When Is Money Not Just Money?
Very few topics generate as much passionate debate and as much uncomfortable silence as the practice of brown envelope journalism. It’s the industry’s open secret, the elephant that crowds every press briefing, the unspoken reality that shapes countless editorial decisions across newsrooms nationwide. Yet for all the moralizing and condemnation, the practice persists, evolves, and in many ways, defines the operational reality of media engagement in Nigeria today.
For context, brown envelope journalism refers to the practice of journalists accepting monetary or other incentives in exchange for favourable news coverage or the suppression of negative information. The term derives from the physical envelopes, traditionally brown, containing cash that journalists receive at press briefings, events, and other professional engagements.
But it gets interesting. The same payment can be called different things depending on who’s giving it, who’s receiving it, and how it’s framed. Anthony Elikene, a Senior Business Executive and Media Analyst, captures this paradox perfectly in one of his LinkedIn analysis he titled, ‘Honorarium and the Taboo of Brown Envelopes’: “The Oxford Dictionary says an honorarium is ‘a payment given for professional services rendered normally, without charge.’ So when a facilitator, an executive, or even a pastor gets paid, that’s an honorarium. But when a journalist is offered payment for attending the same event under the same professional pretext, suddenly it’s a ‘brown envelope,’ and some call it outright corruption. So, why is it good for one group but shady for another?”
This double standard, Elikene argues, is a form of “professional racism” where the selective application of ethical standards is based not on the nature of the payment, but on the profession of the recipient. “Asking if an honorarium influences a journalist’s coverage is like asking a pastor if an honorarium influences God’s blessings to those getting prayed for at the event,” Elikene writes. “It’s all about context.”
Between “Gbalamu,” “Kola,” “Lobbying” & “Public Affairs”
Before we cast the first stone, it’s worth examining how other countries handle the complex relationship between money and media access. Terje S. Skjerdal, Associate Professor at Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication in Norway, has documented the practice extensively across Africa, noting that the phenomenon has been observed in Tanzania, Nigeria, Ghana where it is called soli, Cameroon where it is known as gombo, and Gulf countries such as Kuwait.
But the practice extends far beyond these regions with each culture giving it distinctive names and characteristics. Dr. Duncan Omanga, head of department at Moi University’s Publishing and Media Studies, explains that in Anglophone West Africa, the probable cradle of brown envelope journalism, the more common term for the practice was “Item 7”, a reference to refreshments, freebies, or “cash refunds” at the end of an official event, understood to be the last item on the agenda. In Kenya, the terms chai, bahasha, or kitu are preferred. Nigerian journalists use the name “kola” or “gbalamu” to refer to cash handouts from news sources.
But look beyond Africa and the Gulf, and you’ll find that developed democracies have their own versions of paid influence. They’re just called different things and operate under different regulatory frameworks. In the United States and Europe, lobbying is a multi-billion dollar industry. The Society of Professional Journalists describes checkbook journalism as a persistent issue even in the most powerful and reputable news organizations, noting that it has long predated the hyper-competitive cable news cycle.
What then is the difference? Regulation, transparency, and framing. In Western democracies, paying for influence is legal, regulated, and openly acknowledged as long as you follow the rules and disclose your activities. The practice is rebranded as “government relations,” “public affairs,” or “advocacy,” and practitioners are required to register and report their activities. 17 out of 32 OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries with data available provide transparency through a publicly available lobbying register.
The lesson here isn’t that brown envelope journalism is acceptable because lobbying exists elsewhere. Rather, it’s that the relationship between money and media influence is complex everywhere, and different societies have developed different mechanisms…some more transparent than others, for managing this relationship.
Brown Envelope Journalism, More Than Just Greed
Indeed, academic research on brown envelope journalism in Africa has identified multiple contributing factors, with economic conditions playing a central but not exclusive role. Skjerdal’s comprehensive review of research literature identifies four main clusters of investigation: documentation of brown envelope journalism, consideration of the impact of poor economic conditions, analysis of the political and social influence, and discussion of ethical and professional concerns.
