Case studies

EDITORIAL INDEPENDENCE v. VISIBILITY REQUIREMENTS

Flexibility on visibility requirements in Africa

EU delegations have, in some cases, granted exemptions from branding and visibility rules when they risked undermining partners’ safety or independence.

These exemptions were usually justified through a simple request process and consistently approved.

This shows the value of systematising visibility waivers and documenting their use, so that protective measures do not depend on ad hoc discretion.

Credibility risks linked to donor branding

Investigative media outlets in different regions have reported being discredited by opponents pointing to their foreign funding. In one case, publicly available donor attribution was weaponised by hostile actors to delegitimise independent reporting. This highlights the importance of separating support for media from public diplomacy optics.

OCCRP and the USAID controversy

In late 2024, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) faced attacks in the French press after it was revealed that part of its funding came from USAID. Critics portrayed the outlet as compromised, despite its strong record of independent investigations.

The controversy forced OCCRP to publicly defend its editorial independence, with GIJN and others issuing statements of support.

This case illustrates how even transparent, lawful donor support can be weaponised to undermine credibility — and why risk assessments, visibility waivers, and clear communication about editorial firewalls are vital components of a “do no harm” approach.

SAFETY

Donor conditions that integrate safety

Some bilateral donors, such as Sida, have codified the right of partners not to use donor logos where safety or credibility could be at stake.

Staff also emphasised the importance of safe communication channels in sensitive environments.

This illustrates how risk-aware clauses in donor agreements can reduce exposure and strengthen credibility.