mediadev library

Filter

1400

Sort by:

Direction:

No Signal, no Voice: How Internet Shutdowns Undermined Uganda’s 2026 Elections

Kampala: Unwanted Witness; Women of Uganda Network (WOUGNET) (2026), 55 pp.

"This report finds that significant, deliberate, and centrally coordinated internet disruptions occurred before, during, and after Uganda’s January 2026 general elections. Contrary to public assurances issued by government officials in the weeks preceding polling, access to the internet was progre ... more

Download (68)

Step by Step: How SAFE AI contributes to trustworthy AI

CDAC Network; Alan Turing Institute; Humanitarian AI Advisory (2026), 8 pp.

"Based on the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) AI Risk Management Framework, the seven characteristics of trustworthy AI are: 1. Valid and Reliable: The AI system should perform as intended, delivering accurate results consistently across different situations. 2. Safe: The sy ... more

Download (76)

SAFE AI: A Governance Framework for Humanitarians using AI. How to turn SAFE AI principles into practical action

Helen McElhinney, Anjali Mazumder, Michael Tjalve, Suzy Madigan, Sarah Spencer

CDAC Network; Alan Turing Institute; Humanitarian AI Advisory (2026), 93 pp.

"The SAFE AI Framework is designed to support humanitarian organisations on their AI journey, and navigate the risks raised. Organisations procuring AI systems or designing AI projects will benefit from each tool within this framework, which is intended as a practical approach to using, designing, p ... more

Download (75)

Generative AI and democracy: Study on advantages and risks of the use of generative artificial intelligence in public debate and democratic processes

Natali Helberger, Claes de Vreese, Gionata Bouche, Agustin Ferrari Braun, Max van Drunen, Simon Kruschinski, Nicolas Mattis, Sophie Morosoli, Laurens Naudts, Charis Papaevangelou, Theresa Seipp, Fabio Votta, Teresa Weikmann

Strasbourg: Council of Europe, Steering Committee on Democracy (CDDM) (2026), 77 pp.

"The key finding of this report is that it is not enough to make sure that the technology is safe and no risk to human rights and public values. GenAI’s impact and potential for the realisation of fundamental rights depends on the societal, organisation and regulatory context in which it operates, ... the possibility for institutions to make value-driven choices and regulators that actively promote public innovation where the interests of society as a whole outweigh purely economic interests of a concentrated handful of technology companies. This report has made the argument that GenAI and its implications for human rights and democracy must be seen in the context of the configurations of infrastructural and political power, and who is able and entitled to decide the course and character of innovation. [...] The report makes a number of recommendations to the Council of Europe: 1. Provide substantive guidance and standardisation: As a human rights organisation, the Council of Europe is particularly well prepared to develop more substantive guidance and identify, concretise and monitor risks to democracy, human rights and political equality, be that in the way GenAI is used in democratic practices like elections, the more structural implications for democratic institutions (such as the free press) as well as the democratic governance of AI. Next to a focus on risks, the Council of Europe can also usefully develop guidance how AI can advance democracy and human rights and develop a value-driven interpretation of “public interest innovation” to inform States, companies and standardisation processes. 2. Incentivise and enable public interest innovation: Next to the risked-based approach to AI that is also enshrined in the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention, the Council of Europe could develop guidance on policies and governance approaches that enable and incentivise public interest innovation. It could help identify the democratic and human rights implications of procurement choices, and develop narratives to prioritize value-oriented innovation, open-source datasets, decentralisation and interoperability above the promotion of scale and innovation driven by a concentrated number of technology companies. 3. Strengthen democratic resilience and ability to govern: The Council of Europe, and the CDDEM specifically, could have an important role in exploring mechanisms and regulatory solutions to map and remedy existing dependencies and identify mission-critical elements of a European digital ecosystem, for example through monitoring the use of GenAI in elections, stimulating the development of public interest information infrastructures and strengthening the ability of states to develop democratic and inclusive ways of governing GenAI. Next to digital autonomy, empowering public accountability actors like civil society, equality bodies, academics or investigative reporters to participate in the governance of the digital transformation are critical conditions for strengthening democratic resilience. Finally, democratic resilience also means enabling more meaningful citizen engagement, including of otherwise often marginalised groups, for example through transparency, literacy and meaningful participation in decision making." (Executive summary) more

External Link (147)

Encyclical Letter Magnifica Humanitas of His Holiness Pope Leo XIV on Safeguarding the Human Person in the Time of Artificial Intelligence

Leo XIV (Pope)

Vatican City: Holy See (2026)

