Journalism Is Not a Toll Booth
Unless this is intended as a joke, Cameroonians are not surprised by the casual way corruption now announces itself—even in political commentary.
In Cameroon, every small favor seems to require a bribe. Every service comes with a “down payment.” Every gatekeeper demands to be “arranged.” We live with this daily reality. But to import that same mentality into political analysis and call it journalism is not just disappointing—it is disqualifying.
Yes, compensating people for work done is fair. No serious person disputes that.
But payment follows quality, not promises. It follows demonstrated rigor, not advance billing. Journalism—especially political journalism—earns its legitimacy through clarity, courage, evidence, and public trust, not through “contact me for Nkap-wise arrangements.”
What is being offered in Cameroon is not investigative journalism. It is not research. It is not even a structured analysis. It is anecdote-heavy opinion wrapped in self-importance, with a paywall erected before substance is delivered.
Even on this very forum—where opinions are strong, biases clear, and passions high—no serious contributor has ever demanded money in advance before making their case. People write. The public reads. The work stands or collapses on its own merit. That is how credibility is built.
If the author truly possesses “700 pages” worth of insight, the correct approach is simple:
Publish a rigorous excerpt
Demonstrate depth, sourcing, and coherence
Let readers judge whether the work deserves support
Anything else is not journalism. It is rent-seeking dressed as analysis.
More troubling is the contradiction at the heart of the argument. A text that claims to diagnose the moral and political decay of a party cannot then reproduce the very pathology it pretends to expose—transactional thinking, entitlement, and contempt for the reader.
Cameroonians are tired of this culture:
Where ideas are withheld for payment
Where critique is monetized before it is validated
Where loud certainty substitutes for evidence
Political commentary is not a private consultancy. It is a public act. And public acts are accountable to public standards.
If the goal is to contribute to understanding the collapse of the SDF, then the obligation is to write clearly, argue honestly, and publish fully. If the goal is personal monetization, then it should be stated plainly and removed from the pretence of civic engagement.
The struggle for political renewal—whether in Cameroon or Ambazonia—will not be advanced by importing the logic of bribery into the realm of ideas.
Quality speaks first.
Payment, if any, comes after.
