Reset Required? Evaluating the Media Freedom Coalition After its First Two Years

"Given...the growing international profile of media freedom more generally, and the apparent easing of restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic - there is reason to believe that the MFC will be able to achieve the re-set we believe is required for it to achieve its original aims."

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the Media Freedom Coalition (MFC) in its first two years of operation (2019 to 2021). The MFC is a cross-regional collaboration of 50 countries working together to advocate for media freedom and the safety of journalists. The report is based on: over 100 interviews with relevant stakeholders; analyses of news coverage, social media commentary, and public statements; a survey of media freedom campaigners; and detailed case studies in Sudan and the Philippines that examine how, and to what extent, the MFC has impacted journalism and media freedom on the ground (these can be found in the Appendices of the report).

As explained in the report, all MFC members have signed the Global Pledge on Media Freedom, which is "a written commitment to improving media freedom domestically and working together internationally". The coalition is multi-pronged, working at different levels - international, national, local - and involves both governmental and non-governmental actors. As of 2022, the MFC's executive group includes: the governments of the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ghana, and the United States (US), along with representation from the civil society Consultative Network (CN), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). In parallel with the official governmental bodies, there are also non- and intergovernmental entities involved with, advising on, and taking part in the MFC. Two examples of these entities are: (i) the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom, an independent advisory body set up by the MFC with a remit to provide legal advice and recommendations to the Coalition and its partners, including international organisations, for the purposes of promoting and protecting a vibrant, free, and independent media; and (ii) the Consultative Network (MFC-CN), which is made up of 17 media freedom organisations, with three co-chairs: ARTICLE19, IFEX, and Pakistan Press Foundation. The MFC-CN represents the views of civil society organisations, media groups, journalists' associations, and media development actors in discussions and interactions with the MFC.

To answer the key question "is the Media Freedom Coalition working?", the team of researchers assessed MFC according to its own pledges: (i) to promote accountability by "raising the cost" to those who abuse or violate media freedom; (ii) to hold its own members to account over media freedom violations; (iii) to work together as a coalition, to expand the membership, and to collaborate with partners (including the CN, UNESCO, and the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom); (iv) to "shine a spotlight" on the issue of media freedom by raising awareness of it; and (v) to develop and defend the media by providing practical support to independent media around the world. The chapters in the report, which outline the results of the assessment in detail, are structured according to these pledges or programme objectives.

Overall, the report finds that "after two years, the Media Freedom Coalition is only partially achieving its objectives. It has taken some positive steps towards its ambitious goals including attracting a relatively large membership and establishing collegiate ways of working. The Coalition has also had some early successes. Several states - such as the Maldives and Sierra Leone - have made positive improvements domestically, as a direct result of joining the MFC and there have been several instances of successful private diplomacy by Coalition members working together. The independent High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom - established at the request of the MFC - has also published four substantive reports detailing precisely how MFC member states can support media freedom; through targeted sanctions, providing emergency visas for journalists at risk, strengthening consular support and creating a standing international Investigative Task Force. However, partly because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the actions of the MFC have not been as rapid, bold or visible as was initially promised. So far, its working methods have been slow and lacking transparency, its communications poor, its financial commitments small, and its political impacts have been minimal. Overall, the MFC requires a re-set and re-injection of energy and funds in the next two to three years if it is to achieve its original aims." The report makes the point that the MFC has itself recognised many of these issues and is already working to address them.

The following is a summary, including a performance score (Green - strong achievement; Green/Amber - satisfactory achievement; Amber/Red - unsatisfactory achievement; Red - poor achievement) for each of the objectives:

1. Promoting accountability: This objective is only partially met because the MFC has not been bold or public enough with its joint statements about countries violating media freedom. However, there have been some successful examples of private diplomacy. Score: Amber/Red
2. Creating internal accountability: Achievements in this area have been poor because MFC members have not been publicly held to account or excluded by their peers when they have violated media freedoms. Core members are not leading sufficiently by example by adopting recommendations for change "at home". Score: Red
3. Working together: Despite the enormous challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, the MFC has successfully worked together, shared information, and convened a relatively large group of like-minded states. Membership of the MFC has prompted positive change by a handful of states. However, collaboration with the Consultative Network and the High Level Panel of Legal Experts on Media Freedom could still be improved. Score: Green/Amber
4. "Shining a spotlight" on media freedom: The MFC has failed to generate any significant press coverage of its activities, except around its initial conference in 2019. It has been largely invisible due to a weak online presence and lack of a communication strategy for the first two years of operations. As a result, its activities - indeed the very existence of the MFC - have been practically hidden from general view. Score: Amber/Red
5. Developing and defending the media: The funds allocated to support media freedom under the MFC have been small. In the Philippines and Sudan (which were studied more in depth), funded projects were relevant and well executed. However, they were an adjunct to diplomatic efforts and had little impact on levels of media freedom in these two countries. Score: Amber/Red

The report offers a number of recommendations, which are addressed to the MFC and its stakeholders, with the aim of strengthening the work of the coalition as it moves forward. Recommendations include, for example, that the MFC should formally agree to and implement a clear and transparent process for determining which "situations of concern" it chooses to highlight in its joint statements. It should also implement a communication strategy that improves its online presence and proactively raises the profile of the MFC and its work, and it should re-set its current "diplomacy-heavy, grant-light" approach to include a much stronger emphasis on providing financial support for media sustainability.

Editor's note: The report was launched at the Global Conference for Media Freedom in Tallinn, Estonia. Watch the recording of the event below.