"Divided into five chapters, Magnifica humanitas has an underlying premise: technology is not “a force antagonistic to humanity” (paragraph 4), nor is it “inherently evil” (9). However, “technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regu ... late, and use it. Therefore, Pope Leo XIV appeals for people to build “for the common good” and to “remain human,” following a courageous mentality of shared responsibility and communion, so that the world “will come to recognize the human heart as the place where God desires to dwell” (16). [...] An ethical code for AI: The third chapter—Technology and Dominance. The Grandeur of Humanity in Light of the Promises of AI stresses the need to approach artificial intelligence with vigilance. Pope Leo warns about the “technocratic paradigm” already denounced by Pope Francis and how it can require that every choice be dictated exclusively by measuring efficiency and profits (92). On the contrary, the most powerful technology is not necessarily the best. AI can imitate and simulate the person, but it does not possess a moral conscience, empathy, or affective, relational or spiritual capabilities. The Pope urges clarity about responsibilities and accountability at every stage of the development process, focusing on adequate AI policies and legal frameworks, independent oversight, and user education. Above all, Pope Leo calls for an ethical code subject to shared standards of social justice, because “a more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few” (107). Nor, he adds, should the environmental impact of new technologies be overlooked, since they require large quantities of energy and water, affecting Creation (101). Disarming AI: AI must be “disarmed,” Pope Leo XIV continues, in order to free it from the mentality of military, economic, and cognitive competition. “To disarm means discrediting the assumption that technical power automatically confers the right to govern,” he says. “To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity” (110). He devotes ample space to a critique of transhumanism and posthumanism, which interpret progress as the overcoming of human limits. Instead, limitations are not defects to be eliminated, but a constitutive dimension of the human person, because it is in fragility and finitude that relationship and openness to God and to others mature. He says we must remember that “humanity flourishes not despite limitations, but often through them” (118). Technological progress without regression of the heart: Pursuing technological innovation at the expense of eliminating human limitations, he says, would cause an anthropological regression. “Humanity—in all its grandeur and woundedness—must never be replaced or surpassed,” he says. Technology can alleviate humanity’s sufferings and open new possibilities, but it must not deny the essence of humanity, which is our “capacity for relationship and love” (126). In the face of AI, says the Pope, “the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power” (129). An ecology of communication and the centrality of schools: In the fourth chapter—Safeguarding Humanity at a Time of Transformation. Truth, Work, Freedom—the Pope calls for an “ecology of communication” based on truth. He urges transparency in how content is selected, protection of personal data, serious journalism founded on argumentation and verification, a new awareness in the “proper and critical” use of digital tools, and the integration of different forms of knowledge. The Church must also embody transparent and honest communication, especially in cases of injustice and abuse. The Pope also appeals for a renewed educational alliance, so that the “desire to ask questions” may not be extinguished in young people by perfect machines that make human thought seem useless (140). Pope Leo XIV, therefore, calls for renewed attention to schools as places where people learn to “seek and love the truth” (147). The dignity of work: In the “fourth industrial revolution” represented by the digital transition, the Pope emphasizes the importance of protecting the dignity of work by designing systems centered on the person and not only on performance. “The ‘new ways’ of working are not necessarily better,” he writes, “while AI promises to boost productivity by taking over mundane tasks, it frequently forces workers to adapt to the speed and demands of machines, rather than machines being designed to support those who work” (150). Technology can certainly free human beings from burdensome or repetitive tasks, but it must not lead to unemployment in the name of reducing costs and increasing profit. In this regard, the Pope expresses his hopes for a renewal of labor organizations (155). Peace and development: Pope Leo then notes the need to move beyond GDP as the measure of a country’s level of development, focusing instead on the dignity of work, shared prosperity, the reduction of inequalities, and environmental protection. Finance, he says, must focus on the development, creation, and evolution of work (159-160). Following in the footsteps of Pope St. Paul VI, the encyclical underscores the interdependence between peace and development. It calls for international cooperation capable of defining shared strategies, especially in favor of the most vulnerable countries and groups, because prosperity contributes to peace “only if it is widespread, inclusive, and sustainable” (163). The family, “primary social good”: The Pope upholds the role of the family, saying it is founded on the stable union between a man and a woman. The family is a “primary social good” and the “fundamental and irreplaceable cell of every community organization” (165), which must be supported, including through labor policies that favor stability and humane rhythms, so as to protect society’s ability to “build the future.” ‘Architecture of visibility’ and risks for freedom: Pope Leo XIV then discusses the theme of human freedom in an age when digital platforms are designed to capture users’ time and exploit their vulnerabilities. He reiterates the need to strengthen each person’s interior freedom, while also confronting the risk of social control arising from the mass collection of data and the use of algorithmic systems. Profiling, predicting, and directing behavior, he says, is “a new form of