1️⃣ Do No Harm
Ensure that assistance does no harm to public interest media.
In brief — Principle 1: Do No Harm
Protect before you promote. All EU and Member State support for media must safeguard the safety, credibility, and independence of partners before pursuing visibility or communication goals.
Integrate harm prevention. Make risk analysis, safety budgets, and visibility waivers standard elements of every funding instrument and programme design.
Balance legitimacy and security. Recognise that media are professional organisations accountable to their audiences and staff — their protection and independence are prerequisites for credible EU action.
Why it matters
Supporting journalism without adequate safeguards can unintentionally endanger the very actors the EU seeks to protect.In fragile or polarised contexts, visibility demands, donor branding, or rigid compliance rules can expose journalists to harassment, censorship, or reputational attacks. A do-no-harm approach ensures that assistance strengthens rather than undermines media safety, credibility, and independence.
It recognises that media outlets are professional organisations, not communication contractors, and that their first responsibility is to their audiences, staff, and ethical standards. Embedding harm-prevention measures across all EU instruments protects partners, preserves trust, and safeguards the long-term legitimacy of Europe’s support for free and independent media.
🏛️ Political Level — Parliament and Council
At the political level, the European Parliament and Council play a decisive role in shaping the frameworks that determine how far “Do No Harm” principles can be embedded in EU funding and external action.Parliament has emerged as a strong advocate for press freedom, media pluralism, and journalist protection, but it also faces pressure to demonstrate visible results to citizens. The Council, meanwhile, must reconcile Member States’ diverse diplomatic priorities, security concerns, and interpretations of media independence.
⚖️ Opportunity and challenge Political recognition of the media as democratic infrastructure is growing, yet budget negotiations and policy compromises can inadvertently re-introduce risks — for example, by tying support too closely to public diplomacy goals or security narratives. Applying “Do No Harm” at the political level therefore means ensuring that legislative and budgetary decisions reinforce, rather than constrain, the operational safeguards described in this toolkit.
🇪🇺 Within the European Commission
Within the European Commission, different Directorates-General (DGs) maintain well-established procedures to safeguard financial probity and policy accountability. However, these procedures may not always align with the flexibility needed to protect media independence and credibility in politically sensitive or fast-changing digital contexts.
As EU policy increasingly recognises that reliable information is part of Europe’s democratic and economic infrastructure, protecting media freedom also means addressing structural risks — including short funding cycles, visibility pressures, and dependence on opaque digital-market systems that can distort incentives or expose partners.
“Too often we haven’t incorporated the risk of ‘the day after.’ In places like Afghanistan or Iraq, local staff, journalists and translators essential to our work, were left behind when we pulled out, sometimes at the cost of their lives.”
- Representative of an EU Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Role of EU Delegations
EU Delegations operate under simultaneous pressures to demonstrate EU action on the ground and to protect the safety and integrity of local partners. Balancing visibility and discretion is critical: public association with the EU can enhance legitimacy in some contexts but may compromise credibility or safety in others. Delegations need the authority to prioritise safety and independence over visibility where risk exists and to record these decisions transparently.
“We need to think internally about not harming our partners, this also includes using safe communication channels while communicating with them.”
- Programme officer who works with media in an authoritarian context.
🌐 Member States and Cultural Institutes
Member State embassies and cultural institutes contribute valuable diplomatic and cultural perspectives to EU media support. Yet different mandates and visibility requirements can generate mixed signals for media partners if not well coordinated. Without clear communication, these legitimate objectives risk pulling in opposite directions, unintentionally exposing outlets or eroding perceptions of independence.
💡 Coordination tip Use joint communication plans and shared visibility guidance across EU and Member State actors to prevent duplication or reputational risk.
📰 Recognising Media as Professional Institutions
It is essential to acknowledge that media organisations are not merely implementing partners. They are professional institutions with ethical, editorial, and legal obligations to their audiences and staff. Their credibility, trust, and safety are interdependent — and central to a functioning democratic information ecosystem.
🛡️ Integrating “Do No Harm” as Standard Practice
To uphold these obligations while meeting donor and funder requirements, EU support instruments should apply “Do No Harm” safeguards as standard practice. These include:
Physical, digital, legal, and reputational-risk measures built into programme design.
Flexible visibility provisions and data-minimisation policies where exposure poses risk.
Proportionate compliance requirements that reduce administrative burden.
Recognition that media safety and credibility are part of Europe’s resilience against disinformation, manipulation, and the erosion of public trust.
💡 Key takeaway Strengthening safety, independence, and credibility protects not only journalists but also Europe’s wider epistemic and democratic security.
Last updated
Was this helpful?