A study surveying selected journalists and interviewing journalism practitioners reached the conclusion that greed is the major cause of the brown envelope syndrome in Nigeria. But this conclusion, while partially true, oversimplifies a more complex reality.
The economic pressure facing journalists is severe and well-documented. Many journalists’ salaries are not paid on time, that is if paid at all in cases, and bosses sometimes justify this non-payment by telling their employees to use the media platform to earn money. There are instances whereby magazines owe employees six months’ salary, even when paid, many journalists still earn below the minimum wage of N70,000 per month, with graduate journalists earning a lot less.
In 2015, the Nigeria Union of Journalists demonstrated against ThisDay newspapers after salary payments were delayed for nine months. A 2013 survey study indicated that six percent of journalists interviewed associate poor remuneration as a cause, while two percent indicated delays in salary payments.
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)’s investigation into Nigeria’s brown envelope journalism some ten years back by Adaobi Tricia Nwaubani confirms this. “She noted, “It is not as if their employers expect these journalists to work without pay. They just do not think that the staff’s income should come from the organisation’s pockets.” Ten years later, nothing has changed this reality.
Joy Doreen Biira, a Kenya-based Ugandan multimedia journalist, lists poor pay, a weak union with few members, and gender inequality as some of the reasons for the growing vice in Kenya. Reports show that a brown envelope can contain more than a few months’ salary for a journalist in Kenya. When salaries go unpaid for months, brown envelope becomes less about greed and more about survival. It’s the difference between feeding one’s family and going hungry, between paying school fees and pulling children out of school.
It’s Not Going Away Anytime Soon
The fact that brown envelope journalism is not going away anytime soon is one reality that communications professionals must confront. Despite decades of condemnation, numerous studies, professional codes of ethics, and endless debates, brown envelope journalism shows no signs of disappearing from the media landscape. Methodologically, studies show that brown envelope collection is always on the increase and has since found a permanent place to stay.
Why? Because the structural conditions like poor remuneration, almost nonexistent regulatory enforcement, advertising-dependent business models, and normalized corruption remain largely unchanged. Media houses continue to owe salaries. Journalists continue to earn poverty wages. Professional bodies continue to lack enforcement capacity.
The question, then, isn’t whether communications professionals should engage with this reality as they already are. The question is how to do so in ways that maintain professional integrity, achieve legitimate business objectives, and perhaps even contribute to gradually improving media practice.
Ethical Media Relations Despite Status Quo: The Nestle Nigeria Example
One of the most innovative approaches to navigating the brown envelope challenge comes from Nestlé Nigeria, which established the Nestlé Nigeria Media Awards in 2021. Victoria Uwadoka, Corporate Communications and Public Affairs Manager at Nestlé Nigeria, explains the genesis: “This initiative was inspired by our commitment to Creating Shared Value, as it promotes a mutually beneficial relationship among the media, society, and Nestlé Nigeria. Recognising the crucial role the media plays in providing the information that individuals and organizations need to make informed decisions, we believe that a media empowered will provide solution-led data-based reporting for their audiences.”
The awards programme operates on a fundamentally different premise than the brown envelope system. Rather than paying for coverage of specific stories or events, Nestlé recognizes and rewards journalistic excellence after the fact, based on the quality of published work. Journalists compete across eight categories covering themes like nutrition, sustainability, community development, agriculture, and youth and women empowerment. Winners receive prizes including technology devices, Nestlé products, and recognition plaques.
From six categories at inception, the awards have expanded to include photojournalism and sustainability. Through the years, Nestlé has invested over forty million naira in prizes. By the programme’s fourth edition in 2024, it had reached over 400 journalists across print, broadcast, and digital media, with over 90 recognized for excellence.
Critically, the programme makes no demands on editorial content before publication. Uwadoka emphasizes: “Year on year, we have seen an improvement in the quality of the entries which spotlight deep, impactful storytelling. This tells us that the journalists are upping their game. The competition is getting more intense with the judges telling us that it has become more challenging to select winning entries.”
