> 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/role/communications-teams/key-considerations-for-communications-teams.md).

# Key considerations for communications teams

{% hint style="info" %}

### **In brief**

**Communications around media support are not neutral.** They shape how programmes are perceived, who is seen as legitimate, and - critically - whether partners can operate safely. For communications teams, the challenge is not only to demonstrate impact and visibility, but to do so in ways that respect editorial independence, reflect local realities, and avoid unintended harm.
{% endhint %}

### Balancing visibility and safety

**A consistent tension identified in consultations is the pressure to demonstrate visibility while managing risk.** This includes branding, storytelling, and public positioning - often in environments where visibility can create real harm.

In restrictive or politically sensitive contexts, associating journalists or media outlets too closely with donor funding can expose them to surveillance, legal pressure, or reputational attacks ([*see 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)). This requires communications teams to move away from standardised visibility requirements and adopt flexible, context-driven approaches. **In some contexts, the safest and most effective communication strategy may be limited visibility - or none at all.**

> Field Note\
> “But it's still very unsure how much the project is the cause of it and gave visibility to this journalist, or how journalists might have been already in focus before the project started.”\
> *– Consultation participant*

### Aligning messaging with media independence

**Communications can unintentionally undermine the independence they aim to support.** When messaging is overly donor-driven or politically framed, it risks positioning independent media as extensions of external agendas ([*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)).

Communications approaches should prioritise editorial independence and local control over narratives.

For communications teams, this means ensuring that storytelling and messaging:

* **Protect editorial independence**
* **Avoid political instrumentalisation of media actors**
* **Enable local actors to define and lead their own narratives**

> Field Note\
> “Giving them resources and letting them decide how to communicate narratives if they choose to do that.”\
> *– Donor representative*

### Understanding the information ecosystem

**Effective communication depends on understanding how information flows in a given context.** This includes who produces it, how audiences engage with it, and which actors are trusted.

Consultations highlighted that available data and insights are not always sufficient to fully capture how local populations consume and trust information. Communication strategies should therefore be grounded in context-specific audience insights and continuously updated as conditions evolve.

> Field Note\
> “The data that is available is often insufficient.”\
> *– Donor representative*

### Communicating the value of media support

**Communications teams play a key role in shaping how media support is understood.** This includes demonstrating impact, linking media support to broader policy priorities, and making the implications of underinvestment visible.

Framing media support as a strategic investment - rather than a niche or technical issue - is essential to sustaining political and financial commitment. **Clear and consistent narratives are critical to building this understanding across stakeholders.**

> Field Note\
> “There is still a lack of a clear narrative on the role of media.”\
> *– Consultation participant*

### Bridging institutional divides

**Communications teams often operate across institutional silos.** They work with programme managers, political sections, and press teams that may have different priorities, timelines, and incentives.

Effective communication requires alignment across these functions :

* Ensuring that messaging reflects programme realities
* Avoiding contradictions between political communication and operational objectives
* Coordinating visibility and narrative across teams and partners

([*See case study 7: coordination challenges and joint responses in crisis contexts*](/toolkit/case-studies-and-field-insights/case-study-7-coordination-challenges-and-joint-responses-in-crisis-contexts.md))

> Field Note\
> “More communication is needed to coordinate support and funding, also to avoid duplication.”\
> *– Consultation participant*

**Taken together, these considerations point to a shift in how communications are approached.** Rather than being treated as a downstream function focused on visibility, communications should be understood as a strategic component of media support - one that requires the same level of context sensitivity, coordination, and adherence to the OECD DAC Principles as programme design itself.