power” (171) that risks discriminating against the weakest. The Pope particularly criticizes the “architecture of visibility,” which amplifies only what is visible and shapes opinions. New forms of slavery and colonialism: AI also generates new forms of slavery, such as that of the “scarred, injured, and worn down” bodies (173) of those who work in the extraction of the “rare earth elements” needed for technology. Therefore, the Pope upholds the importance of combating new forms of slavery as another “decisive test for ethical discernment” in the digital transformation. Pope Leo XIV stresses that “the Church renews her firm condemnation of every form of slavery, trafficking, and commodification of persons” and he underscores that to not react or to tolerate grave violations of human dignity means becoming accomplices to them. At the same time, the Pope “sincerely asks forgiveness” for the delay with which the Church in the past condemned “the scourge of slavery” (174-176). The encyclical also refers to the vital information—for example, on health and demographics—used to guide economic strategies. He calls this a new face of colonialism that turns personal lives into exploitable information, making the digital environment a “space of exploitation” (178-179). Overcoming ‘just war’ theory: In the fifth chapter—The Culture of Power and the Civilization of Love—Pope Leo XIV turns his gaze to war, saying “the digital revolution is changing the nature of conflict.” The Pope calls for an ethical approach, without which decisions about the life and death of persons will become increasingly impersonal due to a use of force regarded as an “immediate and viable option” (182-183). At the root of all this is a “culture of power” that normalizes war and rehabilitates it as an “instrument of international politics,” favoring rearmament. Today, he says, public opinion is burdened by polarizing media narratives, as well as by “a disconcerting loss of historical memory,” which leaves people without a long-term vision (191). Consequently, he says, peace today is no longer understood as a task to be undertaken, but as an interval between conflicts. For this reason, Pope Leo XIV reiterates that—while preserving the right to legitimate defense in the strictest sense—the theory of “just war” must be overcome, and dialogue, diplomacy, and forgiveness must instead be promoted (192). Algorithms do not make war morally acceptable: Pope Leo expresses criticism of the growth in the arms industry, the nuclear arms race, and the emergence of new armed actors—including jihadist groups—who aim to perpetuate conflicts as a source of power and profit. He also warns against the use of weapons linked to AI, because “there is no algorithm that can make war morally acceptable.” The Pope writes, “AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; indeed, it can only bring about conflict more quickly and render it more impersonal, lowering the threshold for resorting to violence, transforming defense into threat prediction and thus reducing victims to data. In this way, it will accustom us to the idea that violence is inevitable and needs only to be optimized.” The Pope urges strict ethical limits, which are shared at the international level and based on personal responsibility and the protection of civilians. “Any technology that facilitates attacks without seeing the face of human beings lowers the moral threshold of conflict” (199). Crisis of multilateralism: The culture of power also emerges from the crisis of multilateralism and the emergence of “a disorderly and conflict-ridden multipolarism” with a prevailing sense of mistrust (201). The Pope laments that the rule of law has been replaced by the law of the strongest, while the logic of power prevails over peace building and institutions established to safeguard the common destiny of peoples have now been weakened. In this regard, the Pope hopes for “profound reforms” of the UN that can overcome the current crisis of values in favor of the common good (226). An irresponsible Realpolitik: The encyclical notes that today “hybrid” wars are fought “also on the economic, financial and cyber fronts, where disinformation and campaigns that feed people’s fears are used to manipulate public opinion” so that increases in military expenditures are seen as the “only response” to an uncertain future. But all of this is only a “false realism”, an irresponsible Realpolitik that sows in people’s consciences and cultures a resignation to an unavoidable war and describes peace as a utopia (204-205). He notes that there is the possibility that some “may consider armed conflict as an effective way of diverting attention from domestic problems and a cynical tool for managing difficulties (208). The civilization of love: Christians, says Pope Leo, are called to respond to the culture of power by building “the civilization of love” and by choosing whether to feed the logic of force or safeguard peace. He recalls the memory of the saints, “righteous people and the oft-forgotten peacemakers, show us that grace does not magically eliminate conflict, but instead it inspires active resistance to evil and an astonishing creativity in doing good” (211). The Pope indicates five paths of responsibility, which include disarming words by speaking the truth; building peace in justice; adopting the perspective of victims by taking a stand, because there are conflicts in which “it is unjust to remain neutral”; cultivating “a healthy realism” that seeks practicable paths of peace through deeds, not only words. Importance of interreligious dialogue: Finally, relaunching dialogue by moving from a culture of power to a culture of negotiation is highlighted. And of decisive importance is “interreligious dialogue”, being bearers of a message of peace. He writes that “those who use the name of God to legitimize terrorism, violence or war betray his true nature, for to fight in the name of religion means attacking religion itself” (223). The diplomacy of the Holy See, he notes, “adopts the Gospel’s principle of mercy as a concrete criterion for political action.” And from this, the exhortation to prayer, since peace comes above all from God (227-228)." (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-05/pope-leo-xiv-encyclical-magnifica-humanitas-ai.html) more

