by Judith Odenthal
War, authoritarianism, and economic crisis: Various organizations used this year’s World Press Freedom Day to draw attention to the alarming state of press freedom around the world. Reporters Without Borders classifies the situation for journalism in its Press Freedom Index and accompanying report as “difficult”: in half of all countries worldwide, conditions for journalists are considered poor, and the average score of the countries surveyed has reached a new low. A look at the developments and background.
An erosion of press freedom had already been observed in various parts of the world in previous years. Both creeping social developments and sudden upheavals are influencing the situation for journalists globally. Various factors are responsible for the sobering findings of this year’s report.
On the one hand, more and more governments are resorting to authoritarian measures in their dealings with the media. In Afghanistan, for example, the Taliban has been in power since 2021 and is further expanding media censorship. Journalists are threatened, kidnapped, and tortured, causing many to give up their work. In Russia, the situation regarding press freedom has worsened since the attack on Ukraine in 2022, and in the US since Donald Trump was elected president. Further south of the US, in Central and South America, governments have been interfering heavily in journalistic work for some time.
In addition, the economic situation of journalism is particularly precarious worldwide. In 160 of the 180 countries surveyed, media outlets have noticeable to massive problems maintaining financial stability. Anja Osterhaus, executive director of Reporters Without Borders, blames this on growing autocratic tendencies: “Independent journalism is a thorn in the side of autocrats. This also affects economic viability. If the media are financially drained, who will expose misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda?”
Journalism in the economic crisis
The African continent is experiencing the most severe economic difficulties in journalism. In 80 percent of countries in Central and Southern Africa, economic indicators have weakened. Media outlets often receive little support and are heavily dependent on advertising revenue, which can lead to self-censorship. In many countries, such as Sierra Leone and Cameroon, the media is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful players, which jeopardizes the independence of the press.
A rapid deterioration in the economic situation for media and media professionals can also be observed in the US. The Trump administration has cut support for independent media and also scrapped funding for the US Agency for Global Media, which provided resources for media worldwide. For years, large parts of the US have been turning into so-called “news deserts,” where people have little access to high-quality, independent journalism. Donald Trump’s presidency has made this situation even worse. Mistrust and hostility toward journalists in the US have also increased significantly. The anti-press rhetoric Trump used during the election campaign has lowered the threshold of what is considered acceptable toward journalists. Overall, the US now ranks 57th in the Reporters Without Borders press freedom index. Developments in the country point to a shift toward authoritarianism and influence the average global rating for press freedom.
Argentina also recorded a significant decline in the ranking on the American continent, falling 21 places to 87th. President Milei closed the state news agency there in 2024 and dismantled public broadcasting. He is particularly hostile toward the press on social media. In addition, journalism is in a difficult economic situation here as well. Neighboring Brazil is one of the few countries that has been able to improve its economic indicator.
Map: NordNordWest/ Based on data from Reporters Without Borders, license: Creative Commons by-sa-3.0 de
Norway remains the leader in press freedom
Journalism on the European continent is also in a state of economic crisis. Reporters Without Borders speaks of a “slow economic suffocation of the independent press.” The reduction in funding from the US is also partly responsible for this. In Ukraine in particular, where the state of war makes free and independent reporting extremely difficult, a large part of the media was kept alive by funds from the US.
Nevertheless, only European countries occupy the top 15 places in the press freedom ranking. As last year, Norway tops the list. The country enjoys a stable economic and legal environment for media professionals. In addition, journalists face little pressure from politicians, who rarely denounce critical reporting as “fake news.” However, threats against journalists are also widespread there. Poland has risen particularly sharply, climbing 16 places to 31st in the press freedom rankings. The improvement in conditions for journalists was triggered by the change of government in 2023, when Donald Tusk’s coalition replaced the PiS party, which had previously severely curtailed media freedom in the country.
Germany just missed out on a place in the top ten of the press freedom rankings, slipping to 11th place. This is also mainly due to difficult economic conditions, which are limiting the diversity of the media landscape. In addition, the number of attacks and hostility towards media professionals has risen again. This was particularly the case during investigations into the far-right milieu or in the context of the AfD.
