**7. A dive into the role of media in the fight against corruption**

The UNODC; World Bank [47]; Brunetti and Weder [48]; Fardigh [49] agree that the media can play important roles in the fight against corruption unearthing corrupt dealings, investigating corruption, demanding for accountability from both public and private actors.

According to Schauseil [16], the media can fight against corruption by launching investigations on cases of corruption, adding that the media further plays its watchdog role by offering a key route for information about governmental, administrative and business activities to be disseminated throughout society and thus providing the public with a critical capacity to hold those in power accountable. Similarly, alluding to the watchdog informational role of the media, Kuznik et al. [21] states that fighting corruption is meticulous and broad-based and should be embraced by all echelons of a society with the media serving as a conduit of information and education. [23] echo the same on the role of the media in fighting corruption when they posited that the media gathers available open-source information as the first and most approachable step of the data collection process on corruption.

Alluding to the watchdog role of the media, Mendes [50] posits that the media fights corruption by uncovering, exposing, informing and educating the populace about the detrimental effects of corruption for society at large. This way, he agrees with [5], who earlier observed that the media informs the public about corruption and solutions to this problem. He adds that this way the media significantly increases the political risk of those exposed for their corrupt practices and fosters the critical awareness of civil society.

However, Baer et al. [51] observes that in democracies, mass media is an important instrument for monitoring the behavior of public officials, limiting corruption and reducing the political rents of incumbents. OECD (2018) held that media reporting in general, and especially investigative journalism by affiliated or independent journalists, or indeed non-governmental organizations (NGOs), are among the most important sources of public awareness-raising on corruption. Ayoola [19] stresses that the role of the broadcast media is critical in promoting good governance and controlling corruption: It not only raises public awareness about corruption, its causes, consequences and possible remedies but also investigates and reports the incidence of corruption. Gbadamosi et al. (2019) concur on the monitoring role of the media when they wrote that the media empowers citizens of any given country to monitor the actions and inactions of elected or appointed officials in instances of corruption. Equally, according to Adeyemi [24], the press serves as agent of change and plays the watchdog role of ensuring transparency and accountability in government. This is because if there is no searchlight on corruption and inequitable practices, hence, Adeyemi [24] explains that you cannot build the public consensus needed to bring about change.

The Panama Papers investigation is testimony to how the media helps in fighting global corruption. OECD (2018) and ICIJ [52] maintain that investigation grew out of a 5-year investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) that dug into financial secrecy haven for the top 10 countries where intermediaries operate in concurrence with the foregoing finding observed that the media investigated the hiding of ill-gotten wealth in financial secrecy havens involving transnational bribery paid on behalf of companies in countries across the globe. Arnold and Lal [5] equally agree, providing an example of the Philippines where investigative media investigation of the president exposed his illegal assets. In further concurrence, they add another example of how in India, in 2000, the Tehelka news

website uncovered deeply entrenched corruption in the defense industry and motivated many other reporters to use similar methods.

Sharing a similar thought, Arnold and Lal [5] concur on the role of the media as a reporter when they posited that the media inform us about corruption and solutions to this problem. They add that the media as reporters make politicians pay attention through widespread coverage. Alluding to the same they observe that in many countries, online platforms allow citizens to report instances of corruption by mail, phone, text message and other channels, giving an example of how in India ipaidabribe.com platform was launched in 2010 to aggregate citizen reports to show which departments and situations are most vulnerable to corruption. This validates [19] earlier view that the role of the broadcast media is critical in fighting corruption by reporting incidents of corruption.

As reporters, Ackerman et al. [20] posits that media draws attention to corrupt behavior. In concurrence, Kuznik et al. [21] states that in fighting corruption, the media as reporters serve as a conduit of information and education. This validates Wasswa and Kakooza [53] finding that the media fights corruption by utilizing new media tools to showcase its activities and expenditures, which CSOs and the public can then interpret and query. They add that new media platforms such as WordPress, Blogger, Webs, Joomla, Drupal, among others, also allow more interactivity by allowing members of the public to report incidents of corruption.