Médias et démocratie: Enjeux et perspectives pour la philanthropie

Catherine Malaval, Gilles Marchand, Sabine Lenglet, Anne Cornilleau

Société de la Fondation de France, Observatoire Philanthropie (2026), 46 pp.

"À l’ère des algorithmes et de l’intelligence artificielle générative, l’enjeu démocratique n’est plus seulement l’accès à l’information, mais la capacité collective à identifier et reconnaître les acteurs de confiance qui en garantissent la production. Lorsque les images, les ... more

External Link (62)

The Essential Convergence: Global Compact on Extreme AI Risks

Sundeep Waslekar, Ilmas Futehally, Jayantika Kutty

Mumbai: Strategic Foresight Group (2026), 90 pp.

"Supply-Side Governance: Progress and Limitations: Most existing AI governance frameworks focus on the supply side of the technology ecosystem. These measures regulate developers, model providers, and infrastructure operators responsible for building advanced systems. Supply-side mechanisms include: ... pre-deployment safety testing and red-teaming; model evaluation and capability assessments; transparency and reporting obligations; incident response mechanisms; restrictions on certain high-risk uses. Several jurisdictions are experimenting with these tools in different combinations. China has implemented regulatory standards for generative AI systems; the European Union has adopted a risk based regulatory framework; Brazil and South Korea are developing legislative approaches; and the United States has introduced a mixture of executive measures and sectoral rules. These frameworks represent important progress. However, they face two structural limitations. First, supply-side regulation depends heavily on the cooperation of a small number of developer states. Second, the growing distribution of AI models, through open-weight releases, cloud APIs, and downstream applications, means that many systems reach global markets beyond the jurisdiction where they were originally developed. This reality limits the effectiveness of purely supply-side approaches. Demand-Side Governance: A New Dimension of AI Regulation: The paper introduces a second dimension of governance that has received far less attention: demand-side oversight. Demand-side governance shifts the locus of control from the point of creation to the point of deployment. Instead of relying solely on developer-state regulations, importing countries can establish safety requirements for any AI systems operating within their markets. These requirements may include risk assessments, certification standards, procurement rules, insurance obligations, and infrastructure safeguards. The central insight is that states controlling large consumer markets, digital infrastructure, financial systems, or public procurement channels possess significant leverage over global AI deployment, even if they do not develop frontier models themselves. This demand-side leverage can reshape incentives across the global AI ecosystem. Developers seeking access to major markets must comply with the safety conditions imposed by importing states. This approach represents a strategic shift in global AI governance: from a developer-centric model to a market-driven model of safety enforcement. Countries across different regions possess different forms of demand-side power. Brazil and South Africa represent large emerging markets; the United Arab Emirates plays a major role in AI infrastructure investment; South Korea combines technological capability with advanced regulatory institutions. When coordinated, these forms of leverage could help establish global safety norms. The Case for a Global Compact: Given the limitations of purely national approaches, the paper proposes the development of a Global Compact on Extreme AI Risks. The Compact would not aim to harmonise all aspects of AI regulation. Instead, it would focus narrowly on the most severe risk categories and establish shared mechanisms for prevention, monitoring, and response. Five institutional pillars form the backbone of the proposed Compact. The five pillars in the Global Compact should not be treated as isolated measures but designed as an interoperable system in which each pillar reinforces and informs the others through shared definitions, compatible standards, and coordinated implementation mechanisms. To address extreme risks effectively, the Compact should rest on a small set of guiding principles: a human-centric principle to ensure protection of humanity and human dignity as the primary objective; technological neutrality so that safeguards apply across methods and architectures rather than specific tools; interoperability to enable national and regional AI frameworks to exchange information, align risk classifications, and coordinate responses; and mutual cooperation to institutionalize cross-border collaboration in prevention, incident reporting, and crisis management. These can be complemented by principles of proportional risk governance, scientific integrity, and shared responsibility, creating a coherent normative base that allows diverse governance models to function together as a connected global safety architecture." (Executive summary, pages 5-6) more

Download (66)

World Disasters Report 2026: Truth, Trust and Humanitarian Action in the Age of Harmful Information
Deep Insights

Charlotte Lindsey Curtet (ed.)

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (ICRC) (2026), 372 pp.

"The World Disasters Report 2026 calls on governments, humanitarian actors, media, technology companies and communities, to recognise that the trustworthiness of information is a matter of life and death. Just as we plan for logistics, shelter and health care in emergencies, we must also plan for th ... e information environment. This requires investing in community engagement, prioritizing listening over speaking, building resilience against harmful narratives and consistently upholding humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence in every interaction and message. In 2024, 32 Red Cross and Red Crescent volunteers and staff were killed while on duty; in 2025, a further 27 lives were lost. This is a painful reminder of the risks borne by those who put humanity first, often in the most dangerous circumstances. Their deaths underscore the urgent need to protect humanitarian staff and volunteers, and to safeguard the space they need to save lives. Anything that deepens mistrust, fuels hostility or turns the emblem of protection into a target must be confronted with urgency. Honouring their memory compels us to meet this crisis with urgency and resolve. Hope must also be part of our response. Harmful information thrives on fear and confusion, but hope – rooted in trust, solidarity and human dignity – can be just as contagious. Balancing threats with hope and fostering narratives of agency and possibility offers a vital counterforce. Around the world, communities respond to crises not only with resilience but also with creativity and compassion, often leading the way in finding solutions. By amplifying authentic stories and voices, we do more than counter falsehoods: we inspire action, strengthen trust and remind people that even in the darkest moments, there are paths forward. The IFRC and its member Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have always worked at the heart of communities, earning trust through presence, transparency and respect. In today’s information crisis, this role matters more than ever. Our commitment is clear and unwavering: act with humanity and based on evidence, uphold trust and put people in need first – so that in moments of fear and uncertainty, the voices that carry furthest are those that heal, aid and protect. Each of us has a role to play. By staying informed, questioning, verifying and amplifying only what is trustworthy and constructive, we strengthen the information environment and ensure that hope speaks louder than harm." (Foreword) more

External Link (212)

The Local News Playbook: Creating Value for a Sustainable Future
Deep Insights

London; Miami: FT Strategies; Knight Foundation (2026), 105 pp.

