During the 20th Umushyikirano, last week, Rwanda Media Commission Chairperson Scovia Mutesi raised a concern that resonates deeply within the country’s media community; some of Rwanda’s best journalists are leaving the profession—not because they lack passion or skill, but because journalism increasingly fails to provide a sustainable livelihood.

ALSO READ: Journalist Scovia Mutesi on ethics, support for media

In a moment of humor, she remarked that the roundtable host—the newly appointed deputy government spokesperson Jean Maurice Uwera—was "lucky” to have been appointed before leaving journalism entirely. Beneath the laughter, however, lay an uncomfortable truth. For a number of journalists, transitioning into government communication, corporate affairs, NGOs, or public relations is not a betrayal of their profession, but a strategy for survival.

This reality raises a broader question: what does it mean for Rwanda when journalism can no longer retain its most experienced professionals?

Journalism’s economic fragility at home

For many young journalists, entry into the profession is marked by prolonged volunteerism, modest pay, and informal working arrangements. My own experience reflects this reality. It took nearly a year and a half of voluntary work before I earned my first journalism salary—Rwf200,000, an amount that remains common across many newsrooms.

According to Rwanda Governance Board (RGB), nearly 44 percent of journalists earn less than Rwf200,000 per month. At such income levels, sustaining a professional life, investing in skills, or planning for the future becomes extremely difficult.

Many journalists also work for years without formal contracts, relying on per-story stipends, often referred to as ‘giti’. While this model helps keep newsrooms operational, it quietly erodes journalism as a profession by normalising precarity and insecurity.

The predicament is not driven by negligent owners; many outlets are financially strained, with closures showing journalism’s decline is structural rather than moral failure.

The real cost of losing journalists

When experienced journalists leave the profession, Rwanda does not merely lose employees; it loses institutional memory, investigative capacity, mentorship, and depth of public debate. Newsrooms increasingly rely on newcomers who often see journalism as a temporary stepping stone rather a long-term calling.

Low pay and instability also create ethical vulnerabilities. When journalism cannot meet basic economic needs, defending professional independence and ethical standards becomes more difficult—not because journalists lack integrity, but because ethics cannot thrive without economic dignity.

A global crisis

Rwanda’s media challenges exist within a broader global context.

Around the world, journalism is struggling to adapt to a digital economy dominated by social media platforms, citizen journalism, artificial intelligence, and declining advertising revenues. Business models that once sustained newsrooms have steadily eroded.

This crisis is visible even in developed economies. The difference lies in how some countries have responded.

Several European countries, including Norway and Denmark, established legal frameworks and subsidy programmes to support news media. These systems aim to sustain journalistic quality, promote media pluralism, and protect local and regional outlets. In Norway, for example, the government provides direct media support through a legal framework known as the Media Subsidies Act. This includes editorial production support, which covers part of newsroom costs, as well as distribution and operational subsidies for smaller publications.

Rwanda must adapt—not adopt

The Norwegian case is not a model Rwanda can copy wholesale. Our economy is fundamentally different, and matching European levels of support would be unrealistic. However, the guiding principles remain instructive.

Rwanda could explore transparent, institutionalised media development funds to support journalistic sustainability, with firm safeguards for editorial independence. Such thinking echoes proposals raised by Mutesi during Umushyikirano 20, where she suggested assessing mechanisms to compensate media houses for covering public-interest government activities—recognising that the media is often called a government partner yet it bears the financial costs of coverage.

Beyond public support, media houses could strengthen audience-supported revenue models, including subscriptions and memberships, to reduce reliance on advertising. Local foundations, NGOs, and international partners could also provide project-based grants for investigative and public-interest journalism, supplementing newsroom budgets.

Crucially, support should prioritise institutional sustainability by strengthening media houses rather than focusing on short-term training programmes that do little to address income insecurity.

Rwanda does not need to replicate European media systems.

What it can adapt are transferable principles: transparent public support that protects editorial independence, audience-centred revenue strategies, grant mechanisms for public-interest journalism, and professional incentives tied to long-term sustainability.

If Rwanda’s media ecosystem integrates these principles in ways suited to local realities, it can retain its best journalists, improve journalistic quality, and strengthen the media’s role in democratic and developmental discourse.

Jean-Felix Muhire is a communication and media studies university student.