Journalists’ welfare has emerged as a key discussion point in the lead-up to this year’s Media Institute of Southern Africa Malawi Chapter elections. That is hardly surprising given the poor working conditions many journalists continue to endure across the industry.
Young reporters spend months—sometimes more than a year—on unpaid internships. Salaries remain low across much of the industry. Some journalists survive largely on allowances tied to assignments and events.
From there, a broader conclusion often follows: media institutions simply do not value journalists enough.
It is an understandable argument. But it is also incomplete.
At a surface level, the issue appears straightforward. If journalists are poorly paid, media houses should simply increase salaries and improve conditions. That logic resonates because it reflects a real and visible struggle.
However, the reality is more layered than that.
Many media institutions are themselves operating under severe financial strain. Advertising revenues are under pressure, audiences are fragmented and digital monetisation remains weak. In some cases, organisations struggling to pay reporters are also struggling to sustain operations.
That does not excuse exploitation. But it does shift the discussion toward a harder question: how does the industry generate sustainable revenue?
This is where the debate has to be fair, focused and balanced.
Journalists’ welfare is frequently discussed as an ethical problem when it is also an economic one. A newsroom cannot sustainably pay competitive salaries if its business model is weak.
That is particularly true for community radios, where many unpaid internships are concentrated. Yet these same stations possess something valuable: direct access to local communities.
Development agencies, government ministries and civil society organisations continuously run campaigns around cholera prevention, maternal health, climate adaptation, agriculture and financial literacy. These programmes require communication strategies capable of reaching rural audiences effectively.
However, many community radios participate only as outlets waiting for jingles or coverage invitations.
That limits their value.
A stronger approach would involve institutions such as Misa Malawi and the Media Council of Malawi training community radios in proposal writing, campaign design, budgeting and impact reporting.
A station that can design and manage a full behavioural-change communication campaign occupies a different economic position from one that merely broadcasts announcements.
That creates an opportunity for stations to secure funding tied to development communication initiatives while strengthening local journalism ecosystems.
However, there are risks within that model.
Heavy dependence on donor-funded campaigns could gradually shift stations away from independent journalism toward development communication. Editorial priorities may begin following funding priorities rather than public-interest concerns.
There is also the risk that larger urban stations with stronger administrative capacity capture most opportunities while smaller rural stations remain excluded.
Then there is the issue of “Chiponda”—informal allowances given to reporters for covering events or publishing stories.
The discussion around Chiponda is often framed as an ethical issue. But it is also a structural economic issue.
Consider this: a journalist may accept K30 000 to cover an event that occupies newspaper space capable of generating more than K250 000 in advertising revenue. Over time, that creates a parallel system where individuals monetise coverage privately while media institutions lose commercial value collectively.
However, blaming journalists alone oversimplifies the problem.
Many reporters accept such arrangements because salaries are low, transport support is limited and some media houses struggle to finance assignments consistently. In that sense, Chiponda is not merely a cause of weak media economics—it is also a symptom of it.
This is why institutional reform matters.
Media houses themselves must improve advertising controls, enforce rate cards consistently and strengthen revenue tracking systems. In some organisations, revenue leakage occurs not because advertisers are unavailable, but because internal systems are weak.
The future of journalism in Malawi will not be secured through passion alone. Nor will it be resolved entirely through labour activism.
The industry also needs stronger business models.
Because ultimately, journalists’ welfare depends not only on how media institutions treat their employees, but also on whether those institutions can generate enough value to sustain independent journalism in the first place.