Little movement at the top and bottom of the ranking
There has been little movement at the top and bottom of the Reporters Without Borders ranking. The top spots are shared by the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands. At the bottom of the list are countries such as Syria and Afghanistan, where the political situation makes journalistic work extremely dangerous, as well as North Korea, which is notorious for its isolation and censorship. China and Russia have slipped significantly further down the rankings. China now ranks 178th out of 180. Numerous journalists in the country are in prison, more than in any other country surveyed. In Russia, the state of press freedom, which was already under attack, has deteriorated continuously since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The main source of information for people there is state-controlled television. The Palestinian territories have also fallen further in the ranking. According to Reporters Without Borders, they are currently the “most dangerous place in the world” for journalists. Free and independent reporting is virtually impossible, and more than 200 media workers have been killed in the Gaza Strip since 2023.
Debate on Trump 2.0 and the implications for Africa – Rethinking donor-funded journalism
May 24, 2025, by Susanne Fengler and Sara Namusoga-Kaale
USAID cuts have hit the media in Africa hard and worsened working conditions for journalists, who already struggle with low wages, harassment, and political repression. At the same time, power struggles between the West, China, and Russia over truth and discourse are increasingly influencing the future of African media landscapes.
President Donald Trump’s freezing of U.S. foreign aid to Africa has undoubtedly exposed the extent to which the continent depends on U.S. government funding to run some of its most important programmes in health, governance, and trade, among others. One sector that is likely to bear the brunt of the aid freeze is the media, which is donor-funded in several countries.
USAID has assisted media development in Africa in crucial areas such as journalism training, investigative journalism as well as support for independent media to promote democracy and a free media. For example, according to Beauregard Tromp, convenor of the African Investigative Journalism Conference, a total of USD 28 million for the promotion of investigative journalism in Southern, East, and West Africa has been frozen. In Uganda, it is believed that two of its biggest journalism and media development organisations lost funding worth at least USD 2 million between them. These are not large sums, but they are substantial in the context of African media landscapes – especially those that rely on donor funding.
Impact of U.S. Policy Change – The Example of Uganda
African journalists face significant challenges, including poor remuneration and working conditions, harassment, and physical threats. “A reduction in U.S. support will worsen these conditions, making it harder for journalists to operate safely and independently”, observes Gerald Businge, a Ugandan multimedia trainer, consultant, and Team Leader at Ultimate Multimedia Consult.
Uganda Radio Network (URN) is Uganda’s homegrown news agency that provides locally sourced news content to 120 local media houses, using funds mainly from local partners, such as the governance program, and Democratic Governance Facility (DGF) and USAID, as well as regional partners such as Twaweza. Two years ago, it started fundraising through the non-profit site, GlobalGiving, after the Uganda government suspended the DGF in 2021, which was one of its key partners. At the time of writing, URN had collected a mere EUR 3,019 out of the required EUR 92,448. Therefore, the US aid freeze could not have come at a worse time. It is commendable that URN has sought alternative funding through an approach that might provide some relief from stringent corporate donor terms and conditions. However, fundraising is quite unpredictable, making it difficult to plan.
Organisations like URN have had to lay off staff and reduce content production after these financial cuts. This means that the 120 media houses that rely on URN for news have lost a critical source of professionally sourced daily news, argues Wilson Akiiki Kaija, a journalist and lecturer at the Department of Journalism and Communication at Makerere University. This is likely to further reduce the availability of locally sourced and produced news that caters to the Ugandan audience and local media needs, especially in the absence of a credible public broadcaster, as is the case in most parts of Africa. Moreover, most Ugandan radio stations cannot afford to recruit in-house journalists and must therefore rely on subscriptions from URN for their news bulletins. Needless to say, organisations like URN are critical to amplifying grassroot voices while providing accurate news and combating mis- and disinformation.
USAID – U.S. Narratives?
Foreign support for local media has not always been without controversy. Although there appears to be a lack of empirical evidence to suggest that USAID funding compromised editorial independence, several commentors do not rule it out. For example, Ahmad Abuhamad, writing about the independence of Western-funded media outlets in the Arab world, asks the question: If Western funding is ultimately governmental and controlled by official decisions and institutions, and if accessing this funding comes with conditions that potentially affect the editorial standards of journalistic content, then what does the term “independence” truly signify in this context? He observes that most of these media projects reported social issues from “a Western perspective, which did not align with the broader social contexts in the regions where these Western-funded media institutions operate.” Similar questions can be raised with respect to the African continent.
