commbox Media Assistance

Filter

1761

Sort by:

Direction:

Call for an increase of European support for journalism and free media worldwide

CFI; Deutsche Welle DW Akademie; Fondation Hirondelle; International Media Support (IMS), April 29 (2025)

"At this critical point in time, independent journalists, public interest media and civil society organisations in countries around the world need decisive support. They are directly and severely impacted by the current US administration’s decision to freeze financial support to independent media. ... more

External Link (168)

The State of Media Development: Middle East and North Africa

Samar Sabry

Bonn: Deutsche Welle DW Akademie (2025), 25 pp.

"In light of the rapid changes in the political, economic, and technological landscape in the region, there is an urgent need to reassess the goals and priorities of media support programs in the MENA region, focusing on challenges, best practices, and providing effective recommendations. This also ... requires adopting a more coordinated and integrated approach between donors and local partners to ensure that support aligns with the real needs of media institutions and the communities they serve. This is considered the foundation for achieving sustainable impact, rather than relying on short-term or fragmented support that does not keep pace with local realities. Key recommendations 1. Risk assessment and compliance with local context: Develop proactive risk assessment systems that include early warning tools and analysis of the political context, with project designs aligned to the local and political conditions of each country. 2. Protect journalists and enhance their safety: Strengthen physical and digital safety through continuous training, provision of protection tools, and the establishment of technical and advisory support units in cases of targeting. 3. Sustainable and neutral funding: Provide core and long-term funding to ensure financial sustainability, while maintaining funding neutrality, and ensure fair distribution. 4. Adopt a comprehensive and integrated approach: Adopt strategies that consider all components of the media system, supported by thorough needs assessments and long-term monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure impact and sustainability. 5. Empower local partners: Enhance the active role of local actors and transform them from implementers to strategic partners in all stages of the project. 6. Build the capacities of local partners: Develop the skills and knowledge of local partners and researchers specialized in media development, integrate research and learning into projects. 7. Support emerging organizations: Continue funding and supporting small, locally impactful organizations, rather than focusing on large ones only. 8. Simplify administrative procedures: Reduce administrative burdens through standardized proposal templates and allocate a percentage of funding to administrative costs to ensure effective management. 9. Enhance coordination among stakeholders: Appoint national and regional media reform advisors and strengthen links between policymakers and media institutions to ensure synergy." (Conclusions and key recommendations, page 25) more

External Link (210)

Media Assistance: Mind the Gap! A critical review of common practices and strategies. Presentations

Dortmund: Erich-Brost-Institut; Forum Medien und Entwicklung (fome) (2025), 202 slides

"This is a compilation of the presentations at the fome conference on "Media Assistance: Mind the Gap!" from September 30 – October 1, 2024, in Dortmund." (commbox)

External Link (209)

The State of Media Development: Latin America and the Caribbean

Emy Osorio Matorel

Bonn: Deutsche Welle DW Akademie (2025), 20 pp.

"Public-interest media across Latin America and the Caribbean are resilient and innovative, yet the enabling environment remains fragile. As this study has shown, none of the six OECD principles is fully met, with the sharpest gaps in funding (short-term, projectized support), donor coordination, an ... more

External Link (315)

The Index on International Media Freedom Support 2025

Martin Scott, Mel Bunce, Shannon Maguire, Mary Myers

University of East Anglia, Centre for Journalism and Democracy; City St George’s, University of London (2025), 30 pp.