Giving further credence to the role of the media as reporters against corruption, the OECD [54, 55] shows how the Panama Papers investigation grew out of a 5-year reporting push by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) that published figures for the top 10 countries where intermediaries operate, namely Hong Kong (China), United Kingdom, Switzerland, United States, Panama, Guatemala, Luxembourg, Brazil, Ecuador and Uruguay. Similarly, ICIJ [52] reports how in April 2016, after a 6-month investigation, two major media outlets reported on the Unaoil Scandal, an alleged transnational bribery scheme involving bribes paid on behalf of companies in countries across the globe as another example of how media reporting helps in fighting corruption.

According to Tangri and Mwenda [22], the press is the main instrument for news gathering and investigation of public officials' abuses and illegalities, uncovering scandals and 'misdeeds of the increasingly corrupt executive' in Uganda on regular basis. Again, one of the important monthly activities of the Uganda Media Development Foundation (UMDF) in 2011 as observed by Wasswa and Kakooza [53] was the countrywide training of journalists in how to report on corruption in all the major regions of the country.

According to Schauseil [16], they set the agenda for fighting corruption by issuing public recommendations. This validates Stapenhurst [17] earlier observation that the media puts the fight against corruption on the policy agenda, subsequently resulting in the scrapping of a law or policy.

Similarly, Arnold and Lal [5] concur that the media as agenda setters mobilize public pressure to compel politicians to act on incidents of corruption. They add that the media as agenda setters make politicians pay attention through widespread coverage of incidents of corruption. They also provide platforms for citizens to voice their opinions and demand accountability from those in power, observe [5]. This concurs with Stapenhurst [17], who earlier contended that the media as classic agenda setters provide platforms for citizens to put corruption on the public agenda by voicing their opinions and demanding accountability from those in power. Stapenhurst [17] adds that by enhancing and enlivening public debate and by heightening a sense of

accountability among politicians through their news and programmes. Recently, UNODC agrees on the agenda-setting role of the media in the fight against corruption when it observed that the media plays an important role in the fight against corruption by making corruption a public issue, thereby goading the public to demand accountability and transparency from the public and private sectors.

Whereas according to Mendes [50], the media sets the agenda in the fight against corruption by educating the public about the detrimental effects of corruption on society at large [56]; on the other hand, gave an example of how the media put the certificate forgery of a former speaker of the House of Representatives – Ibrahim Salisu and former Senate President Evan Ewerem on the public agenda; bring public pressure to bear on them – forcing them to resign. Similarly, Arnold and Lal [5] gave an example of how in the Philippines, investigative media as an agenda setter put corruption of President Estrada on the public issue that the populace gravitated around and subsequently ousted the president in 2001 through the mass uprising.

In a similar vein, Arnold and Lal [5] held that social media as an agenda setter amplifies people's disapproval of corruption through websites where citizens can report instances of corruption and through initiating a discussion about it. This validates [53] earlier observation that the new media platforms such as WordPress, Blogger, Webs, Joomla and Drupal, among others, put corruption on the public agenda by allowing more interactivity by allowing members of the public to post comments and articles on corruption incidents. Arnold and Lal [5] and Wasswa and Kakooza [53] give credence to Nogara [4], who earlier alluded to how here in Uganda popular talk shows such as the 'Capital Gang' on Capital FM put corruption on the public policy agenda for discussion with government officials, donors, members of civil society and sometimes even the president.

Maintaining that media serves as an advocate Arnold and Lal [5] contend that the media influence public perceptions against corruption as something wrong. Adeyemi [24] concurs that the media plays the role of an advocate in the fight against corruption by advocating for accountability from the government and other corruptionfighting institutions to fight corruption. OECD [54, 55] reports how the media as an advocate in the fight against corruption petitions anti-corruption institutions including parliamentary committees, ombudsmen, etc. to take action on incidents of corruption and/or abuse of public power.