When asked how the programme addresses brown envelope culture, Uwadoka is clear: “At Nestlé, our core values are anchored in respect, which is fundamental to our relationships with the media. We prioritize mutual respect and strive to build professional partnerships with our media collaborators, avoiding any unethical practices. Our commitment to fostering long-term relationships involves providing access to credible and newsworthy information. We actively encourage journalists to pursue excellence through training and celebrate the principles of high-quality, ethical journalism.”
The awards programme is part of what Uwadoka describes as “Nestlé’s strategic approach to building and sustaining non-transactional relationships with its media partners. Our approach is built on the principles of respect, transparency and shared values which underscore our investment in training, creating access to information, recognition and rewards.”
Winners report that the recognition enhances their visibility, facilitates access to new opportunities, and motivates them to produce higher-quality work. Uwadoka notes: “I have also heard personally from the winners that the awards motivate them to strive to write better articles based on deeper research and aimed at provoking dialogues for solutions rather than problem statements.”
This approach offers several advantages over the traditional brown envelope model. Recognition is based on quality of published work, not pre-payment for coverage. Judging processes and criteria are clear and can be independently verified. It builds long-term relationships rather than transactional exchanges. The focus remains on themes aligned with corporate values rather than specific corporate messages. And importantly, it encourages journalists to develop skills and produce better work.
The key insight is that organizations can provide financial support to journalists in ways that enhance rather than compromise professional standards. It’s not the money itself that’s problematic—it’s the timing, the expectations, and the lack of transparency that accompany traditional brown envelope payments.
Investing in Media Capacity Building, Training
Another approach that several organizations have adopted is investing in journalist training programmes. Rather than paying for coverage, organizations sponsor workshops, seminars, and training sessions that help journalists develop specialized knowledge in particular sectors or improve their technical skills.
For example, a financial services company might sponsor training on understanding balance sheets and financial reporting. A healthcare company might fund workshops on medical journalism and scientific accuracy. A technology company might organize training on covering digital innovations and cybersecurity. These programmes provide legitimate value to journalists by enhancing their professional capabilities while giving organizations access to a more knowledgeable press corps capable of covering their sectors more accurately.
Research from Chad documented by Frère reports an incident where journalists were pressured by government officials to take envelopes with generous amounts of cash with the purpose of influencing media reports, but the reporters declined on ethical grounds. Frère also notes that journalists in foreign-funded media organizations in Central Africa are deemed to be the only ones consistently rejecting bribes in this region, which may be attributed to the fact that these organizations pay decent salaries.
Providing Transparent, Legitimate Facilitation
One of the complications in the brown envelope debate is that some payments journalists receive genuinely cover legitimate expenses from transportation to remote locations, accommodation for multi-day events, meals during long briefings. The problem arises when these legitimate reimbursements become covers for influence payments, or when the amounts far exceed actual expenses.
Some organizations have adopted transparent facilitation policies where transportation and accommodation are arranged and paid for directly by the organization rather than giving cash, where cash reimbursements are necessary they are standardized, documented, and clearly framed as expense coverage rather than honorariums, and the amounts provided are reasonable and defensible if questioned.
This approach acknowledges that journalists, especially those working for poorly-resourced outlets, may genuinely struggle with the costs of covering events. In doing this, organizations can assist journalists without creating the ethical compromises associated with brown envelopes. However, this strategy requires careful implementation. The facilitation must be genuinely necessary, proportionate to actual costs, and applied consistently across all media, not selectively to those likely to provide favorable coverage.
Building Relationships Beyond Transactions
The most sustainable approach to media relations doesn’t centre on payments at all, but on building genuine professional relationships based on trust, accessibility, and newsworthy content. This means providing real access by making executives and subject matter experts genuinely available to journalists, not just during controlled press conferences but for background discussions and expert commentary.
It means creating newsworthy content by developing genuinely interesting stories that journalists want to cover regardless of compensation. It means being responsive by returning calls promptly, providing requested information quickly, and treating journalists as professional partners rather than vendors, obstacles or targets.
It means maintaining consistency by treating all media fairly, not playing favourites or punishing outlets that provide critical coverage. And it means understanding news values by learning what makes stories newsworthy and pitching accordingly, rather than expecting coverage simply because an organization wants attention.