New Spaces for BRICS actors
The recent U.S. policy change may also open the door widely for its systemic rivals to intensify their engagement with African media. A geopolitical shift is already underway in Africa – not with soldiers, but through microphones, cameras, and servers. China, Russia, and India have been strategically investing in sub-Saharan Africa’s media landscape for some time now – quietly reshaping the field of international media development and increasingly challenging Western influence.
The media-related influence of major BRICS actors China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates in Africa has been severely understudied, even though it is fundamentally transforming the conditions for independent journalism. Unlike Western actors such as Germany or the Nordic countries – who primarily offer training and capacity-building – BRICS nations often deliver tangible assets: newsroom equipment, mobile networks, and free content from state-run news agencies like Xinhua. For many resource-strapped newsrooms, these offerings are hard to resist – and represent a subtle form of geopolitical soft power.
This trend is unfolding in a context where media freedom is already under pressure. With very few exceptions, most sub-Saharan nations struggle with fragile democratic institutions. Over 20 countries in the region are classified as fragile states by the World Bank. In such environments, journalistic ideals often take a backseat – especially when BRICS content is freely available, while Western support comes tied to abstract norms and slower-moving programmes.
One striking example is in Ghana and Rwanda where coverage of migration is increasingly framed through a Chinese lens due to Xinhua’s provision of local-language news content. Media experts in these countries informally describe how Chinese-sponsored news depict European policy towards African migrants as hostile towards African migrants. In 2024, Russia launched its own journalism training centre in Namibia – the “RT Academy.”
While Western donors typically promote a pluralistic media landscape as a vehicle for democratisation and development, BRICS countries pursue more pragmatic – and often authoritarian – strategies. They export their own models of journalism which frequently lack the investigative edge and are less geared towards supporting press freedom – aspects associated with Western ideals.
What is more, African journalists are increasingly faced with a choice – not just a normative one, but often as a matter of survival. Low pay, political repression, and poor working conditions create what South African journalist Dugmore calls “precarious professionalism.” In many cases, journalists must adapt their work to realities that conflict with their professional ideals.
Analysing African Media Environments Under External Influence
To address the research gap and explore how journalistic practices and values are affected by these new geopolitical players, the Erich Brost Institute for International Journalism at TU Dortmund has started an initiative involving partner universities in seven African countries. The pilot project aims not only to describe, but also to measure these developments. Using interviews, local-language desk research, and experimental methods, researchers will compare the media environments in Uganda (with strong Western donor presence) and Tanzania (with significant Chinese influence).
A key innovation of the project is its interdisciplinary approach, combining communication science with economic theory with an intercultural perspective. The researchers aim to understand how media actors in the Global South make decisions, such as whether to accept an offer from Beijing or Berlin, and what motivates them.
Another crucial objective is to centre African researchers in the process and challenge the traditionally Western-centric perspective in this field of study. Too often, research has been done about Africa, not with Africa.
A Wake-Up Call to Reluctant African Governments
Be that as it may, public opinion, at least as expressed in sections of Uganda’s legacy and social media, seems to suggest that it is high time Africa cleaned up her house and stopped depending on the U.S. and other foreign funders for almost everything. This should include the media. In a commentary published in Uganda’s Daily Monitor, Ifeanyi M. Nsofor ponders how Africa should respond to aid cuts, given that foreign aid is naturally unreliable. His answer: “The current financial crisis, then, should serve as a wake-up call, for Africa to re-strategize and develop home-grown financing solutions for sectors such as health.” In another commentary published in the same publication, Jonas Mbabazi Musinga suggests that Africa should diversify trade partnerships, “such as tapping into China’s tariff-free offers to 33 African countries,” to reduce overdependence on U.S. government assistance. These two opinions, among many, seem to contradict pro-Western thinking which does not favour collaboration with China.
Nonetheless, one wonders what home-grown financing solutions for the media in Africa would look like. Given the fragile state of democracy in many countries, is it really in the best interest of governments to create an environment in which the media thrive within their own capabilities? At a continental level, perhaps it is time for the Pan-African News Agency to play a more prominent role in promoting values such as democracy and good governance while promoting Africa’s integration. Certainly, it is time to rethink the concept of donor-funded journalism and instead aim for truly independent and professional media sectors in Africa. To paraphrase the words of Beauregard Tromp, it is possible for the media sector in Africa to weather the storm and aim for excellence that rivals the quality of well-resourced projects in the West. Simon Allison of The Continent, a South African independent publication suggests achieving this by “Growing local philanthropy, working harder at convincing advertisers that it is important to keep their business with independent media houses and to give them the moral case to do so.”
