On the occasion of World Press Freedom Day, press freedom, which has been declining worldwide and across government structures for more than a decade, worsened in 2025, with no sign of changing course so far in 2026. Closely tied to these trends is a 15-year decline in internet freedom, as both authoritarian regimes — as well as a number of democracies — have been increasing their control over digital spaces (see our aggregated data resource). Press freedom and internet freedom are interconnected. For example, journalists who use online environments to bypass conventional press censorship are being prosecuted; independent media’s access to country-specific domains is being blocked; and certain websites and social media platforms are being filtered by governments. 

Collapse of information access inside Iran

Tiered access and structural inequality

A tiered system imposes heavy censorship on most people while granting select individuals and organizations unrestricted internet access, turning connectivity from a universal right into a privileged exception. Authorities use “layered censorship” tactics to block the general public and “whitelist” specific individuals by distributing “white SIM cards.” By law, certain professions, such as Iranian businesses, academics and journalists working for state-approved outlets, are eligible for this unrestricted access. In practice, however, these privileges are extended to hard-line politicians and lawmakers.

This leads to a major digital divide and unequal access to information: pro-government actors shape narratives while others are censored, and ordinary people must pay high costs just to stay connected. 

A growing global information vacuum 

Such disruptions to the information flow extend beyond local borders. In 2009, Iran enforced a ban on all foreign media journalists, preventing them from “reporting from the streets.” Since then, reporting from Iran has faced significant obstacles such as the imprisonment of journalists from major Western newsrooms, which has made many international outlets hesitant to maintain a physical presence in the country. As a result, foreign media coverage is rare, though there have been some notable exceptions.

Given the lack of a reliable, secure internet connection between Iran and the rest of the world, it is increasingly difficult to verify stories, complicating international news media coverage of Iran.

Misinformation, disinformation and AI-generated images

The closed internet system paves the way for a flood of misinformation, disinformation and broad uncertainty about the realities in and outside Iran. These efforts include a surge of AI-generated content — what experts call the first conflict in which synthetic visuals dominate — making it easy to produce dramatic but fake war footage. There are also fake and/or edited satellite images claiming damage to military bases and deepfakes of political leaders used for propaganda. This content spreads through coordinated networks linked to Iranian state actors and amplified by certain global media actors, such as Russian and Chinese media, and bots to push specific narratives. At the same time, platform monetization structures — particularly on X — create incentives for the mass production of viral misinformation, while verification mechanisms, including AI chatbots, often misclassify fabricated content as authentic. To make matters worse, emerging tactics like “forensic cosplay” deploy pseudo-technical analyses to discredit genuine documentation of civilian harm, enabling the denial of real-world violence. While these efforts can exist even within open internet structures, a closed system makes it all but impossible for accurate accounts to compete with false ones.

Information control as part of a broader media war

In the context of the war in Iran, information control has emerged as a strategy for the other countries involved. In addition to Iran’s actions, governments and regulatory bodies in both Israel and the U.S. have implemented measures to manage narratives, restrict sensitive data and penalize reporting deemed unfavorable or dangerous to national interests, thereby undermining the media’s ability to report freely.

In Israel, information control has long been formalized through a legal system of military censorship backed by police enforcement, with reporters barred from publishing material deemed a security risk. Itamar Ben-Gvir, the Minister of National Security, has pledged “zero tolerance” for media violations, prompting investigations and detentions of journalists, including the obstruction of Ahmad Darawsheh. 

In the U.S., FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has threatened to revoke broadcasters’ licenses for coverage of the Iran war, drawing criticism from free speech advocates. Pressure on the media has also intensified after U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth restricted press access in the Pentagon. The Intercept reported that the U.S. Central Command downplayed troop casualties and President Trump suggested that outlets spreading what he calls “fake news” could face treason charges.

As the conflict expands to neighboring nations, so does information control. The CPJ has documented a long list of violations of press freedom, including but not limited to nine journalists killed since the war began and at least nine media outlets damaged as a result of airstrikes. Stringent regulations have also been implemented in nations such as Iraq, Jordan and the UAE. In Kuwait, for instance, authorities arrested Kuwaiti-American journalist Ahmed Shihab-Eldin. He faces charges of “misusing his mobile phone, harming national security and spreading false information.”

What to do now?

