[ 2014-12-03 ]

Distinguish between Soli and Tapoli
The International Transport Forum (ITF) is
offering to cover travel costs and accommodation
for a limited number of journalists from
non-European countries. In our local parlance, the
ITF can be said to be offering “soli” to the
journalists. Is this offer of soli to journalists
from less wealthy nations an unethical practice,
designed to corrupt them? Or is it a subsidy that
enhances information flow?

This is the essence of the debate that has engaged
the minds of many commentators in the last few
days. It is fair to say that the preponderance of
the comments have taken a negative view of soli,
consistent with the position taken by the British
High Commissioner in his speech delivered at the
IMANI event. Notwithstanding the avalanche of
criticisms, I am afraid that the case against
'soli' has not been made. Soli, as used here and
in the debate, refers to travel and transport paid
by an event organizer to journalists who cover the
event. It has three distinctive attributes: (i) it
is a voluntary payment by the event organizer;
(ii) it is not conditional on type of coverage;
(iii) it is paid to all journalists.

Two mutually exclusive propositions have emerged
from the debate: (1) soli is inherently/incurably
bad and unethical. As such, it must be banned; (2)
Soli is not inherently or incurably bad. In fact,
it can improve information flow. However, the soli
process should be improved. The first proposition
appears to be the majority view.

The propositions are mutually exclusive because
one cannot embrace both, as some have done or
attempted to do. For instance, one cannot hold the
view that soli is bad and must be banned at the
same time that one advocates that the soli process
must be made more transparent.

Transparency cannot cure a practice that is
inherently bad or unethical. Consider the payment
of a contingent fee to the media (i.e., I will pay
you if you report a news item a certain way). That
is not just inherently unethical and unlawful but
more important it cannot be cured by being made
transparent. An inherently unethical practice
cannot be clothed with propriety by making it
transparent. No amount of transparency or issuing
receipts will make bribing a policeman acceptable.
According to Samson Lardy, “soli is soli is
soli.” This is apposite and carries with it the
implication that soli cannot sometimes be a
corrupt practice and sometimes a best practice. As
such, making soli payments transparent or
advertising its availability, as done by ITF, does
not cure its defect. According to the majority
proposition, the defect is fatal!

In contrast, I take the minority view that soli is
not inherently a corrupt practice. In fact, it is
used everywhere in the world. In a country like
Ghana, where the media houses are poor, an anti
soli policy will actually worsen, not improve,
corruption by shutting down critical avenues to
information.

While the condemnation of soli has been
widespread, I find that nobody has made a
persuasive case that it is per se unethical or
unlawful for an organizer of an event to cover a
journalist's travel and transport expenses,
especially where such coverage is publicly
announced, is directed to strengthening most, if
not all, of our impoverished media houses and is
not conditional upon the nature of the coverage.

Still, I believe that the soli process can be
improved. For instance, the soli giver must
preannounce the soli policy and identify all those
who are eligible for its enjoyment. Moreover, the
soli giver must advise the media houses of any
soli payments made to journalists to avoid double
dipping (i.e., where the journalist collects soli
from both the event organizer and the employer).
Capping the amount that is paid for soli or
indexing it to the number of miles that the
journalist must travel to cover the event or even
to the financial muscle of the media house are
other ways to improve the process.

In my opinion, the soli debate masks an important
corrupt practice, which I refer to as
“tapoli.” Tapoli is the bribing of a
journalist to procure a favorable coverage of a
story or to disseminate misleading information.
Tapoli is both unethical and criminal and serves
no useful social purposes. Tapoli corrupts
journalists, poisons the information as well, has
no place in our society and those who practice it
must be pursued and punished. But tapoli is not to
be confused with soli.

Soli differs from tapoli in several important
respects. First, soli is typically paid by NGOs
(or other event organizers) who seek to draw
attention of the general public to topics that
they address in workshops or other capacity
building activities. Second, soli payers have
little interest in influencing the content of the
story to be carried by the journalists as long as
the event is publicized. Frequently, sponsors of
the NGO have stipulated such media coverage as a
condition precedent to funding the workshop.
Third, soli is paid to all attending journalists
and is not conditioned on the content of their
coverage. Hence, soli is not a contingent payment.
Fourth, soli seeks to enhance information flow and
to improve the information environment. Fifth,
soli is small in magnitude and is normally put in
a white envelope.

Au contraire, tapoli is typically paid by a “big
man,” or criminal who seeks to make up or kill a
story. The story could involve the fabrication of
negative news about a political opponent, masking
a fraud, a corrupt business/ political practice,
or covering up a criminal act. It follows that the
main rational for tapoli payments is to influence
the content of the story. By their very nature,
tapoli involves covert operations, as such an open
to all payment will undermine the operation. Thus,
tapoli is not paid to all journalists. Given the
sophistry required to execute the fabrication or
killing of a story, only seasoned journalists are
tapped for such missions. Thus, tapoli is a
contingent payment and is per se illegal. Clearly,
tapoli seeks to poison the information well by
providing false information or suppressing
truthful information. Tapoli tends to be large in
magnitude and is put in a brown envelope.

The current emphasis on soli is misplaced and can
lead to policies that reduce information flow,
which can worsen the media landscape. The proper
emphasis should be put on identifying,
prosecuting, punishing and eliminating tapoli
payments to journalists. Focusing on soli, rather
than tapoli, trivializes the real problem in our
media landscape.

Source - S Kwaku Asare

... go Back