Second publication: This text first appeared in Megatrends Africa.
Pushed to the margins: The marginalization of Africa in the media
May 31, 2025, by Ladislaus Ludescher
The marginalization of Africa in the mainstream media is overwhelming and consistent. Only a minimal proportion of available airtime or print space is devoted to African issues. Even fundamental events in Africa, such as “the deadliest war of the 21st century” (Tigray) and what is currently “the world’s largest and most devastating humanitarian crisis” (in Sudan), are largely marginalized or even completely ignored. Reporting on Africa is not only marginal, but still appears to be dominated by so-called K-issues (wars, crises, catastrophes). When Africa is reported on, which is rare, the coverage is usually negative.
This article is a heavily abridged advance publication of an essay in an anthology on Africa edited by Hans Peter Hahn, which will be published in the coming months.
- The quantity of reporting on Africa
Africa’s marginalization in the media is comprehensive. Research has repeatedly documented this finding in numerous studies and observations. Fabian Sickenberger, who spoke in this context of a “comprehensive agenda cutting” (p. 203) affecting large parts of the continent, pointed out that only about 3.7 percent of the 1,685 Tagesschau reports he evaluated dealt “primarily or secondarily with African states or people” (p. 206). A study published by Jürgen Wilke, Christine Heimprecht, and Akiba Cohen, which evaluated the reporting of 17 countries in 2008, came to similar conclusions and also calculated that only 3 percent of reports were about Africa.
The findings on marginal reporting on Africa are fully confirmed in this article, which is also based on the results of a long-term study by the author and numerous follow-up analyses on the media neglect of the Global South. It should be noted that Africa’s marginalization has even increased in the wake of recent developments (the coronavirus pandemic of 2020–2022, the war in Ukraine since 2022, and the war in Gaza since 2023). In 2024, only a fraction of the reports in the German-language news program with the highest reach, the main edition of the Tagesschau, touched on countries in the Global South (Fig. 1). With a few exceptions, African countries were almost completely absent from the Tagesschau.
Fig. 1 Number of reports in which the respective countries (or political entities) were mentioned in the Tagesschau in 2024
A long-term view of the geographical orientation of the reports in the Tagesschau between 2007 and 2024 shows that coverage of Africa during this period was not only marginal, but consistently marginal (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2 Number of reports in which the respective countries (or political entities) were mentioned in the Tagesschau news program between 2007 and 2024
Overall, the leading German-language news programs (the German and Swiss Tagesschau and the Austrian Zeit im Bild (ZIB) 1) on average only about 10 percent of their broadcasting time to the Global South, even though about 85 percent of the world’s population lives there (classification of Global North/Global South according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD)).
The most recent example of disinterest in the African continent is the media coverage during the 2025 German federal election. An analysis of twelve election broadcasts showed that almost 90 percent of the total airtime was devoted to domestic issues. The Global North accounted for about 9.5 percent of the airtime, while the entire Global South accounted for only 0.75 percent. The thematic focus of the programs was on the migration debate and, in terms of foreign policy, on the war in Ukraine. Africa was not discussed, and even the war in Gaza was almost completely ignored.
The economic powerhouse China and the countries of the so-called MENA (Middle East & North Africa) region, which also includes the North African states, are a certain exception to the media’s lack of interest in the Global South. Interest in the MENA region is mainly due to the wars there involving countries of the Global North (Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Gaza). Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, like Latin America and South Asia, is one of the blind spots of media coverage.
This is particularly evident in a direct comparison of the number of reports in which countries of the Global North and sub-Saharan Africa played a role (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3 Number of reports in the Tagesschau news program in 2007-2024 in which the respective countries were mentioned
Between 2007 and 2024, over 50,000 reports (excluding sports and weather) were broadcast on the main edition of the Tagesschau. The US featured in almost 10,000 of these reports, or around one fifth. This was followed by countries such as Russia, France, the United Kingdom, and Ukraine, with several thousand reports mentioning these countries. In contrast, Africa’s most populous country, Nigeria, with almost 230 million inhabitants (as of 2024, according to the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA), was mentioned in only 174 reports. Other populous countries such as Ethiopia (almost 130 million people) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (around 105 million inhabitants) only received 122 and 83 reports respectively. The neglect of countries such as Tanzania (21 reports), Angola (16) and Madagascar (10) is particularly striking. Zambia was mentioned in only one report in 18 years.