In 2025 alone, at least 313 internet shutdowns were recorded across 52 nations (Our newly updated issue primer on the open internet covers the topic in more detail). Therefore, press freedom has never been less separable from internet access. When connectivity is restricted, journalism is constrained, information flows collapse and both national and global audiences are left navigating a distorted information ecosystem. The path forward in formulating solutions to internet shutdowns and threats to press freedom is threefold.  

Bypassing digital isolation with technology. Traditional censorship workarounds like VPNs are increasingly limited by infrastructure shutdowns and app whitelisting, while satellite options remain costly and detectable. As a result, experts point to Direct-to-Cell (D2C), which connects standard smartphones directly to satellites, as a promising alternative, with groups like Access Now and WITNESS urging its development to prioritize users in crisis zones.

Protecting journalists and press freedom. The United Nations Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity outlines key strategies to protect media freedom, including tackling digital threats, strengthening legal protections, combating Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) and establishing national systems to prevent and prosecute attacks on journalists. In highly restrictive states, protection must extend beyond the newsroom by supporting exiled journalists and enabling cross-border reporting. CNTI’s broader work on journalist safety underscores the need for coordinated approaches to these risks.

Supporting information resilience via community and education. Beyond legal and technological fixes, supporting a free press requires resilient information ecosystems, including greater awareness and decentralized networks like diaspora journalism, as well as global advocacy efforts such as #TruthNeverDies and World Press Freedom Day to sustain pressure on governments.

The post Internet Shutdowns, Press Freedom and the Global Information Crisis: Iran as a Case Study appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

The moral of this story for me is it’s happening here.” ¹

U.S. journalists being arrested for reporting on protests? Check.

The U.S. government reversing policy that provided protections for journalists in leak investigations? Check.

Legal systems being used to criminalize and suppress speech? Check.

The U.S. government seizing a Washington Post reporter’s phones, laptops and watch as part of a national security leak investigation? Check.

Government officials being fired for sharing information that the president does not like? Check.

These are just a few ways press freedoms in the United States have come under attack.

CNTI recently held our second roundtable discussion on the erosion of press freedom, building off of our “Letters From the Field” series that ran during the summer of 2025. This powerful discussion — held just days before two journalists were arrested for covering a protest inside a St. Paul church — involved a mix of local U.S. journalists and members of the news media from Europe, Latin America and Africa who came together to address threats to press freedoms. These practitioners shared their experiences — both past and present — to learn from each other, build solidarity and forge a path forward.

The discussion centered on how authoritarian-style leaders strategically chip away at press freedoms, the legal maneuvers being used to silence journalists, the growing challenges in how reporting happens at international borders and what journalists can — and should — do to maintain their right to report.

Here’s a look at some of the key insights that were shared.

The Authoritarian Playbook to Diminish Press Freedoms

What we have seen is that here is a playbook and that it’s used everywhere and it’s being used step by step …”

As CNTI has seen in our global discussions these past two and a half years, this roundtable discussion identified a clear, almost step-by-step strategy of information control that has repeated — and continues to repeat — itself across decades and throughout all regions of the world. U.S. participants, less experienced with these tactics, reacted with both surprise and shock at how closely what they are now encountering mirrors what others have seen in the rest of the world.

Examples came from:

• Guatemala, where, as Jose Zamora, Regional Director, Americas, Committee to Protect Journalists, recalled, “… at the beginning, repression … was terrible, but very simple and clear. It was assassinations and assassination attempts, physical threats, and little by little, these actors understood that if they … control the government and its institutions … they can use them to attack the press in ways that are … harder to … see and that look more legitimate .…” This included withholding government advertising (the largest advertiser in the country) from news organizations that are not in alignment, defamation campaigns, civil lawsuits, the use of criminal law, spurious financial crimes and arbitrary detention to silence journalists.
• Latin America more broadly, where governments are currently using “… laws and accusations that are not directly [tied] to our job (a strategy designed to weaken the media outlet and avoid accusations of censorship. They’re going for the money; they’re going for the taxes; they’re going for the business liaisons that any owner of a news media brand owns or has. And it’s getting very complicated to defend. And, it comes, of course, with a lot of yelling and public accusations. Putting us on the bad side … of history … ‘You’re the bad guys, you’re the treasonous, you’re the corrupt ones. You’re the traitors, going against what the government wants … and of course, against the people,’” according to Martha Ramos, editorial director of Organización Editorial Mexicana
• Nigeria, where 30 years of autocratic rule ended in 1990. Dapo Olorunyomi, publisher of Nigeria’s Premium Times, said that, “In one year alone …. the autocrats in power totally banned 17 newspapers and five radio stations.”
• The United States, where “the people who are assigned federal roles in this area, whether it’s immigration, customs, ICE, that information is now controlled by D.C. [It] is a political theater that the border residents have long seen on the border. That theater is now controlled by Washington, and it’s very difficult for us to know what’s going on.”

