1️⃣ Do No Harm
Ensure that assistance does no harm to public interest media.
How to use this section
For a quick self-assessment, see Checklist: Do No Harm
For practical examples and applications, see Case studies and field insights
In brief: Principle 1 - Do no harm
Support to media and the information environment must not unintentionally expose journalists, media organisations, or the organisations that support them to harm. This includes risks linked to visibility, funding modalities, partnerships, and data management. Support should be designed and implemented in line with human rights principles, including freedom of expression and access to information. Context awareness, flexibility, and risk mitigation are essential at all stages of programme design and implementation.
Why this principle matters
Media support operates in politically sensitive and often volatile environments. Interventions that are not carefully designed can expose journalists, media organisations, and media development partners to physical, legal, digital, or reputational risks.
These risks may arise from:
public visibility linked to donor funding
misalignment with national regulatory frameworks
exposure of sensitive data or networks
association with foreign actors in restrictive environments
In such contexts, even well-intentioned support can undermine the safety, credibility, and operational viability of media actors and their partners, as well as affecting commitments to human rights, media freedom, and editorial independence.
Where this shows up in practice
Risks often emerge from the interaction between programme requirements and local realities:
Visibility requirements may increase exposure of journalists, media outlets, or implementing partners in restrictive or hostile environments
Funding structures may create dependency, distort local media markets (including through salary inflation), or expose organisations managing sub-grants to financial or legal risk
Partnership models may unintentionally transfer risk to local actors without corresponding decision-making power or safeguards, or displace existing local actors
Data collection and reporting requirements may expose sensitive information about journalists, sources, or networks
Compressed timelines may limit the ability of both media organisations and support organisations to assess and mitigate risks effectively
These risks are often not immediately visible at design stage but can have long-term consequences for safety, trust, and sustainability. These dynamics are illustrated in case study 1: Credibility risk linked to donor visibility and case study 3: Operational risk linked to donor visibility and safety.
What this looks like in practice
Do
Conduct context-specific risk assessments covering political, legal, digital, and security dimensions
Adapt visibility requirements to local conditions, including the option for low-visibility or anonymous support
Ensure that risk is shared appropriately across all partners, including intermediaries and local implementing organisations
Apply conflict-sensitive and politically informed approaches to programme design and implementation
Build in flexibility to adjust activities, timelines, or partnerships as risks evolve
Protect sensitive data related to journalists, sources, and partner organisations
Account for how risks may affect different groups differently, including gender-specific and intersectional risks
Avoid
Applying standard visibility or communication requirements without assessing local risk
Transferring risk to local media organisations or support partners without adequate safeguards or resources
Requiring detailed reporting that exposes sensitive operational or personal information
Designing programmes with rigid structures that cannot adapt to changing political or security contexts
Distorting local media markets, including through salary inflation or unequal resource distribution
Displacing local actors or undermining existing media ecosystems
Assuming that risk is limited to direct beneficiaries rather than affecting the full delivery chain
Consider
How donor visibility and branding may affect the perceived independence or safety of media actors and implementing partners
Whether partnership structures create unequal exposure to risk between international and local actors
How compliance and reporting requirements interact with security considerations
Trade-offs between transparency, accountability, and safety
How risk evolves over time, particularly in rapidly changing political environments
Field insight
“Visibility can be a risk. In some contexts, being seen to receive international support is enough to attract unwanted attention.”
- Consultation input, media development practitioner
Key takeaway
Applying a “do no harm” approach means recognising that all forms of support carry risk. Effective media support requires continuous assessment, flexibility, and shared responsibility to ensure that interventions do not undermine the safety, independence, or viability of media actors and their partners.
For practical examples of how visibility and communication choices can affect both credibility and safety, see:
How this links to other principles
Principle 2 (Increase funding): Funding decisions can introduce risks if they are short-term, inflexible, or misaligned with context, potentially undermining sustainability and independence
Principle 3 (Whole-of-system): Risks and unintended consequences often emerge from how interventions interact with the broader media and information ecosystem
Principle 4 (Local ownership): Excluding local actors or transferring disproportionate risk to them can weaken ownership and increase the likelihood of harm
Principle 5 (Coordination): Lack of coordination can create conflicting requirements, duplication, or exposure risks for partners
Principle 6 (Knowledge and learning): Continuous learning and evidence are essential to identifying, understanding, and mitigating risks over time
Last updated
Was this helpful?