"The Index on International Media Freedom Support (IMFS) evaluates and ranks states based on their support for media freedom beyond their borders. It does this by analysing the contributions that countries have made to international diplomatic, financial and safety / protection initiatives that prom ... ote media freedom. The IMFS Index includes all states that are members of both the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) and the Media Freedom Coalition (MFC) (30 countries). These countries have pledged to promote media freedom internationally, and the IMFS holds them accountable for these commitments. The Index draws on data from the previous calendar year (2024), except for the ODA figures, which are for 2023, due to the time lag in reporting. The IMFS Index is produced by an independent research group and is a joint project between City St George’s, University of London, and the University of East Anglia. The results of the 2025 IMFS Index highlight several well performing states: Lithuania (1st) is the highest ranked country, largely due to its diplomatic efforts, including its leadership of two multilateral initiatives. Sweden (2nd) spent a far higher proportion of its Official Development Assistance (ODA) on media development in 2023 than any other country (0.91%). It is the only country to get close to the benchmark of 1.0%, as recommended by the Forum on Information & Democracy. France (5th) is the only country to award funding to all four qualifying multilateral pooled funds in 2024. Latvia (9th) is the only country to have both an active emergency visa scheme dedicated to supporting journalists at-risk and to support a national initiative that promotes the protection and safety of media workers in exile. The IMFS Index also identifies several less encouraging trends and performances: No country performed consistently well across all three areas of diplomacy, funding and safety / protection. Almost two thirds of the 30 countries qualified for the lowest, bronze category, earning only 10 points or less. This includes four members of the G7: the United Kingdom (equal 12th), the United States (equal 12th), Italy (equal 24th) and Japan (28th). The lowest ranked countries were Japan (28th), Slovenia (equal 29th) and South Korea (equal 29th), due to their relative lack of support for diplomacy, funding and safety / protection. However, South Korea and Japan do provide support for the wider enabling environment for media freedom in their ODA spending, which is not measured by this Index. On average, the 30 states in the IMFS Index allocated just 0.16% of their ODA to media development in 2023. Thirteen countries awarded less than 0.1%, including three – Latvia (9th), Greece (21st), and Slovenia (29th) – which reported giving 0%. Only five countries had an emergency visa scheme for journalists in 2024, and only five hosted an assistance programme for journalists in exile. Twenty-one countries had neither." (Executive summary, pages 3-4) more

External Link (275)

Mapping of media assistance and journalism support programmes in the Levant region
Deep Insights

Emmanuel-Pierre Guittet, Ghias Al Juni, Aida Ail-Kaisy

Brussels: Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) (2025), 11 pp.

"Using the OECD Principles for Relevant and Effective Support to Media and the Information Environment as a lens, the GFMD mapping highlights several pressing issues. 1. The dominance of governmental funding, particularly from the United States, underscores the sector’s heavy reliance on a narrow ... more

External Link (185)

Google Scholar (149)

WorldCat (133)

Funding Without Strings: The Case for IJ4EU’s Investigative Journalism Support Model

Marius Dragomir

Journalism Practice (2025), 19 pp.

"Against the backdrop of market failure, shrinking newsroom budgets, and increasing political pressure on the press, the Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU) program has emerged as a journalist-led, donor-funded initiative that supports collaborative investigative reporting across borders. Dr ... more

External Link (223)

USA: Trump's foreign aid freeze throws journalism around the world into chaos

Reporters Without Borders, February 6 (2025)

"President Donald Trump has frozen billions of dollars around the world in aid projects, including over $268 million allocated by Congress to support independent media and the free flow of information. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) denounces this decision, which has plunged NGOs, media outlets, an ... more

External Link (224)

In Eastern Europe, freeze on US aid leaves door open to Russian disinformation

Romain Chauvet

Washington, DC: International Center for Journalists, February 25 (2025)

"The Trump administration’s freeze on U.S. foreign aid will lead to a surge in Russian disinformation across Eastern Europe, experts warn, as independent media outlets across the region will be forced to shutter, leaving a vacuum of credible information in their wake. “Russian disinfo will have ... more

External Link (198)

Urgent call for governments, multilateral institutions, and philanthropies to support independent media and journalism

Brussels: Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) (2025), 3 pp.

"The recent U.S. government decision to suspend foreign assistance has abruptly halted key grants and programmes that have been essential in sustaining global development, cooperation, and supporting international peace and security and human rights efforts worldwide, putting in jeopardy the ability ... more

External Link (219)

Responses to a changing media assistance landscape

Dani Madrid-Morales

Deutsche Welle (2025)

"The US has suspended funding for development aid, including for media. Meanwhile, China and Russia have been stepping up media assistance programs for years with a variety of strategies, explains Dani Madrid-Morales." (Introduction)

External Link (226)

Reimagining Funding for Journalism: Key Takeaways from IJF 2025

Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD), May 6 (2025)

"At the International Journalism Festival (IJF) in Perugia this year, journalism funding and sustainability took centre stage. International funders, media leaders, and innovators grappled with the urgent question of how to keep independent journalism not just alive—but thriving—in an era of shr ... more

External Link (116)

Global thematic evaluation of EU actions to counter disinformation and foreign interference and manipulation of information (FIMI). Contract N° 300109186, Final Report

Per Oesterlund, Vesna Salaj, Andrei Richter, Tanja Hafner Ademi, Jawad Wariaghli, Suzanne Moll Moll

European Commission; Particip (2025), 357 pp.