It is a repeated playbook because it has worked again and again. Zamora added that, as discussed, “It’s really about maintaining power, about maintaining corruption, and it has nothing to do with political views.” 

So the question that I posed to you today is, as people who report news, can you identify authoritarianism when you see it?” — James Okong’o, award-winning investigative reporter, Kenya

Losing Press Freedoms in the U.S.

I was really chilled because everything you’re saying … is happening here as well.”

As the U.S. journalists listened, their chilling recognition that U.S. news media is experiencing this same playbook felt palpable. As several from the U.S. shared their recent experiences, startled international journalists confirmed the similarities.  

Some of the countries represented in the room and some others not represented in the room have a very dark history of negative scenarios coming true. But some others, for a long while, have felt privileged that this is not something that could happen here. Even if they would say rationally and technically it could, they kept denying and denying. And then it does happen within the EU and within the United States and everywhere. And it’s not just the first step that happens — that a president can call a major and very credible journalistic outlet ‘fake news.’ But it goes beyond and comes at the legislative level and comes to actual criminal lawsuits or actions or legislation.” — Gabor Kardos, CEO of the Hungarian independent media outlet Magyar Jeti Zrt.

“America is becoming some sort of a police state, for lack of a better word … similar strategies are now being employed in established democracies. And then at very unexpected places. The U.S. is one of the places where you wouldn’t expect to see this kind of thing,” remarked Okong’o.

U.S. news executive Nancy Mayfield remarked on some of their local advertisers’ and some local officials’ versions of campaigns to turn the public against them, particularly during Covid. Campaigns that left much of their community, “not even trusting basic information and stories about government or things happening with healthcare in the community … We’re seeing the same kind of — not physical threats, but threats to our mission.”

One local U.S. journalist offered a recent example within their news outlet. After a reporter legally accessed a document the authorities did not want to get out, they “… knocked on our reporter’s door, two deputies and said, you know, we advise you not to do this. They then went after [connected] advertisers … they sent emails … put up photos of our reporter on social media and said she was having an affair with the court clerk … The district attorney came out and said he was investigating our reporter for conspiracy for illegally getting this document from the court clerk. Eventually, they arrested the court clerk, and they perp walked her … they got pictures of her in cuffs.”

It is also important to be aware that “public officials don’t have a monopoly on baseless defamation cases. These SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) are also filed by rich and powerful business executives with ties to government officials.”

While many journalists and their organizations are fighting frivolous cases being brought against them, they still have an impact. Those seeking to control the press often gain at least a partial win.

Even success in the courts … comes at a heavy price for a publisher. They have to find a lawyer, often pro bono. They may not have insurance. They have to take time away from their journalism, and then they back away from important stories of great public interest because of the litigation risk involved.” —Tom Leatherbury, U.S. Director of the First Amendment Clinic, SMU Dedman School of Law, Texas

Public Support is Essential to Winning: How to Gain It

Campaigns to sow distrust in the media really matter. If the public isn’t engaged, journalism and the freedom of information won’t win – a point that has come up repeatedly in CNTI’s discussions, including in an earlier convening we co-hosted with Organización Editorial Mexicana in Mexico City. As one participant in that earlier discussion remarked, “I think that the fact that our profession is less and less liked and appreciated by society has also contributed to the lack of sympathy and to the lack of understanding about the risks …” (translated from Spanish).

Indeed, Dapo Olorunyami spoke about the important role the public played in successfully combating press control. “The answer I think we found … was the fact that people provided support. Because they saw that in spite of all these attacks, this was a press that was still working hard trying to get the truth out in spite of all those difficult conditions.”