"Drawing on global interviews with newsroom leaders, a cross-market survey of exemplary organisations, and FT Strategies’ work with more than 1,000 media businesses worldwide, the playbook identifies the core drivers that distinguish financially sustainable, community-rooted local news. It reframe ... more

External Link (111)

The “Authoritarian Utopia”: The impact of funding cuts on independent media

Jos Midas Bartman, Evelien Wijkstra

Free Press Unlimited (2026), 23 pp.

"Recent reports by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2026) and Article 19 (2026) on the impact of U.S. funding cuts, laid bare some of the most direct consequences of the U.S. funding cuts. They reported that the median grantee of their survey respondents lost about 35 to 40 percent of ... annual revenue for the year 2025. That number makes sense in light of the fact that the U.S. government cut at least $1.7 billion worth of freedom of expression programmes. This number was reported when some of the terminations were still unfolding. This is largely in line with our own findings, more than a year after the cuts. Out of the 57 surveyed partners, 37 percent reported budget cuts of 26-50 percent and 26 percent reported budget cuts of more than 50 percent Unfortunately, the abrupt and devastating level of the cuts have also led to media outlets and media support organisations ceasing operations. For this research we have not collected data on this but we are aware of several examples such as the closing of our Ukrainian partner, media outlet Zaborona, caused by the cessation of support of both the US and UK governments. Zaborona was an independent media outlet specialized in long-form, analytical reporting. The long-term political and geopolitical consequences of the U.S. governement funding cuts are still unfolding, but some of the medium-term effects are already visible. In the Philippines for example, disinformation has been able to flow more uncontrolled and narratives that support Chinese claims to the South China Sea have been diffusing more rapidly. Partners in Venezuela reported on how RT Academy provides training in several African countries, Argentina, Mexico and Cuba as an indirect way to approach people who can help amplify pro-Russian narratives in each of those countries, make friends and improve RT’s credibility. This report lays bare similar worrying but expected developments. Our survey shows unequivocally that where independent media decline, authoritarian interests fill the vacuum. Partners have reported on this dynamic across different continents. The boundary between domestic politics and international relations shows to be thin as well in this regard. In Pakistan for example, our partners report that China’s ability and assertiveness in trying to export its governance model have increased. Pakistani media organizations have been open about their recent collaboration with the Chinese embassy and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Authoritarian governments, such as Pakistan’s military elite, are unlikely to push back against these dynamics. [...] The same political actors who increasingly argue that international cooperation must be more interest driven should recognise that independent media serve precisely those interests. Where independent journalism collapses, corruption becomes harder to expose, authoritarian influence becomes easier to project, disinformation spreads with fewer constraints, and democratic allies become weaker. The vacuum is not neutral: it is filled by actors whose interests often run directly counter to those of the European Union. For Europe, the question is therefore not whether it can afford to support independent media globally. The question is whether it can afford not to. If the EU wants to remain a credible geopolitical actor, preserve its normative influence, strengthen democratic partners, and counter authoritarian interference, then support for independent media must be treated as strategic infrastructure: as essential to democratic resilience as election support, rule-of-law programming, anti-corruption work or cyber defence." (Executive summary, pages 4-5) more

External Link (50)

Updated: Every African Country’s National Digital Health Strategy in 2026

Wayan Vota

ICTworks (2026)

"When I first compiled the list of every African country’s national eHealth strategy or digital health policy back in 2020, the dominant instrument across the continent was a five-year national eHealth strategy. They were written to a WHO Global Observatory template, often expired, frequently undi ... more

External Link (179)

How Russia Is Reshaping Command and Control for AI-Enabled Warfare

Kateryna Bondar

Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) (2026), 20 pp.

