> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://oecd-media-support-principles.gfmd.info/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://oecd-media-support-principles.gfmd.info/toolkit/principle/1-do-no-harm.md).

# 1️⃣ Do No Harm

{% hint style="info" %}

### How to use this section

* For a quick self-assessment, see [**Checklist: Do No Harm**](/toolkit/principle/1-do-no-harm/checklist-do-no-harm.md)
* For practical examples and applications, see [**Case studies and field insights**](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights.md)
  {% endhint %}

{% hint style="info" %}

### **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.
{% endhint %}

### 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](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-1-credibility-risk-linked-to-donor-visibility.md) and [case study 3: Operational risk linked to donor visibility and safety](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-3-operational-risk-linked-to-donor-visibility-and-safety.md).

### 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*

{% hint style="info" %}

### 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.
{% endhint %}

{% hint style="success" %}
**For practical examples of how visibility and communication choices can affect both credibility and safety, see:**

* [Case study 1: credibility risk linked to donor visibility](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-1-credibility-risk-linked-to-donor-visibility.md)
* [Case study 3: operational risk linked to donor visibility and safety](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-3-operational-risk-linked-to-donor-visibility-and-safety.md)
  {% endhint %}

{% hint style="success" %}

### 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
  {% endhint %}