"This Global Thematic Evaluation of EU Actions to Counter Disinformation and Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference (FIMI) assessed 45 Actions funded by the Service for Foreign Policy Instruments (FPI) since 2021, with a combined budget of around €100 million. The portfolio covered Afri ... ca, Asia, Latin America, and the EU Neighbourhood and Enlargement regions, spanning media literacy, fact-checking, journalism support, and targeted counter-disinformation initiatives. The evaluation reviewed all Actions and analysed 12 in depth, combining desk research, surveys, interviews, and six field missions. Relevance: The Actions were broadly relevant to EU commitments on countering disinformation and FIMI, aligning with the IcSP/FPI mandate and the EEAS Stratcom agenda, and responding to the concrete needs of journalists, fact-checkers, and civil society in fragile contexts. Flexibility allowed rapid mobilisation, which was widely valued. However, strategic articulation was weak: many Actions remained stand-alone or implementer-driven, without clear embedding in a wider EU counter-FIMI strategy. The portfolio was largely reactive, drawing little on foresight capacities, and emerging themes such as gendered disinformation, climate/environmental narratives, digital security, or psychosocial support were rarely addressed systematically. Effectiveness: Most Actions were implemented as planned, despite serious disruptions, such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine or weak digital infrastructure in some contexts. Outcomes, however, were uneven: ambitious objectives were often poorly matched with measurable indicators, making achievements difficult to evidence. Implementing Partners with local credibility and contextual expertise proved decisive, while those lacking local embeddedness delivered weaker or short-lived results. Innovations such as AI-driven tools demonstrated potential but struggled with uptake due to usability issues, lack of long-term financing models, and limited cooperation from social media platforms. Effectiveness was consistently higher where in-country engagement (for example through EU Delegations) and cooperation with the EEAS and other services successfully linked projects to EU policy efforts, ensuring stronger coordination. Efficiency: The IcSP/FPI instrument proved flexible and resilient, with most Actions delivered broadly on time and within budget, even in fragile and high-risk environments. A rapid budget review confirmed significant variation in cost distribution, ranging from highly cost-effective interventions to projects where management and overheads absorbed disproportionate resources. Variation is expected in a diverse portfolio, but the absence of common budgetary parameters constrained comparability and transparency. Efficiency was higher where Actions partnered with trusted local organisations, leveraged existing infrastructure, and were designed for scalability. At the same time, duplication occurred in some cases (e.g. overlapping AI initiatives), reflecting limited technical coordination. Digital security and GDPR compliance were also weakly addressed in several Actions handling sensitive data, raising risks and inefficiencies. EU Added Value: The EU’s added value was evident in its neutrality and legitimacy, enabling access in contexts where Member States faced political constraints. The rapid-response capacity of FPI was a distinct comparative advantage, with activities launched in weeks rather than months. The EU’s ability to operate at scale and across regions added weight and reach to counter-FIMI efforts. However, visibility of EU support was often low, with Delegations sometimes deliberately keeping a low profile in sensitive environments. Weak articulation of Team Europe further limited collective EU impact and visibility. Coherence: Cooperation with EEAS Stratcom and certain Commission DGs (INTPA, CONNECT, RTD) was constructive, providing continuity and complementarity. At Action level, collaboration between FPI, Delegations, and Implementing Partners generally worked well. Nonetheless, internal coherence remained a challenge: there was no common prioritisation framework, and lesson-sharing across Actions and regions was mostly informal and ad hoc. Coordination with Member States varied: in some countries, EUDs and national embassies worked closely together, while in others MS distanced themselves from sensitive projects. Team Europe approaches were therefore inconsistently applied, limiting collective visibility and strategic weight. Sustainability and impact: Sustainability was strongest where Actions were embedded in credible institutions, such as Strategic Communication Centres in Moldova and Ukraine. Stand-alone platforms and networks often collapsed once funding ended, unless informal peer-to-peer groups were deliberately nurtured. Training effects were fragile due to staff turnover and limited institutional uptake. Many platforms and dashboards lacked handover or financing models, leaving investments vulnerable. These gaps reflect the structural trade-off of a rapid-response instrument: immediacy and flexibility often take precedence over sustainability. At impact level, Actions delivered visible results at micro and meso levels (skills, peer learning, new tools), but systemic change in disinformation dynamics was neither realistic nor evidenced at current scale. Weak outcome-level monitoring further limited the ability to demonstrate incremental long-term effects." (Executive summary, page iv-v) more

External Link (159)

Estado del Desarrollo de los Medios: América Latina y el Caribe

Emy Osorio Matorel

Bonn: Deutsche Welle DW Akademie (2025), 20 pp.