But gaining that trust is challenging, especially in the U.S., where extreme political polarization has seeped into media choices. So we spent some time discussing how to gain public trust. Sometimes, publisher Trevis Mayfield offered, the audience needs additional context to understand why news organizations are looking for specific information. “If we file a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request for a reason … sometimes we will write a story that we’re filing the request. We will also write stories about questions that aren’t being answered … And that has had, I think, a good effect at helping the community understand more of why we’re asking. And it makes it harder for us to be characterized as being anti-government and or just government haters.”

Legal expert Tom Leatherbury agreed on the importance of explaining the “whys” to your public. “We are working with many of our clients to publicize more frequently why government information is important about particular things and what noncompliance means and to publicize officials’ noncompliance … it’s telling people why their public officials aren’t following the law to make government more transparent.”

Another local newsroom leader shared the value they have found in in-person audience engagements. “Maybe this is something that’s easier to do in local press and that is that we lean in very strongly into what we call offline experiences. So meetings across the city with all kinds of audiences and which we engage in various topics and we find those very effective in our goals in building trust.”

In the end, producing high-quality work is the best way to earn respect. “We had just been able to create trust by doing just good journalism,” shared Nic Garcia, regions editor of The Texas Tribune. He continued, “And I do believe that good journalism does inherently breed trust. I think we need to be a little bit more explicit about it … I think we need to do a better job of telling our story of how we do build trust. But it is a tactic, and I appreciate hearing other people say that. So when in doubt, just do good journalism.”

However, we build it, public awareness and support for independent journalism that results in pressure against information control tactics is critical.

Collective Support From Colleagues is Also Essential to Fighting Back

Just as the pressure from the public is one critical ingredient, another is support from colleagues both near and far.

Collaboration is actually survival. When I got threats during my Kenyan investigation, it was my network of fellow journalists and people around me who kept me safe and kept the story alive. Build cross-institution relationships now. Share information, sources and security protocols. No one should investigate in isolation. When one source walks away, the network helps you find another … you need to find a way of making the story alive because these stories need to be told.” —James Okong’o

Journalism Support Organizations (JSOs) are another effective tool to use. “One of the things that really helped us was all the journalism organizations that came to our defense,” remarked one publisher. “They all jumped in and filed petitions with the court, defending us and supporting us. And it made a huge difference.”

Ultimately, the coming together of industry and public pressure holds great power. One speaker offered a specific recent example in Hungary.

We had one of the worst threats in Hungary when they were about to introduce the transparency law last year. That was practically a foreign agent law by nature,” Kardos shared, adding, “And it would have allowed the regime to practically prohibit our very existence, not talking only about our outlet, but any independent media entity, even personally, going after the key officers of those outlets and all that. But when all the remaining independent media went out to the square right in front of the parliament and held a livestream together, the pressure helped us win.” —Gabor Kardos

CNTI will continue to hold discussions and conduct research that puts data to these types of anecdotes. We look forward to continuing to work with local partners on these discussions and to hearing from you. For now, we offer one final thought from one of our global colleagues:

Be prudent, be deliberative and be prepared.”

1. The event was Chatham House Rule, so attributed quotes are for those who confirmed attribution for this publication. ︎

The post Be Prudent, Be Deliberative, Be Prepared appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

CNTI’s Assessment

Journalists are increasingly facing online abuse, a serious threat that can lead to the mental and physical harm of journalists and undermine the integrity of the information ecosystem and democratic values. While it is unlikely we can eliminate this problem, a multi-faceted approach can significantly mitigate the issue and better protect the press. 

Policy deliberation: Creating effective policies requires a balance. While the goal of new legislation is to protect individuals from online harassment, it must also respect fundamental rights like freedom of speech. Journalists should be consulted on cyberbullying and online content moderation policies. Developing and implementing these frameworks is a critical step in providing journalists with stronger laws to defend themselves against abuse. 

Professional support: News organizations can play a vital role in preparing journalists to recognize, prevent and respond to online through several means, including psychological support.

Governance: Moderating abusive content carries many complexities due to the high number of actors committing online abuse and the existing protections for freedom of expression in many countries. It will be important for platforms to moderate content without deleting lawful content. Additionally, content reporting mechanisms must be user-friendly, and abusive content must be addressed in a timely manner.

