by EJO
Recent research challenges the comforting assumptions behind global efforts to support journalism in developing countries. In light of intensifying global competition for influence over media systems, Dr. Michel Leroy raises difficult but timely questions in his new book, The Sustainability Imperative in Media Development. Drawing on two decades of project evaluations worldwide and field research in sub-Saharan Africa, Leroy exposes the blind spots of international media aid, particularly its overreliance on the concept of “sustainability.” EJO spoke with him about his findings and why “aid” for media may not be as simple—or as helpful—as many believe.
Michel Leroy works as a communications scientist at the University of Dortmund. Source: EJO.
Question: Dr. Leroy, your book has a rather interesting subtitle: “A critical analysis of a self-serving myth.” What myth are you referring to?
Michel Leroy: The myth is the idea that media development interventions—that is, projects mainly funded by Western countries to promote free, independent journalism in the Global South—are inherently useful. For years, we assumed that donor investments in training journalists, providing equipment, and setting up news agencies would inevitably contribute in some way to the overall media ecosystem. However, the reality is much more complex, and media growth does not always mean media development. By using sustainability as a benchmark—a highly elastic criterion that everyone interprets differently—all industry players are mobilizing a convenient concept that is broad enough to somehow fit everyone, but full of implicit assumptions. As a researcher, I have therefore tried to deconstruct these values to see what they mean.
What sparked your interest in questioning this belief?
Before becoming a researcher, I worked for many years on media development projects in Africa and Asia. On the surface, these programs are about promoting democracy, press freedom, and accountability. However, when I returned to these countries years later, I found that despite glowing evaluation reports, the same radio stations or newspapers were often still struggling or had even closed down. This discrepancy between narrative and reality made me think: Are we measuring the right things, or are we just telling ourselves stories we want to hear? What impact can this have on the entire system if we close our eyes to reality and ultimately learn nothing from our experiences? And who is ultimately responsible when donor countries such as China, Russia, Turkey, or the Gulf states creep in, use the same blanket concepts but pursue completely different goals, often with impressive efficiency?
Why does this concept of sustainability need to be rethought today?
Sustainability has long been a popular buzzword in development cooperation, including in media aid. However, my research shows that it is more of a narrative device than a reliable indicator of impact. Right now, in a changing geopolitical landscape where the traditional liberal democratic order is being challenged by populism, the old model of media aid is reaching both practical and philosophical limits. Yet many Western donors and NGOs continue to rely on the same sustainability frameworks they have been using since the 1990s, as if the global environment had not changed. Worse still, at a time when large parts of Western aid are being abruptly cut under the pretext that it has no impact, no one is questioning what that impact actually looks like.
Your field research focuses on two African countries, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Why these two in particular?
Uganda and the DRC are very different but equally revealing cases. Both countries have vibrant local media landscapes but face major financial and political challenges. By comparing them, I was able to see that ideas about “sustainability” in media development are more shaped by donors’ expectations than by the actual needs of local media. I found that what works in one place rarely works in another – there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Above all, I noticed that innovative ideas are emerging on the ground that are helping to break down persistent stereotypes, particularly the notion that certain areas are doomed to failure due to insufficient advertising revenue.
In terms of the international debate on sustainability, what have you found out about how this term is used?
I have noticed a striking ambivalence. The term “sustainability” has become a kind of ritualized vocabulary in donor reports, a kind of magic formula that signals responsible action—but is rarely backed up by hard, lasting results on the ground. When the funding cycle ends, many so-called “sustainable” projects quietly disappear.
This is not just an African problem, but a systemic one. As I show in my analysis of 289 evaluation reports from 20 years, the discourse often obscures the financial and political dependencies between donors, project implementers, evaluators, and local partners. It is more a closed cycle of self-reinforcement than an open process of critical assessment. Ultimately, this leads above all to what one of the key informants I interviewed described as “institutional will to survive”: everyone is focused on their own self-preservation. There is a strong incentive to report successes, because a positive report means that the next project will be funded. My research suggests that this cycle can create more loyalty to the funding process than to the goal of promoting the media system. Nevertheless, the most critical evaluations—for example, of measures in the Balkans, Afghanistan, or Iraq—are those that have the greatest impact. The current framework measures whether a project can continue without donor funding rather than whether it actually improves the flow of reliable information in the long term. I believe the focus should shift to social impact, not just financial viability.
Given global efforts to “de-Westernize” media research, how does your work contribute to this debate?
Much of the research and policy literature continues to rely on models and metrics rooted in Western notions of the role of the media: watchdog, fourth estate… In practice, however, these models are often difficult to transfer. Media ecosystems in countries such as Uganda or the Democratic Republic of Congo operate under completely different conditions. These include political interference, fragmented advertising markets, and sometimes economic uncertainty.
My book invites scholars and practitioners alike to reconsider whether our theoretical frameworks are appropriate or whether they merely reproduce an intellectual comfort zone. The “de-Westernization” of the field is not just about exchanging references, but also about listening to local experiences of what “impact” or even “future” actually mean.
What does this mean for international donors and the broader research community?
For donors, it means asking themselves an uncomfortable question: Are we funding media because we want to promote independent journalism, or because we want to maintain our own influence? Media development is intertwined with the geopolitics of soft power, especially in fragile or contested states. There is an urgent need to acknowledge this tension rather than hide it behind sustainability rhetoric. Are those responsible capable of thinking independently, as they should in the context of development aid?
For researchers, it is a matter of methodological humility. There is a growing interest in critical evaluation studies and discourse analysis – especially since the sudden withdrawal of funding under the new US administration. Field-based data must complement – or even challenge – the prevailing North-South models of what constitutes “empowerment” or “success.”
Some of your analyses also link sustainability to the idea of “visions of the future.” Can you explain that in more detail?
Sustainability is not just a technical benchmark, but an expression of how donors and practitioners imagine the future. However, this vision is not neutral. For Western donors, sustainability often means, “We will stop funding, and you will become self-sufficient.” In fragile economies, however, this expectation is not only unrealistic, but often serves as a justification for short-term thinking and withdrawal from projects.
In contrast, survival strategies for local actors are usually adaptable, relational, and characterized by vulnerability, not market logic. In this sense, sustainability is less about financial viability than about ensuring continuity in the face of upheaval. This dissonance is often overlooked in both practice and research.
From a geopolitical perspective, we are also seeing a shift away from the Western liberal model of media development. How do you classify this trend in your book?
The traditional donor logic—professional media as the foundation of democratic societies (the mission era)—is facing systemic challenges today. Authoritarian states have learned to adopt the language of media aid while consolidating their control. Non-Western powers offer local elites attractive alternatives: financial aid without the same governance conditions.
This change is not marginal. It calls into question the very foundations of the media development industry. If the goal was to create robust, independent ecosystems, the question arises: Why are we seeing more dependence rather than less? And whose interests does this serve? These are not just technical or management-related questions – they are deeply political.
Finally, where do you see the future of media development research?
I hope that this work will encourage researchers to view evaluation reports not as neutral feedback loops, but as political documents—part of a discourse that shapes and sometimes distorts the field. Critical, interdisciplinary research is needed more than ever, especially now that the legitimacy of “development” as a practice is being questioned worldwide.
It is also important not to fall into the trap of romanticizing local resilience or demonizing the agenda of donors. Reality is complex, and this complexity is not a flaw—it is the condition of the world we live in. Our role as researchers and journalists is to embrace this complexity, not simplify it.
This article, Rethinking media development: A conversation with Dr. Michel Leroy, was originally published in European Journalism Observatory on April 23, 2025.