Support to Media Where Media Freedoms and Rights are Constrained: What Works and Why?

"Donor interest in supporting the media sector has grown in tandem with an increased emphasis on promoting good governance in aid-recipient countries, with a free and independent media seen as a pillar of democratisation and human rights."

This series of BBC Media Action research papers, including 5 case studies and this synthesis, discusses reasons why the media in each of the countries featured is constrained and how outside agencies and donors support free and independent media. Commissioned by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), they are designed to describe the media landscape and media development in Syria, South Sudan, Cambodia, Bangladesh, and Uganda and set out best practice for donors to sustainably fund and support media internationally.

This document, addressing aid agencies, donors, policymakers, researchers, and all those interested in media development from a governance or a rights perspective, poses the questions: "So what is to be done in countries where this environment is not ‘enabling’? How can support be best given in places where media freedoms are constrained, and in autocratic regimes where journalists are threatened, tortured or killed?" A summary of the media situations in each country is followed by a detailing of the main challenges facing media:

1.  “A secretive state and lack of open government are the norm.
2. The laws may look positive but mask repression.
3. Fear is endemic and self-censorship is institutionalised. 
4. An unpredictable and inconsistent legal/statutory environment often exists.
5. The State has a strong influence on the media.
6. Media can be polarised and partisan.
7. The media can be vibrant on the surface but of poor quality beneath the veneer.
8. Journalism lacks respect as a profession.
9. Cultural norms accept a muzzled and timid media.
10. Local media face more pressures than national media.”

Common dilemmas for donors include the following:

1. “Is there ever a good reason to limit media freedom? Inflammatory media coverage and sometimes hate speech via the media may flare with inter-ethnic and sectarian conflict. Sometimes governments attempt to censor or muzzle the press and donors must ask whether the steps are legitimate or unjustified.
2. Short-term donor strategies do not suit media assistance. 
3. One-off training projects can be difficult to avoid.
4. Environments prone to corruption complicate media support. 
5. It can be difficult to find reliable partners to fund.
6. Patchy evidence of the positive impact of past media support is a result of lack of baseline or post-project evaluation research, making it hard to build a sufficiently strong evidence base.
7. Risks to other government partnerships from pushing too hard on media reform may negatively influence possibilities such as real opportunities for institutional reforms.
8. Risks to individuals - endangering the lives of journalists and media managers - can occur if they are associated with foreign donors. 
9. A preference for foreign training (sending journalists to more developed or less conflicted locations) rather than training in-country may leave journalists with skills almost impossible to apply them when they return home, for both political and practical reasons.
10. Donor coordination is often a problem.”

Common strategies by donors include working from both the inside and the outside of each country:

• Going over the heads of government - Providing news and information to the citizens of a country in defiance of, and despite, their government.
• Working in cyber-space - For example, In Uganda, the donor-supported African Centre for Media Excellence (ACME) has created a closed online group using social media where media practitioners discuss issues pertinent to the profession. In Bangladesh, "[t]wo of the most recent, innovative and  interesting ideas are online dialogue initiatives such as the  Nagorik Kontho portal, where citizens and members of the  administration can interact, and Amader Sthaniyo Sarkar (Our Local Government) - a newly launched TV/radio  programme and a linked website that allows discussion of  the issues raised in the programmes..."
• Supporting United Nations (UN) broadcasting
• Training from the outside - When training is not possible within a country, such as Syria other solutions may be available: "We took journalists out of Syria and trained them - we had  to be incredibly low profile - all the training was done by  Arab trainers and hosted in Arab countries", or, “Arguably, the type of training that can be conducted most  successfully from the outside involves online training at  a distance."
• Advocacy from the outside 
• Working carefully with the State 
• Supporting rights organisations and media advocacy groups
• Supporting the relay of foreign media from within the country 
• Concentrating on training 
• Capacity-building for media houses as a whole 
• Emphasising neutral and ‘public interest’ topics 
• Developing pre-packaged content and programming 
• Supporting independent/community outlets 
• Concentrating on the provinces
• Quiet or overt lobbying and diplomacy 
• Supporting media academies, clubs, and centres
• Supporting research about the audience and the general media situation
• Creating new media outlets
• Distributing radio sets

Policy conclusions from these strategies include: take context into account and do the necessary research, as well as includie media as a key area of political economy analysis; avoid short-term and one-off training; coordinate donor support; provide mainstream media assistance, for example, in electoral cycles; invest in media literacy; concentrate on media outlets/houses and not just on individual journalists; invest in monitoring and evaluation (M&E); and take the long-term view in looking for results.