The post Journalists & Online Abuse appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

CNTI’s Assessment

The digital security of news organizations, journalists and their sources is under threat in many parts of the world. Digital security attacks can range from spyware, account hacking, distributed denial of service (DDoS) and malware, among many other threats. These threats, in addition to their intrusive nature, can also violate journalists’ sense of safety and security, creating a chilling effect and harming the broader information environment.

Policy deliberation: At the governmental level, it is important for policymakers to recognize the very real threats impacting journalists and sources and ensure that digital policy initiatives protect them. However, at the same time, these policies must not threaten freedom of expression, basic privacy rights or encryption and virtual private network (VPN) protections. Additionally, it is often governments that are using spyware against journalists. Governments must not surveil journalists or sources but instead foster an environment that encourages free speech.

Professional support: News organizations must proactively educate their journalists and other staff on cyber threats and provide support for those who are targeted. Journalists need to adopt strong digital security practices, such as multi-factor authentication and basic digital hygiene. Additionally, by sharing experiences of cyberattacks, journalists and news organizations have the opportunity to learn from each other and reduce the impact of these events.

Government: While technology companies can establish and protect human rights and privacy safeguards, they also must navigate challenging state demands. At times, governments pressure companies to provide private data and other information on their users, sometimes through legislation. Although this data may help governments with national security issues, there is a difficult balancing act, as complying with these state demands can also facilitate governments’ abuses of power, and refusing to comply can result in bans or market losses. Technology companies need to ensure that working with governments to protect people does not put fundamental rights at risk.

The post Journalists & Cyber Threats appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Newsgeist is an unconference: the agenda is not pre-planned. On the first night, the participants shared session ideas — ranging from journalistic neutrality in wartime to what journalism can learn from K-Pop to investigative journalism with TikTok DNA — which were then organized into an always adaptable mix of choices. Newsgeist operated under the Chatham House Rule. There were no “speakers,” only session moderators to help manage the flow of conversations.

The takeaways below don’t represent the full range of everything discussed at Newsgeist, nor do they suggest a consensus among participants; instead, we’ve identified broad themes that arose across the weekend.

Innovation in Journalism

Over the weekend, a recurring theme was the need to push the industry’s thinking around new approaches and products for public relevance and business success. Many participants also shared in the acknowledgement that journalism has not historically taken well to adaptation and technological ideation. It will take real effort for the industry to become more innovative — and it may require traditional newsrooms to adopt some characteristics that are more natural to newer, creator-type journalists.

Several participants remarked that the news industry can learn from the technology industry when it comes to rapid experimentation, shared learning, mentorship and data testing — skills that “traditional” journalism is not known for but that can help foster new voices and approaches that better serve today’s consumers.

The news industry can also better adopt and internalize new technology to enhance and empower the work of journalists in ways not before possible. This may be even more pertinent in the age of AI: “In the age of advertisements, the metric of value exchange was the impression. In the era of traffic, the metric of value exchange was the click. In the era of generative AI, the metric of value exchange is the fact,” one participant said. Participants did not agree on the extent to which the news industry should use AI, noting that the industry needs to better understand both the value and limitations of AI and other emerging technologies in order to be more strategic, and less reactive, to innovation. There was agreement, however, that journalism must act and figure out how to be part of the change.

Other innovative ideas focused on things that bring communities together, such as ways to crowd-source local needs, needs-based audience surveys and more. And some wondered whether we need to rethink the structure of journalism itself, asking “How do we support journalists who operate outside any kind of institution?”

Journalistic Independence and Safety

Journalists are facing increased threats around the world — and newly so in the United States — including deportation, violence, government-imposed restrictions and harassment from people in power, bringing journalistic freedom and safety top of mind for many participants. Several participants emphasized that these threats are not a future issue; they are happening now, and journalists need to be prepared to respond.

The group shared many ideas for ways to respond, such as maintaining decentralized networks to protect journalists, sources and content; creating more solidarity and public awareness around journalism’s work; building relationships throughout a community in order to reach all members when reporting on threats to health and safety, such as pandemics; emphasizing journalism’s role as giving a voice to the voiceless; and consistently covering attacks on free expression and press freedom. Several people also made the point that journalists in the United States have much to learn from journalists in other countries who have or are currently experiencing threats against press freedom.