On the other hand, Kuznik et al. [21] observes that the media sets the agenda for the fight against corruption through public education corruption. UNODC observed how the media as agenda setters have put corruption not only on the national public agenda but on the global policy agenda. All the above validates the [47] position that the media are agenda setters by way of building public consensus against corruption.

According to Schauseil [16], the media as an advocate in the fight against corruption advocates against crooked public officials by causing judicial proceedings against them. This is in tandem with Wasswa and Kakooza [53] observation that media practitioners as advocates against corruption use media platforms to advocate for a more transparent, accountable and better government. UNODC agrees with Schauseil [16] and Wasswa and Kakooza [53] assertions that the media as advocates play important roles in the fight against the vice as it demands accountability and transparency from the public and private sectors.

In the same spirit, Human Rights Watch [57] concurs on the advocacy role of the media in fighting corruption when it reports that 'Media attention of Uganda's corruption often focuses on the "big fish who got away" and who were allegedly protected from prosecution by other elites'. Human Rights Watch [57] for instance gives

#### *Media and the Uncertain Fight against Corruption DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107827*

an example of how in late 2012 the news that US\$ 12.7 million in donor funds had been embezzled from Uganda's Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) hit the headlines in many donor capitals, prompting serious questions about Uganda's commitment to fighting corruption. As a result of the report, according to Human Rights Watch [57], the European Union, United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Norway suspended aid as an action against corruption.

Contributing to this role of media in fighting corruption Ranjan and Kashyap [58] also allude to the role of the media in condemning atrocious crimes, which includes corruption and putting tremendous pressure on formal judicial processes to take action on the culprits. While according to Williams [41], court proceedings that are covered widely by the media are concluded by the courts fast by and large. Keim et al. [35] validates [35, 41] when she observes that the media plays a role in influencing high-profile trials – adding that this includes public opinion regarding the court's handling of a case and gauging the court's efficiency in doing so. For instance, NBS (2021), part of Uganda's electronic media, has been advocating for the speedy disposal of the case of Giwatude, the former Permanent Secretary in the Office of Uganda's Prime Minister for mismanaging 2020 COVID-19 relief funds. Her trial has stalled for many months now.

However, on the downside, there have been several cases in which the media has been blamed for influencing court judgments, Platania and Crawford [59], maintaining that this is a media trial which is an unwarranted interference in the justice process, arguing correctly that a fair trial is an important element of the judicial system. Newburn and Peay concur with Platania and Crawford [59] when they averred that the media pushes people to prejudge verdicts of criminal proceedings, including in the trial of corruption cases. Some people use the media to influence case outcomes, yet courts are required to decide cases independently. With Ranjan and Kashyap [58] concurring that trials by media are not regulated and put tremendous pressure on formal judicial processes, further observing that the media should neither usurp the functions of the judiciary nor engage in subjective, biased reporting of formal criminal justice proceedings.

Whereas various scholars found that media play a positive role in the fight against corruption, others such as Sharma et al. [23] debunk the positive role of the media in the fight against corruption by alluding to how the media, especially some social media sites, may alert the subject of an investigation that their profiles are being monitored and therefore impede the investigation of corruption allegations or suspicions against them. They add that LinkedIn as an example requires a login and alerts users when their profile has been viewed and by whom. Similarly, Arnold and Lal [5] observed that the media can also propagate false perceptions about corruption, which can hinder the work of organizations that engage in the fight against corruption. From the various studies, it can be detected that there are mixed views about the roles the media play in the fight against corruption, and the extent to which the media play such roles, especially in Lira City. It is such gaps that this research seeks to bridge through investigation.

