The Muted Microphone: RFI’s Low-Profile Coverage of Cameroon’s Presidential Election”
As Cameroon is about to draw the curtains over a highly contentious presidential election, many inside and outside the country have been asking a striking question on why Radio France Internationale (RFI), usually one of the most vocal international observers in African French Speaking countries, maintained such a subdued and cautious tone? The irony is that on RFI’s online landing page on Africa News, articles abound on the coming elections in Cote D’Ivoire, and the military takeover in Madagascar with a rare mention on the situation in Cameroon
For an election marked by allegations of fraud, restricted political space, and a population hungry for change, RFI’s minimal and almost sterile reporting has raised eyebrows. The questions that come to mind are, could this muted coverage be due to state pressure, diplomatic interests, newsroom risk-calculation, and/ or a media environment increasingly hostile to scrutiny.
Some world media houses see Cameroon as a country where genuine journalistic oversight is often unwelcome; a country where independent reporters face intimidation, and international press access is filtered through heavy bureaucratic control. Foreign correspondents must secure accreditation that can be delayed, denied, or withdrawn. Those who push too far know the consequences: expulsion, restricted movement, or blocked broadcast signals.
In such an environment, silencing does not always require censorship. Sometimes, the mere threat of losing access is enough to enforce compliance. For a major broadcaster like RFI, access is currency — and Cameroon knows it.
RFI is publicly funded by France, and while its editorial line is officially independent, no one in geopolitics is naïve. Cameroon is a long-standing French ally in Central Africa having cooperation agreements in the military, economic, and strategic partnership sectors.
It is therefore legitimate to ask if Paris would welcome aggressive coverage that has the potential of destabilising an ally or risk damaging Franco–Cameroon relations over an electoral controversy, even though it has to do with the election of the president who holds the key to the future path of the relationship.
It is common knowledge that diplomatic sensitivities do not always dictate editorial choices, though they often shape the permissible boundaries of scrutiny. RFI may not have wanted to throw caution to the wind, knowing very well that when elections threaten to expose authoritarian patterns, international broadcasters sometimes choose caution over confrontation.
Inside any newsroom, editors assign resources based on where they believe the “story heat” is. For RFI, the Cameroon election (surprisingly) may have been internally classified as a “low-surprise, low-impact” event either because in their estimation the winner was predictable, the opposition was fragmented, institutional transparency is weak and the space for alternative outcome is limited.
When journalists believe an election is structured to produce a foregone conclusion, investigative momentum declines. But this logic is exactly what entrenched regimes rely on — international fatigue and lowered expectations. When the world assumes nothing will change, scrutiny fades, and power goes unchallenged.
If a press organ like RFI softens its gaze on a key election taking place in Cameroon, a key ally of France, the cost can be paid by citizens, because its muted coverage can help to embolden authoritarian actors, shrink global accountability, leave local journalists more exposed and isolated and normalise democratic insufficiencies.
At a time when Cameroonians are demanding transparency, the quiet from an influential newsroom becomes more than an editorial choice — it becomes part of the story.
Steve Nfor (retired Senior Journalist)