"This paper examines how Russia is transforming its command and control (C2) architecture under wartime pressure, how these changes shape the country’s incremental move toward battlefield-required software solutions, and what lessons U.S. policymakers can learn from Russia’s experiences. Focusin ... g on both strategic ambitions and battlefield practice, the takeaways below summarize how automated C2 systems, unmanned platform management software, and emerging AI applications are being developed, adapted, and scaled within Russia’s military ecosystem. 1. Russia is no longer prioritizing the construction of a single, comprehensive automated C2 architecture comparable to Western joint concepts; instead, it is reallocating effort toward tactical, task-specific software, driven by battlefield necessity. Prolonged, high-intensity combat in Ukraine exposed the limits of centralized, system-wide C2 modernization and elevated the importance of accelerating the tactical kill chain. The emergence of systems such as the “Svod” Tactical Situational Awareness Complex and other integrated reconnaissance-strike tools reflects a pragmatic shift in which operational control of unmanned systems and real-time battlefield management now deliver greater military value than achieving end-to-end C2 integration. 2. Because unmanned systems now conduct up to 80 percent of Russian fire missions, the center of gravity in C2 innovation has shifted toward software that manages drones and integrates them with artillery and other fire units. Civilian engineers and volunteer developers have focused on closing this gap by building tools that provide situational awareness, automate fire correction, and link unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) operators directly to firing units. Russia’s “Glaz/Groza” software complex demonstrates this trend, functioning as a unified reconnaissance-strike workflow that converts drone footage into targeting data and compresses the time from detection to impact from hours to minutes. 3. The Russian military assesses its AI capabilities for visual and audio data processing as relatively mature, placing computer vision, sensor fusion, and signal analysis at technology readiness level (TRL) 6–9, while natural-language processing remains at an early, experimental stage, TRL 1–3. This disparity reflects a deliberate prioritization of AI applications that deliver immediate battlefield utility—such as target recognition, guidance, and autonomous terminal functions for unmanned systems—and where abundant data and combat validation are available. By contrast, text analysis AI, which underpins document processing and higher-level C2 decision support, remains constrained by immature architectures, limited certified software, and organizational barriers, slowing progress toward fully AI-enabled command workflows. 4. Within Russian C2 systems, AI is primarily envisioned as a support function rather than a replacement for human decisionmaking. Russian military doctrine assigns AI two core roles: enhancing the processing and interpretation of sensor data and providing predictive decision support through forecasting, scenario generation, and recommendations for commanders. Across strategic and tactical levels, AI is intended to augment situational awareness and analytical capacity, while formal authority and responsibility for decisions remain firmly with human commanders. 5. Russia began its C2 digitalization effort by building a dense layer of standards governing terminology, system architecture, hardware-software integration, and information management. This standardization drive, coupled with the transition to the domestically controlled Astra Linux operating system, reflects an attempt to create a unified technical foundation capable of supporting data integration, interoperability, and future AI insertion across the command hierarchy. While this framework provides structural coherence, it has not, on its own, resolved deeper institutional and methodological constraints that continue to limit system-wide C2 integration. 6. To enable AI-driven tactical software, the Russian military launched a systematic data collection effort in 2025 focused on unmanned operations and strike outcomes. The emerging data infrastructure aggregates UAS video feeds, operator telemetry, strike effects, and individual pilot performance metrics, each linked to unique personal identifiers. These datasets serve multiple functions simultaneously: operational analysis, training evaluation, and the creation of labeled data for AI model development, establishing a feedback loop that ties battlefield performance directly to software refinement. 7. Despite efforts to reduce dependence on foreign commercial technologies, Russia’s military AI development remains heavily reliant on open-weight models and civilian software ecosystems. The transition from tools such as AlpineQuest and Discord toward domestic alternatives like ZOV Maps and Astra-based platforms reflects a push for security and sovereignty at the application layer. At the same time, Russian developers actively adapt open-weight and commercially available AI models, including Mistral, Qwen, LLaMA, YOLO, and related architectures, for military use, embedding them into on-premise, tightly controlled environments. This hybrid approach allows Russia to mitigate sanctions and accelerate AI adoption without building foundational models from scratch." (Executive summary) more

External Link (110)

AI in the media: Kenya and South Africa

Karen Allen, Herman Wasserman, Nande Mbekela

Bonn; Stellenbosch (ZA): Deutsche Welle DW Akademie; Centre for Information Integrity in Africa (CINIA) (2026), 27 pp.