On the other hand, Sharma et al. [23] debunk the assumed positive role of the media in the fight against corruption. For instance, they posit that sometimes the media, especially some social media sites, may alert the subject of an investigation that their profiles are being monitored and therefore impede the investigation of corruption allegations or suspicions against them. They add that LinkedIn as an example requires a login and alerts users when their profile has been viewed and by whom. Similarly, Arnold and Lal [5] observe that the media can also propagate

false perceptions about corruption, which can hinder the work of organizations that engage in the fight against corruption. However, from the author's perspective, this observation could be true but does not over-weigh the numerous benefits and strengths of the media in fighting corruption in Lira City and the Ugandan community.

#### **8. Limitations of the media in the fight against corruption**

According to Schauseil [16], for the media to effectively play its role in fighting corruption, the following should be in place: professional ethics and skills, protection from oppression and physical abuse, media independence, sufficient resources and accessibility. However, the absence or lack of these elements constitutes some of the prominent challenges the media face in fighting corruption as hereunder discussed.

Lack of professional ethics and skills is one of the limitations of the media as Graeff [60] opines that some journalists face the challenge of maintaining a high degree of integrity and display of professional skills as expected and yet the absence of these core erodes their credibility in the fight against corruption, and yet the more accurate, unbiased and credible the media reports, the more pressure and responsibility it piles on the political class and other relevant actors to take action. The situation has however according to Mehra [61] been worsened by the growing debate and contention about media's credibility as a result of incidences of false reporting, inconsistencies in media reports and branding of news reports as 'fake news' propagated by big names such as former US President Donald. J. Trump.

The infiltration by masqueraders into the media work and profession of the media practitioners is one of the challenges. Ibelema [62] argues that polemics masquerading as a journalist have infiltrated the media's fight against corruption and have therefore undermined the credibility of the media in the fight since they can now be seen as self-seekers trying to vent their vendetta against privileged members of the society.

On the other hand, journalism is one of the poorly paying professions and this hinders journalists' effectiveness and can greatly compromise their professionalism. Karyeija [63] writes that low salaries and little facilitation that is given to investigate stories make them more susceptible to accepting bribes, especially in cases involving corruption itself. When a corrupt officer is faced with the reality of getting humiliated by media reports to come, they will resort to using part of the loot to also bribe the journalists to ensure that the story does not surface in the media.

According to Schauseil [16], the media is also limited by a lack of access to information in their fight against corruption. Much as he argues that for the fight against corruption by journalists to be effective, the public should access the information the journalists, process through the various media channels and this accessibility should be easy and cost-effective. For instance, in many rural locations of Uganda and other developing countries, TV signals are hardly accessible for people to access information passed through the TV. Radio sets also seem expensive for the peri-urban and rural people who could be the best beneficiaries of this medium, leave alone newspaper and internet that are even more expensive and the high level of literacy they demand. Kabata and Garaba [64] reveal that Uganda as a country has in place the Access to Information Act (2005), but this has not stopped some public officials from denying the media access to the pieces of information in their possession, citing the oath of secrecy they undertook under the Oaths Act CAP (19) to keep certain information a secret.

#### *Media and the Uncertain Fight against Corruption DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.107827*

The media is also hampered by the inability to enforce accountability as it is not their mandate; however, Ditmore and Thukral [65] contend that the media can make the issue of corruption become a public matter by investigating incidences of corruption, reporting and causing debate about corruption, the media does not have the legal mandate or authority to arrest and prosecute anybody over corruption. They argue that the media's role ends at pestering duty bearers to take action, and yet the duty bearers can either choose to renege on their role and render the media's effort in fighting corruption unsuccessful. This has been made worse by the restrictive and selective application of the media laws in Uganda which has been cited by Oxford Analytica as a restriction on the media in Uganda. These findings, therefore, open the doors to academicians and other stakeholders whose wishes and aspirations are to bring corruption under control and to devise effective mechanisms that can adequately address these above-identified factors. All the above-discussed challenges do apply to the local media houses of Lira City in Uganda as observed critically by the author who has been a practicing journalist for more than 15 years in the locality.