"Los medios de interés público en América Latina y el Caribe son resilientes e innovadores, pero el entorno que los rodea sigue siendo frágil. Como ha mostrado este estudio, ninguno de los seis principios de la OCDE se cumple plenamente, con las mayores brechas en el financiamiento (apoyo de cor ... more

External Link (285)

Google Scholar (239)

WorldCat (243)

Brokers of journalism: Exploring the assigned role of interpreters in media training in Vietnam

Andreas Mattsson

Australian Journalism Review, volume 47, issue 2 (2025), pp. 243 - 261

"In this article, I explore the assigned role of interpreters in journalism training programmes in Vietnam, focusing on two media aid projects funded by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida): the Local Radio Project and the Further Training of Journalists programme. The stu ... more

Download (169)

Country Summaries: Annual Report 2024. Multi-Donor Programme on Freedom of Expression and Safety of Journalists

UNESCO (2025), 38 pp.

External Link (189)

The State of Media Development: Francophone Africa

Jean Claude Bitsure, Jean-Pierre Uwimana

Bonn: Deutsche Welle DW Akademie (2025), 22 pp.

"The African media sector embodies both remarkable potential and persistent fragility. Across the continent, journalists and media organizations continue to demonstrate resilience, innovation, and commitment to public interest reporting, and often in environments marked by political interference, ec ... more

External Link (221)

Google Scholar (244)

WorldCat (261)

The Sustainability Imperative in Media Development: A Critical Analysis of a Self-Serving Myth

Michel Leroy

Cham: Palgrave Macmillan (2025), xxiv, 396 pp.

"This book critically examines how the media assistance and broader "development" sectors have appropriated the catch-all concept of sustainability, originally rooted in economic and environmental fields, to suit their agendas. Analysing 289 project evaluations conducted globally between 1999 and 20 ... more

External Link (252)

Independent Evaluation of the Media Freedom Coalition

Aida Al Kaisy, Daniel Skillings, Ivana Jiménez Barrios

Paris: Aleph Strategies; Media Freedom Coalition (2025), 62 pp.

"The evaluation found that the MFC has made notable contributions to media freedom and journalist safety over the past five years. It has played a role in encouraging some Member States to strengthen their media freedom policies and legislation. The MFC has also influenced state actors through diplo ... matic and advocacy efforts, maintaining high-level political attention on media freedom. Direct interventions, legal guidance, and engagement with embassy networks have contributed to journalist protection efforts at the local level. Furthermore, the MFC has strengthened multi-stakeholder coordination, bringing together governments, civil society, and legal experts. However, the evaluation also identified several areas for improvement. While the MFC provides a platform for dialogue and cooperation, its engagement with members on domestic media freedom policies is voluntary and lacks a structured approach for supporting and tracking commitments. Joint advocacy statements have a greater impact locally than internationally and are often perceived as lacking boldness and clear outcomes. While the MFC has addressed high-profile cases, its focus has sometimes overshadowed broader, systemic media freedom challenges. Engagement with Rights-Holders and organisations working on the ground has been limited, impacting the relevance and sustainability of its strategies. Coordination and collaboration within the MFC are foundational, particularly through diplomatic networks and the development of emergency visa schemes. However, decision-making is often reactive, affecting stakeholder trust. The MFC’s membership is perceived as predominantly Northern-led, and there is potential to leverage its diverse membership more effectively. Knowledge management and information-sharing need strengthening to ensure a deeper understanding of media freedom issues among Member States. The high-level legal expertise of the HLP is underutilised. Clarity around decision-making processes among Member States varies, influencing trust-based collaboration. While engagement at the local level through embassies is effective, it requires more structured guidance and support. Coordination between Member States, the CN, and the HLP remains limited in some areas. In terms of sustainability, the current governance model, particularly the annual rotation of Executive Group co-chairs, can present challenges for knowledge retention and continuity. Funding modalities are complex, leading to perceptions of uneven distribution and impacting trust and coordination. While the MFC has developed working relationships with similar coalitions, more formalised collaboration could maximise resource efficiency. The limited engagement with Rights-Holders influences the visibility and perceived effectiveness of the MFC’s work." (Key findings and conclusions, pages 2-3) more

Mapping of media assistance and journalism support programmes in the Levant region Deep Insights

Mapping of media assistance and journalism support programmes in the Levant region
Deep Insights