The geographical focus of the Tagesschau‘s reporting largely coincides with the ARD’s network of correspondents (2020), which also highlights the prioritization of news from the Global North over the Global South (and Sub-Saharan Africa in particular). While in 2020, two correspondents from two countries (the Czech Republic and Slovakia) with a combined population of around 16 million reported from the ARD television studio in Prague, the ARD television studio in Nairobi (Kenya) also consisted of two people, who were responsible for 38 African countries with a total population of approximately 870 million (the studio in Nairobi now consists of three correspondents reporting from 33 countries). 870 million inhabitants (the studio in Nairobi now has three correspondents reporting from 33 countries). To this day, the reporting area of the studio in Nairobi also includes Dakar, the capital of Senegal, which is over 6,000 km away. This is equivalent to someone in Brussels reporting on Washington, D.C. With such a geographically unbalanced distribution of correspondents, an overwhelming media overrepresentation and dominance of the Global North is virtually inevitable.
- The example of wars marginalised and ignored by the media
Fig. 4 Extent of reporting on wars and military conflicts in the Tagesschau news program in the years indicated
(and for comparison: broadcasting time for sports and soccer)
The media’s neglect of Africa is particularly evident in the varying amount of coverage given to wars (Fig. 4).
Among the military conflicts that have been almost completely ignored by the media is the civil war in the northern Ethiopian region of Tigray in 2020-2022, in which Eritrea was also involved and which, with up to 600,000 deaths, is considered the deadliest war of the 21st century. At least 120,000 women were raped during the war. Amnesty International pointed to serious human rights violations such as crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, and criticized the international community’s lack of interest. While the Tagesschau news program reported on the war in Ukraine for around 86,115 seconds in 2022 alone (not including reports on the war’s impact on Germany and the EU, for example in the energy sector), it devoted only 940 seconds to the civil war in Tigray in the three years from 2020 to 2022.
The civil war in Sudan, where the UNHCR warned of a “dire humanitarian crisis of epic proportions,” also met with little interest. UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell described the situation in the country in March 2025 before the World Security Council as “the largest and most devastating humanitarian crisis in the world” (“Sudan is now the largest and the most devastating humanitarian crisis in the world”). Back in April 2024, Welthungerhilfe noted: “Sudan is now the country with the most displaced people in the world, half of whom are children. Almost 18 million people are suffering from acute food insecurity.” In contrast, the German news program Tagesschau devoted only 1,365 seconds of airtime to Sudan in 2023 and even reduced its coverage to just 640 seconds in 2024, contrary to the escalation of the devastating humanitarian situation. However, the media’s lack of interest in military conflicts not involving the Global North is not limited to Africa. For example, the desperate security and humanitarian situation on the Caribbean island of Haiti and the civil wars in Myanmar and Yemen were almost completely ignored.
Fig. 5 Number of reports in the Tagesschau news program in 2007-2024 in which the respective countries were mentioned
The number of news reports on conflict regions and countries in Africa, such as Sudan, Ethiopia, and the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where, according to UNICEF spokesperson James Elder, a child is raped every half hour, pales in comparison to the extent of reporting on Ukraine, which has been one of the core countries of media attention since 2014 and again since 2022 (Fig. 5). The only coverage comparable to that of the war in Ukraine in 2023 and 2024 was that of the Gaza war (Middle East conflict), and it seems obvious to assume that the high level of media interest in this conflict is due to Israel’s involvement. It is telling that the amount of coverage of all the wars and violent conflicts mentioned in the Global South without the involvement of countries in the Global North (i.e., in Yemen, Haiti, Myanmar, Tigray, and Sudan) in the years 2020-2024 did not even amount to a third of the airtime devoted to sports in the Tagesschau alone in 2024.
