Are Donors Taking the Journalism Crisis Seriously? An Analysis of Official Aid to Media 2010–2019
Washington, DC: Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA) (2024), 32 pp.
Contains 11 figures, 2 tables
"Donor agencies are saying that they are committed to media development and are trying to learn from the past but many of the same challenges that have beset the sector for years remain. And media support is still low on the list of aid priorities and can easily be cut when crises such as COVID‑19 and the war in Ukraine strike. In the eyes of the media INGOs, the OECD DAC donors are still not providing adequate, stable, or predictable funding or clear media development strategies. All media INGOs, and many donor officials, are working in a constant state of uncertainty about whether there will be true commitments—or cuts—just around the corner.
There still appear to be more questions than answers in the sector. Among those interviewed for this study, for every donor or implementer who looked back with pride at the last decade’s successes in a country or on a theme, another questioned that same theme or strategy. Each donor agency has its own subtly different
priorities and approaches. The more technical aspects—the search for commercial sustainability and the avoidance of aid dependency, how to promote public trust in media, how best to build journalistic capacity, and how to promote localization and a truly bottom‑up approach—are some of the issues that still have no solutions.
Nonetheless, compared with a decade ago, there appears to be a better understanding of media among the major donors. They are also increasingly concerned about the impact of technology and digital governance on news media and recognize the dangers associated with social media and information pollution. There is also a greater commitment to multilateral diplomatic efforts, such as the Media Freedom Coalition (started by the United Kingdom and Canada in 2019), the Summit for Democracy (launched in 2021 by the United States), the International Partnership for Information and Democracy (launched by France in 2019), and possibly what may be emerging as a “diplomatic turn” in media development. Donor governments are increasingly talking to recipient country governments and lobbying for changes such as improved journalist safety, an end to impunity for attacks on journalists, trial observations by the international community, granting of emergency visas, and so on." (Conclusions, pages 25-26)
There still appear to be more questions than answers in the sector. Among those interviewed for this study, for every donor or implementer who looked back with pride at the last decade’s successes in a country or on a theme, another questioned that same theme or strategy. Each donor agency has its own subtly different
priorities and approaches. The more technical aspects—the search for commercial sustainability and the avoidance of aid dependency, how to promote public trust in media, how best to build journalistic capacity, and how to promote localization and a truly bottom‑up approach—are some of the issues that still have no solutions.
Nonetheless, compared with a decade ago, there appears to be a better understanding of media among the major donors. They are also increasingly concerned about the impact of technology and digital governance on news media and recognize the dangers associated with social media and information pollution. There is also a greater commitment to multilateral diplomatic efforts, such as the Media Freedom Coalition (started by the United Kingdom and Canada in 2019), the Summit for Democracy (launched in 2021 by the United States), the International Partnership for Information and Democracy (launched by France in 2019), and possibly what may be emerging as a “diplomatic turn” in media development. Donor governments are increasingly talking to recipient country governments and lobbying for changes such as improved journalist safety, an end to impunity for attacks on journalists, trial observations by the international community, granting of emergency visas, and so on." (Conclusions, pages 25-26)
"The quantitative data for this report’s analysis come from the OECD’s Creditor Reporting System (CRS) aid activity database. These include data supplied by the 32 DAC members, including the European Union (EU) bodies that are obligated to report, as well as all the main multilateral organizations, which voluntarily report. Donors take at least a year, and sometimes longer, to report their commitments, and thus there is a lag between when a commitment is made by the donor and when it is made available via the CRS database. Data was extracted from commitments listed under the “government and civil society” sector (15153 Media and free flow of information) and under the “communications” sector (22010 Communications policy and administrative management; 22020 Telecommunications; 22030 Radio / television / print media; 22040 Information and communication technology). Trained coders analyzed each project based on its title and description. Projects that did not meet CIMA criteria for media development were excluded. All remaining projects were coded based on the description in the database. For reliability, at least two individuals independently coded the entire database, and any disagreements on codes were later arbitrated." (Page 27)
Introduction, 1
What the Data Tell Us—ODA to Support Media 2010–2019, 4
What the Donors Say, 13
Conclusions, 25
Annex, 27
What the Data Tell Us—ODA to Support Media 2010–2019, 4
What the Donors Say, 13
Conclusions, 25
Annex, 27