The BBC report mentions the now defunct Next newspapers, founded by Pulitzer-winning journalist Dele Olojede with a strict no-brown-envelope policy. Within months of its launch, it was boldly reporting several important national stories that most mainstream newspapers would not touch. When its reporters began garnering local and international awards for investigative journalism, Olojede reminded them that most of those stories had been lying in the public domain, simply waiting for someone to report them.
Olojede explained during an editorial meeting: “I wanted to pay salaries that would enable the average reporter buy a beer for himself and a friend after work on Friday, and a small car for himself.” His insight was that good stories don’t need brown envelopes, they need journalists with the time, resources, and professional freedom to pursue them.
Organizations that consistently provide access to genuinely newsworthy information will eventually build relationships that go beyond transactional exchanges. However, the Next experiment also revealed the challenges. Revenue soon began to dry up because in Nigeria, established newspapers are paid to keep big stories off the front page, and adverts are supposed to buy silence. Often, Next would run a story in its popular weekend edition, only for editors to arrive at the office on Monday to meet an aggrieved marketing team…certain big advertisers had terminated their business that morning.
After one revelation about corruption in the oil trade, scores of advertisers instantly pulled out. At the time Next eventually called it quits in 2011, staff were owed more than five months’ arrears. Rumours of the newspaper’s reporters accepting brown envelopes had begun to filter in, but few editors had the heart to reprimand offenders.
The Next story shows both the potential and the challenges of media independence in the current Nigerian environment. Good journalism is possible without brown envelopes, but it requires sustainable business models and advertiser support, both of which remain elusive.
Exercising Professional Judgment in Ambiguous Situations
Despite best intentions and alternative approaches, communications professionals will sometimes face situations where the expectations for brown envelopes are strong and refusing to participate may result in no coverage at all, or worse, negative coverage. In these moments, professionals must exercise judgment, considering proportionality, transparency, expectations, alternatives, and organizational policy.
Is the payment so large that it clearly crosses from facilitation to influence? Or is it a modest amount consistent with expense coverage? Can the payment be documented and defended if questioned? Or does it require secrecy? Is the payment accompanied by explicit or implicit demands for favourable coverage? Or is it simply expected as standard practice for the event? Have alternative approaches been genuinely tried? Or is the brown envelope simply the path of least resistance? Does the payment violate clear organizational policies? Or does it fall within acceptable parameters?
What’s essential is that these decisions are made consciously and deliberately, not simply defaulting to “this is how things are done.” Communications professionals should be able to articulate why a particular approach was chosen and defend that choice against ethical scrutiny.
Towards Gradual Reform
Indeed, the greatest disservice we can do to the issue of brown envelope journalism is to pretend it doesn’t exist or to simply condemn it without acknowledging the complex realities that sustain it. Communications professionals operate in the real world, not in ethical textbooks. They face pressure to achieve results, navigate expectations, and work within systems they didn’t create.
What’s needed is neither uncritical acceptance nor naive condemnation, but honest engagement with a difficult reality. This means acknowledging complexity by recognizing that brown envelope journalism exists on a spectrum from legitimate expense coverage to outright bribery, and that not all payments are equal.
It means rejecting false equivalence by understanding that there’s a difference between rewarding excellence through transparent awards programmes and paying upfront for favourable coverage. It means maintaining professional standards, even while working within imperfect systems by refusing to participate in the most egregious practices of paying for specific story angles, suppressing negative coverage, putting journalists on permanent retainers.
It means supporting reform by using whatever influence organizations have to support better media remuneration, stronger professional standards, and more sustainable business models. And it means leading by example, demonstrating that effective media relations is possible without brown envelopes, and that organizations committed to transparency and professional relationships can still achieve their communications objectives.
Change may be slow, but it’s not impossible. And it begins with honest acknowledgment of where we are, combined with commitment to move, however gradually, toward where we should be. As the Nestlé experience demonstrates, it is possible to support journalists financially, achieve communications objectives, and maintain ethical standards, all at once. It requires creativity, patience, and genuine commitment to the long-term health of media.