- On the quality of reporting on Africa
There are 54 countries in Africa, around 3,000 ethnic groups and, according to estimates, possibly just as many languages. Fabian Sickenberger aptly noted that the defining characteristic of the continent is “not equality, but diversity” (p. 9). Sickenberger referred to the pointed statement by political scientist and Africa expert Rainer Tetzlaff, who stated: “Africa only exists in the plural.” (p. 66)
In contrast, it must be noted that the image of Africa’s socio-political and cultural complexity and multidimensionality portrayed in the media hardly does it justice. On the contrary, numerous images of Africa conveyed in the media are one-dimensional and make no effort to present a differentiated picture. Johanna Mack also drew attention to the criticism that reporting on Africa is shaped by a foreign perception and that “people often talk about Africa from the outside.”
Research has also repeatedly pointed out that many images of Africa conveyed by the media are not only stereotypical but also negative. In the past, Africa was often described as a “continent of sorrow” and “starvation,” and in many portrayals, an improvement in the situation seemed virtually impossible.
However, recent research, such as that by Toussaint Nothias, has emphasized that numerous images of negative perceptions and representations of Africa, some of which have been handed down in research, do not reflect the full scope of reporting. The “Afro-pessimism” of many articles is contrasted with positive and motivating descriptions of Africa as a continent of new beginnings and opportunities, associated with the slogan “Africa rising.” This is undoubtedly true, but it must be noted that, especially in traditional media, where Africa and the Global South as a whole are given very little airtime, the so-called K-topics (wars, crises, diseases, disasters, conflicts, corruption, and crime) play a very large role. Fabian Sickenberger pointed out that almost two-thirds (62.2 percent) of the Tagesschau reports he examined were dominated by so-called K-topics and stated: “The negative focus [is] an omnipresent feature of Tagesschau’s image of Africa.” (p. 197) Sickenberger noted that “a high news threshold […] is easier to overcome with K-topics than with reports on positive or neutral events” (p. 279). Africa expert Martin Sturmer also pointedly stated: “Africa is only of interest in the event of a disaster” (p. 22), and journalist and Africanist Lutz Mükke warned of a “dramatization trap.”
When little airtime is allocated to a geographical area such as Africa, it is almost exclusively used for negative topics. It is, of course, important to report on negative events such as crises, wars, and disasters. These have also been addressed in this article, on the one hand because they are fundamental events with far-reaching human and socio-political dimensions, and on the other hand because they illustrate in a very concise manner the differences in media coverage depending on the geographical location of the event (Global North vs. Global South).
Real problems and grievances should never be downplayed or glossed over, but it is important to repeatedly cite positive examples in order to counteract a potential tendency among media consumers to fatalize and turn away in the face of exclusively negative reporting. However, differentiated and constructive “can-do” reporting that also conveys success stories requires sufficient coverage of Africa and the Global South in general. Only if the media take the time to report not only on disasters and negative events, which undoubtedly exist in large numbers, but also on positive developments and events, which also exist, can the danger of one-sidedness and defeatism be averted. An exclusively negative portrayal that leaves no room for constructive and multi-perspective reporting should be avoided. However, this requires sufficient coverage of Africa and the Global South in general.
Outlook
In print media, the taz and tageszeitung newspapers and the ARTE Journal news program could serve as benchmarks for more differentiated and quantitatively more comprehensive reporting on Africa. In the studies, both media formats showed well above-average coverage of the Global South within their respective genres and top the corresponding lists. It is characteristic of both formats that they have made African events (including those in sub-Saharan Africa) top issues and have taken the time to report on positive examples as well. However, compared to the leading media outlets, both formats reach only a fraction of their viewers or readers.
The editorial teams of so-called leading media outlets might be surprised at how open-minded a not-to-be-underestimated audience would potentially react to more coverage of neglected regions – interest and empathy should not stop at national borders. However, generating interest in a topic requires extensive and, above all, consistent reporting, because interest in a topic presupposes some form of prior engagement with it. Interest and the desire to engage more closely with a topic can only arise if it is reported on and topics and geographical areas are not ignored. It is to be hoped that so-called leading media outlets will also be willing to give the countries and people of the African continent – and of the Global South in general – the attention they deserve in the form of airtime and editorial space.
This article ,Press Freedom: Economy and Authoritatian tendencies cause problems for the media was originally published in the European Journalism Observatory on May 19, 2025