Economic sanctions, donor whims and legal jargon: exiled media face challenges reporting on their home countries

Last week, on World Press Freedom Day, the International Consortium of Investigative Reporters said in a statement that “governments around the world are failing to protect (and are often cracking down on) independent media in 2024, overshadowing Reporters Without Borders’ annual press freedom ranking. in an important electoral year worldwide.”

The decline in press freedom sometimes forces journalists to flee their home countries in order to report on them safely. But operating media outlets in exile is another beast in itself, and exiled journalists face financial, logistical and editorial challenges at every turn.

Last week, Internews, a European nonprofit that supports independent journalism around the world, surveyed and interviewed media workers from 25 exiled media outlets from Afghanistan, Ukraine, Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba, Syria, Libya, Iran and Yemen. , Sudan, Eritrea, Myanmar, Hong Kong, China, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan. (Journalists are granted anonymity in the report.) The research was conducted between October 2023 and April 2024 to answer one question: “How can the media development community support exiled media outlets to survive and continue their work?” The report’s authors, Dr. Isabelle Schläpfer and Rosie Parkyn, also proposed a working definition of “exiled media”:

“Exiled media” refers to media outlets that operate partially or entirely from outside their country of origin, due to the closure of spaces and a hostile political and legal environment for independent media, leaving them with reduced press freedom. and exposes them to security risks. Exiled media serve their local audience as the primary audience with unbiased information, regardless of whether they were founded outside or within their home country.

Internews was unable to determine the exact number of journalists working in exile, although RSF reported that at least 460 left their home countries in 2023 alone. The majority of media outlets analyzed in the report are exclusively digital (64%), while 20% are television, 12% radio and four percent are print publications. More than half (56%) are registered in their host countries as non-profit organizations and 28% are registered as for-profit organizations. The remaining 16% are not registered at all.

The report details that the exiled media face two types of challenges: structural and organizational. Structural challenges include:

• Complex and unknown laws and regulations within the host country that complicate and lengthen the registration process and require new compliance regimes around human rights, taxes and media or non-profit laws.
• Economic sanctions that hinder an outlet’s ability to properly register, open bank accounts, and interact with global credit or payment systems.
• Occasional tensions between diplomatic and media development priorities.
• Eligibility problems in requesting funding to serve the region of an exiled media outlet.
• Issues with social media platforms’ algorithms, content moderation policies, and verification process.

The organizational challenges vary depending on the medium and the country covered, but they boil down to four main themes:

• Editorial, including working with sources and verifying information from afar.
• Physical security, transnational repression, digital security of the operation and personnel, personnel burnout and risks to audiences.
• Understand and meet the information needs of audiences, ensure information reaches audiences, and measure the impact of content.
• Income diversification amid reliance on short-term, project-based donor funding

All but two of the study outlets are wholly or primarily financially dependent on philanthropic or institutional funding. Twenty-eight percent of media outlets are funded entirely by donors, while another 28% are funded by donors and commercial income (sales of production services, consulting, e-book sales, translation services and advertising). Sixteen percent receive funding from donors and their audiences, while 20% reported having sources of income from donors, audiences, and commercial services. The report says four interviewees reported using their own money to support their media, while three said they were offered (but rejected) money by “wealthy individuals” in exchange for not covering certain topics.

“We advertise human rights documentation, from organizations that want to promote… the work they do. And we were able to do that in 2016, when we were basically the only ones who could offer detailed guidance. So even the mobile website… when someone comes to me and says we have an Android app and an iOS app, then we can have two sets of banners… So it’s… like blowing your own trumpet because we haven’t been able to monetize the audience…

(I have) friends who have been very successful in mobilizing the diaspora, basically saying, ‘We are targeting you because we need your help to help your compatriots back home.’ This membership model is something we are… eager to explore… We also offer translation and consultation services, and develop technology, such as ‘tech for good’ applications that help audiences access our content in a seamless way. safe”.

The media reported that any type of business registration, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, presents its own challenges. The type of registration can affect an establishment’s eligibility for different types of financing, but at the same time, the decision of how to register the business depends on its revenue strategy. Legal registration in host countries is required to participate in platform programs such as Google News Initiative or Facebook News Partnership.

“Not all donors will fund a for-profit media company, leaving them largely dependent on commercial or audience revenue,” the report’s authors note. “On the other hand, there may be restrictions on a nonprofit’s ability to generate commercial income.”

“I was really worried about that… As a first step, I talked to our donors and explained our situation: ‘Is there any way you can send us the money outside of (home country)?’ Some donors… said we can send the money to their personal account. With other donors… they had their protocols and processes, and there was no flexibility. Then we started the legal process to register our outlet in (host country)… It took us two years… Then we reached an agreement with an organization… that helps journalists with evacuations. So if we need to flee, they can help… We hope to stay as long as possible in (the home country), but at least we are prepared to leave.”

Economic sanctions, anti-terrorism laws in host countries, and international banking restrictions can complicate the basic setup of businesses. The European Union and the United States have active sanctions against 13 of the 17 countries of origin studied in the report. Money transfers in and out of certain countries alert banks, which will then require more information about senders and recipients, posing security risks for journalists.

“We are also struggling to open a bank account here in Germany… If you are registered in Germany, you must obtain residency beforehand. And banks, not all of them accept giving an account to a non-profit organization…even if you have papers and are fully registered and everything. At the same time, we cannot send the money to (home country)… So we have to make sure that all freelancers and… collaborators with us have a bank account outside of (home country).”

Producing journalism from exile can also be a funding headache. Exiled media may not be eligible to apply for grants because they are based outside the countries they report on. If they do get funding, it is often not enough and does not cover the expenses related to exile.

“Our funding level is designed for a poor country like (the home country), but I don’t live (there). “My electricity, my rent and my expenses… are nothing like those of a news organization (in my home country).”

Funding from foundations and donors is also complicated by political interests. The report says some funders are afraid to give money to certain media outlets in exile because it could affect their relationship with the government of their home country. Other times, media outlets can’t be transparent about where their money comes from because their donors don’t want to be publicly associated with them.

All media outlets also reported that the constant change in donor funding priorities makes planning for the future difficult.

“Some describe receiving huge subsidies over a relatively short period of time, often because the situation in their country made international headlines,” the report says. “However, once attention turns to another crisis or conflict, the flow of funding can stop quite abruptly, leaving exiled media in a precarious state.”

In its list of 13 recommendations for donors and media support organizations, Internews says they must be willing to work with exiled media and meet them where they are with their unique limitations:

Recognize the reality that donor funding must remain part of the revenue strategy for most of these outlets, and would ideally be flexible to respond to emergencies without bureaucratic delays, and allow team members to carry out strategy development, fundraising and donor engagement. and report without distracting from the organization’s primary mission of reporting about and for its home country. Pressure to develop alternative revenue streams may be unrealistic and lead to perverse incentives (for example, a disproportionate focus on diaspora audiences at the expense of local audiences). Likewise, too rigid a focus by donors on specific audiences or outreach goals can have the opposite effect: media avoid diaspora audiences who may need their products and be a source of income for the audience because They are too small in number or are not considered a donor priority.

Find the full report here.