Objective Score: 1.35

Panelists rated this objective about the same as last year,

although four indicators did change notably. Panelists gave

better scores to indicators 3 (advertising agencies) and 4

(proportion of advertising to other revenue sources), but the

scores for indicators 1 (media are well-managed businesses)

and 7 (audience and circulation measurement) both

worsened. Indicator 4 scored about three-quarters of a point

higher than the overall objective score, while Indicator 5

(government subsidies for private media) scored more than a

point higher. Indicators 6 (market research) and 7 both scored

more than a point lower.

Private media outlets are neither efficient nor profitable.

All panelists agreed that media companies’ revenues are

insignificant compared to companies in other sectors.

Accounting departments have no business plans, and their

personnel are insufficiently qualified and often mixed with

sales and administrative departments. With community

media, the situation is so difficult that sometimes municipal

governments must provide financial support.

Media derive revenue from advertising and communication

campaigns and, in the case of print media, circulation.

The government also provides funding to media outlets,

which HAvCA grants very selectively to outlets that meet

certain criteria. “Yes, the media receive subsidies, but they

do not allow themselves to be influenced by the subsidy

distribution,” Awoudo said, and other panelists agreed.

Because funds are divided among an increasing number of

media outlets every year, the subsidy received by each outlet

is not significant enough to buy any kind of influence.

One panelist cited another aspect of media financing—

“unorthodox sources”—that strongly and negatively influence

editorial content.

Minus three or four daily newspapers that rely on sales and

subscriptions, the most substantial source of income for the

media is advertising. One other exception must be noted: La

Nation, a government-owned daily. That newspaper has the

best sales figures—all government departments buy at least

one subscription—and is the unofficial publisher of all legal

announcements. The overwhelming majority of advertisers

are still concentrated in the large urban centers, particularly

in Cotonou.

Despite its importance to Beninese media, “the advertising

market is not formalized or regulated,” Loko said. Panelists

said that in a chaotic advertising market, each media company

negotiates directly with advertisers. The small percentage of

media outlets that take the lion’s share of advertising do so

not because of superior marketing skills or media products,

but because of connections to the advertisers.

In some newspapers, advertising space crowds out copy to

the extent that only a few pages address the news. Electronic

media have a similar disproportion—much air time space is

devoted to advertising, often to the detriment of the public.

“If you take out advertising and all other operations acting

as resource advertising, there is nothing left,” said panelist

Maurille Agbokou, manager of the daily newspaper Adjinakou.

INDEPENDENT MEDIA ARE WELL-MANAGED BUSINESSES, ALLOWING EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE.

BUSINESS MANAGEMENT INDICATORS:

> Media outlets and supporting firms operate as efficient, professional, and profit-generating businesses.

> Media receive revenue from a multitude of sources.

> Advertising agencies and related industries support an advertising market.

> Advertising revenue as a percentage of total revenue is in line with accepted standards at commercial outlets.

> Independent media do not receive government subsidies.

> Market research is used to formulate strategic plans, enhance advertising revenue, and tailor products to the needs and interests of audiences.

> Broadcast ratings and circulation figures are reliably and independently produced.

The government also provides funding to media outlets, which HAVCA grants very selectively to outlets that meet certain criteria. “Yes, the media receive subsidies, but they do not allow themselves to be influenced by the subsidy distribution,” Awoudo said, and other panelists agreed.

MEDIA SUSTAINABILITY INDEX 200810

The media do not acknowledge the importance of

market research. They prefer to trust their instincts and to

micromanage without innovations or creative distinctions in

terms of product presentation. Many newspapers are similar

in terms of graphic layout. Also, programming hardly differs

from one broadcaster to another. Newscasts are aired at

the same time; interactive shows are similar; debate shows

have the same format. Only the tone changes, or the image

quality, due to outdated technical equipment.

There are no reliable statistics measuring the media sector.

Circulation and sales figures are provided by each media

company according to what the requestor intends to do with

the figures.

OBJECTIVE 5: SUPPORTING INSTITUTIONS

Benin Objective Score: 3.07

The score for this objective remained essentially unchanged

this year, and only a few indicators changed to any degree.

Indicators 1 (trade associations) and 2 (professional

associations) improved, while Indicator 5 (short-term training)

received a lower score. Almost all indicators scored close to

the overall objective average, with the exception of Indicator

4 (academic journalism programs), which again scored about

a point below the objective score.

After the 2002 convention of Beninese media, the publishers’

and owners’ groups merged into one association that

organizes training for its members. This association also fights

to improve the economic context of the media by advocating

for tax reductions, working toward the creation of a buying

center for media resources, putting together an advertising

regulatory institution, and lobbying for an advertising law. All

these undertakings are meant to end economic dependency

and make media companies more profitable.

Also after the convention, journalists organized themselves