"This study shows that AI remains largely an underexplored, and often misunderstood, topic for journalism in South Africa and Kenya. Stories can be framed in overly positive terms, such as the potential AI holds for development and social change, or negative terms, by highlighting the extractive nat ... ure of big tech firms or the potential of AI to foster disinformation. Either way, these reports frequently lack a more nuanced understanding of the impacts of AI in African contexts. Fear of the impact of AI on the media workforce may also explain why reporters say they often face resistance by editors when seeking to get AI and tech stories commissioned. AI articles tend to be siloed and reactive, framed as business, security or technology stories. Seldom is AI presented in terms of its multidimensional, layered impact on society. Furthermore, the geopolitical aspect of AI rarely gets interrogated in mainstream media. Journalists interviewed for the study admitted that many of their stories were reactive, and identified areas where synergies could be harnessed from other parts of the world. On issues of AI and social media regulation, for example, where precedents have been set by countries such as Australia, South African and Kenyan media could use such precedents to develop locally focused stories. AI reporting often adopts a framing promoted by technology vendors who derive interest from presenting a one-dimensional, optimistic view of AI. The unintended consequences often go unreported unless supported by an investigation, such as the CCTV camera surveillance reportage by Swart referenced above. Furthermore, the topic is often presented through a Global North lens, with little contextualisation or interrogation of these issues from an African point of view amid resource and access constraints. This occurs against a background of under-developed policy frameworks for AI on the continent generally, and in newsrooms in particular. Consequently the playing field can be tilted in favour of AI and tech vendors who fill the vacuum with hyperbole and hype about what the technology is capable of delivering. At the same time, more nuanced and specialised reporting on AI is constrained by the familiar obstacles of journalism, such as lack of resources, over-stretched newsrooms and story competition. To enhance coverage of AI in Africa, a multifaceted strategy is needed. While training and AI literacy programmes can deepen the knowledge needed by African journalists to investigate the topic more comprehensively, increased investment in newsrooms can provide the structural support to provide more context-specific coverage of AI on the continent. Crucially, training and education of African journalists should be done from within the African context, as solutions cannot be imposed from newsroom contexts in the Global North." (Conclusions, page 21) more

Download (37)

Levelling the media playing field: Lessons from South Africa

Franz Krüger, Sarah Chiumbu, Jayshree Pather

Deutsche Welle DW Akademie (2025), 27 pp.

"This report considers the effectiveness of a range of policy measures that were instituted around the start of South Africa’s democracy to “level the playing field” by encouraging the development of media outlets servicing communities on the margins of the information ecosystem. The country� ... more

Download (90)

The AI Policy Playbook: Navigating AI Policy Development through an African and Asian Lens

Aubra Anthony, Deshni Govender, Nadine Dammaschk, Golo Rademacher, Kim Willet, Gustavo Fonseca Ribeiro, Sheila Kibughi

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) FAIR Forward; AI Policymaker Network (2025), 70 pp.

"The AI Policy Playbook offers a practical guide for governments in Africa and Asia to develop responsible and context-specific AI policies. Drawing from real-world policymaking experiences in seven countries, Ghana, Kenya, Rwanda, South Africa, Uganda, India, and Indonesia, the playbook shares less ... more

External Link (290)

State of the Media: Nauru

ABC International Development; University of Adelaide; Pacific Media Assistance Scheme (PACMAS) (2025), 33 pp.

"The findings in this report highlight the ongoing dominance of state-owned media platforms in Nauru, all run by the Nauru Media Bureau (NMB). With no private media currently operating, media freedom in the country is limited. The report also illustrated the rising popularity of foreign media and so ... more

External Link (147)

Paris Declaration on Multilateral Action for Information Integrity and Independent Media

Paris: High-Level International Conference on Information Integrity and Independent Media; International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM), October 29 (2025)

"On the occasion of the High-Level International Conference on Information Integrity and Independent Media, we, the undersigned governments, commit to fortifying multilateral action in support of information integrity and independent media. In times of increased polarization, violations of the right ... more

External Link (21)

A Great Open Source Race: China vs India vs the African Continent

Wayan Vota

ICTworks, August 19 (2025)

"China now leads the world with 2.2 million active open source software developers, while India’s 2+ million contributors already overtook Europe and the US in total numbers. African countries show the fastest growth rates globally, but the China-India race creates both opportunities and challenge ... more

External Link (175)

Climate Disinformation in Thailand: Negating Indigenous Peoples’ Identity

Bangkog: Asia Centre (2025), viii, 60 pp.

"This report examines how climate disinformation reinforces the systemic negation of Indigenous People's (IP) identity, undermining traditional practices, weakening advocacy for rights and obstructing inclusive climate and forest governance by making three key contributions. First, it identifies fou ... r distinct forms of climate disinformation in Thailand: one-sided reporting, where the media spotlights government and corporate initiatives while omitting their social and environmental harms, whether due to political pressure or economic incentives; greenwashing, where corporations exaggerate or misrepresent their sustainability practices to obscure their ongoing environmentally destructive activities; false climate solutions promoted as climate action which fails to address the root causes of climate change while leaving IP communities socially and economically disadvantaged; scapegoating of IPs where Indigenous communities are falsely portrayed as primary drivers of deforestation, legitimising displacement and marginalisation. Second, it demonstrates four ways in which climate disinformation harms IPs, each reinforcing the negation of their identities: exclusion from decision-making: by either barring their participation outright or dismissing their inputs in decision-making processes, IPs’ Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is removed thereby negating their identities as owners and stewards of their land; criminalisation: the strategic misuse of “climate change” laws to negate IP identity and erase the legitimacy of IPs’ traditions and practices in environmental stewardship; and the use of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) intimidate advocates for challenging climate disinformation; forced evictions: conservation and development narratives justify deterritorialisation that severs spiritual, cultural and economic ties to ancestral lands which forms the core of IPs’ identities; intimidation and violence: harassment, threats and attacks undermining the capacity of IPs to resist projects and actions that harm them, their environment and their way of life. Third, to address climate disinformation and safeguard Indigenous Peoples’ (IPs) rights and identities in Thailand, this report outlines a list of multi-stakeholder recommendations: UN bodies should integrate climate disinformation into their human rights monitoring and climate action frameworks and provide guidance to Thailand on implementing its international obligations; the Thai government should embed safeguards against climate disinformation into national climate and environmental policies, strengthen legal protections for IPs, ensure meaningful participation of IP communities in decision-making and improve transparency and accountability in environmental governance; international NGOs (INGOs) should collaborate with IP organisations to map, document and respond to climate disinformation, provide sustained technical capacity-building and funding, and support advocacy and litigation to defend IP rights; civil society organisations (CSOs) should monitor disinformation targeting IPs, co-develop counter-narratives with IP communities and educational content to empower both IPs and the broader public and expand legal aid support; the media sector should prioritise constructive and investigative journalism on climate, environmental, and IP issues; expand coverage in Indigenous languages and culturally appropriate formats; collaborate with IP organisations on fact-checking and monitoring disinformation; and amplify Indigenous perspectives through both national and international outlets; technology companies should strengthen content moderation against climate disinformation, flag misleading project information and invest in digital literacy and connectivity initiatives for rural and Indigenous communities; indigenous communities and organisations should build monitoring networks to identify and counter disinformation, strengthen alliances with independent and Indigenous media, conduct and participate in capacity-building workshops and use digital tools to amplify their voices and safeguard knowledge." (Executive summary, pages vi-vii) more

