Case Study 1: Credibility risk linked to donor visibility

Visibility and credibility risks in donor-funded investigations

Core issue

Donor visibility and transparency requirements can be used to undermine the perceived independence and credibility of media actors.

Context

The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) is a cross-border investigative journalism network that works with local media partners on corruption, organised crime, and financial investigations.

Its model combines international coordination with locally grounded reporting, supported by a mix of public and philanthropic funding, including government donors.

What happened

OCCRP and its partners have faced recurring accusations of acting as foreign agents. In politically sensitive environments, these claims have been amplified to undermine the credibility of their reporting.

In some cases, publicly known funding relationships - including support from government donors such as the United States Agency for International Development - have been used to question editorial independence.

These dynamics have been used to:

• discredit investigations and reduce audience trust

• justify regulatory or administrative pressure

• increase reputational and operational risks for local partner organisations

In this context, transparency and visibility requirements - intended to support accountability - have at times been repurposed as tools for delegitimisation.

Why this matters

This case illustrates that visibility and transparency are not neutral in contested political environments. Consultations with media practitioners and donors highlight that how funding is disclosed and communicated can directly affect perceptions of independence.

Where these dynamics are not taken into account:

• support can increase exposure to political pressure

• reputational attacks can undermine trust in reporting

• local partners may carry disproportionate risk compared to international actors

Implications for practice

• Adapt visibility requirements to political and media context, rather than applying standardised approaches

• Assess how funding relationships may be interpreted or instrumentalised by local actors

• Recognise that risk is unevenly distributed, often falling more heavily on local partners

• Integrate reputational and narrative risks into risk assessments, alongside legal and financial considerations

• Ensure that transparency measures align with credibility, safety, and editorial independence

Most relevant for

• Heads of Mission / Ambassadors: Managing political sensitivities and public positioning of donor support

• Programme and project managers: Designing grant agreements, including visibility clauses and reporting requirements

• Policy officers / thematic specialists: Integrating independence, ownership, and risk into policy frameworks

• Communications teams: Shaping how funding relationships are communicated and mitigating reputational risks

Linked principles

• Principle 1 – Ensure support does no harm

• Principle 4 – Strengthen local leadership and ownership

Evidence base

• Consultation inputs highlighting reputational and safety risks linked to donor visibility

• Public reporting and analysis relating to OCCRP and similar investigative networks operating in politically sensitive environments​

  • OCCRP under attack

  • ​Global Investigative Journalism Network - statements on editorial independence

Key lesson

Visibility and transparency can shape how support is perceived. In contested environments, they can strengthen accountability - or be used to undermine credibility and increase risk for media actors.