External Link (207)

Climate Disinformation in India: Subverting Indigenous Peoples’ Identity

Bangkog: Asia Centre (2025), viii, 55 pp.

"The report makes three key contributions: it identifies the main forms of climate disinformation in India, examines their specific impacts on indigenous peoples (IP) communities and sets out targeted policy recommendations for national and international stakeholders. First, four forms of climate di ... sinformation circulating in the media landscape in India are identified: one-sided coverage, where the media circulate disinformation by the state, by highlighting false ecological progress while omitting data on biodiversity loss, environmental impacts and displacement; promoting false climate solutions, like afforestation and green credit programmes, which are dubbed as climate action despite their harmful ecological impacts and effects on IPs; attributing environmental disasters to climate change, where state authorities deflect accountability for disasters arising from governance failures and poor infrastructure to climate change; denialism of climate change and its causes, which relies on the suppression of scientific data, promotion of anti-renewable myths and the institutional erasure of climate-linked mortality, thereby sowing doubt and enabling the deflection of accountability. Second, the report shows that the deliberate circulation of climate disinformation in the media subverts IPs’ rights and legal safeguards in favour of state and corporate interests in five critical ways: bypassing IPs’ rights to Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) by deliberately spreading distorted information effectively marginalising IP voices from environmental decision-making; restricting traditional practices by promoting false state initiatives while claiming environmental legitimacy, thereby worsening climate adaptation and livelihoods; undermining IPs’ forest conservation efforts, through the reframing of unsustainable top-down conservation efforts as climate action, thus enabling the loss of biocultural diversity; forced evictions and deterritorialisation, often enabled by the misrepresentation of environmental data in judicial rulings under the guise of ecological progress; legal persecution, Intimidation and physical violence, where IPs and environmental defenders are subjected to both online harassment and militarised control in order to suppress resistance to state or corporate projects. Third, this report outlines a set of recommendations for action: United Nations (UN) bodies should conduct an audit of India's compliance with IPs’ rights, investigate how state and corporate disinformation facilitates violations and support the ratification of relevant international laws and conventions; the government should strengthen legal safeguards for IPs by providing greater technical and administrative support to effectively implement the Forest Rights Act, ensuring robust FPIC protocols in all climate and development projects; international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) should support Indigenous-led audits of government programmes, submit evidence of digital surveillance to UN bodies, and help establish rapid-response legal networks and community fact-checking hubs in IP languages; civil society organisations (CSOs) should establish a national database for eco-development displacements, offer mobile legal clinics for land rights and advocate for policies requiring IPs’ representation in environmental bodies; the media sector should expose data manipulation in official forest reports, establish Indigenous-language fact-checking and leverage public broadcasting to boost digital literacy and amplify community voices; technology companies should develop tools to detect disinformation targeting IPs, conduct transparent audits of algorithmic bias on their platforms and partner with CSOs to provide digital literacy and secure communication tools; IP communities should continue to document land-use violations using community mapping, file collective petitions to audit projects violating their rights and build alliances to establish Indigenous-owned media platforms to control narratives." (Executive summary, pages vi-vii) more

World Disasters Report 2026: Truth, Trust and Humanitarian Action in the Age of Harmful Information Deep Insights

The Local News Playbook: Creating Value for a Sustainable Future Deep Insights

World Disasters Report 2026: Truth, Trust and Humanitarian Action in the Age of Harmful Information
Deep Insights

The Local News Playbook: Creating Value for a Sustainable Future
Deep Insights