We were also reminded that media independence goes beyond independence from government interference and control. Participants shared instances where ownership structures and funding reliance hampered journalistic independence — highlighting the need for journalism producers to build strategies for self-sustainability.

Trust, Truth and Activating the Audience

Newsgeist featured powerful discussions around truth and facts, what they each mean and how they fit together with trust. Information is always filtered through personal experience; what feels true to one person may not feel true for someone else. As one participant said, “We need to ask ourselves who we’re willing to hear the truth from, and who our audience is willing to hear it from, and why.”

Questions about trust and truth came up across our sessions:

• Can a slate of more diverse viewpoints lead to greater trust in news organizations? What does doing that authentically require?
• Did Jimmy Kimmel’s experience show that the public will activate when corporations or the government attempt to censor or ban content?
• How do journalists demonstrate that they can respect their audiences who might be skeptical or negative towards them? How best to hear and engage with those communities?
• Is it possible for corporate owners and publishers to support their newsrooms in disputes over editorial control?
• How can news organizations do a better job of supporting one another when one among them is treated unfairly?

Participants broadly agreed that reporting the truth is the answer to regaining public trust — but as one person noted, “Truth by itself is not a culture. If we want to create kinder communities, how would we report differently?” This openness to rethinking how the audience receives information will be key to rebuilding trust, but it will require a rethinking of how journalism is practiced.

Articulating Journalism’s Value

Does journalism need a marketing campaign? A theme across several sessions was the need to do a better job of articulating journalism’s value, but to be able to do that, journalists need to first articulate for themselves what that value is and how it is changing. This is not a new problem, as CNTI’s research has shown, but it has become even more urgent today.

While the general consensus was that journalism should still mean verifiable, fact-based reporting, participants acknowledged that such journalism is now happening across a variety of platforms and from a larger number of players than ever before. As one participant put it, “Journalism with a capital J isn’t intrinsically important anymore,” explaining that a small number of traditional outlets that were seen as authoritative sources are no longer the only way people get news. Instead, many people are turning to non-traditional outlets and news producers with a specialized focus or who target local and underserved audiences. In this changing environment, journalism’s value must go beyond just updating audiences, several participants said; news practitioners must be able to demonstrate how journalism is helping news consumers live their daily lives.

Some participants also argued that rather than try to prevent people from going to social media, individual brands or AI to get informed, journalists could instead explore what makes these tools attractive, valued choices: What role do these tools serve, and what can journalism producers learn from that? The public will continue to turn to a mix of tools and sources for their information, and, in many cases, they will prioritize sources that give them some kind of shared experience instead of a top-down rendering of the day’s news.

CNTI gives our thanks to the financial sponsors of this Newsgeist, Google and The Knight Foundation, and to everyone who came and created such a rich 40 hours. We hope the conversations continue, both in and outside of Newsgeist.

The post CNTI Newsgeist 2025: Trust, Truth and Innovation in a Shifting Industry appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Attacks against journalists are on the rise worldwide. In 2024, at least 124 journalists were killed, making it the deadliest year for the press on record. Globally, press freedom is under attack from legal, judicial and violent tactics. Journalists are facing surveillance, restrictive laws and strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), along with internet shutdowns and repressive laws and — sometimes — death. Journalists, especially women and minority groups, also endure increasing online harassment and cybersecurity threats. These include sexual harassment, doxxing, malware and deepfakes, with digital harm often leading to physical harm.

CNTI’s own research shows that risk doesn’t just impact the newsroom: 64% of journalists facing high risks ¹say their sources do, too, while 11% of journalists facing low risks say their sources face high risks.

Journalists facing higher levels of risks do not report receiving higher levels of support to deal with these threats. Rather, all journalists perceive their news organizations to be paying similar amounts of attention to risks and that their newsrooms are similarly prepared to address online abuse. Journalists facing high risks say they feel less comfortable discussing these issues with their colleagues.

News organizations have an opportunity to increase engagement on these issues. By actively addressing these challenges and supporting the adoption of robust safety and security measures, they can help journalists work more safely and effectively. This support enables journalists to focus on their reporting rather than on the risks they face.

Risks carry through to sources

Journalists facing high levels of risk are far more likely to say their sources also face high levels of risk, with 64% expressing this concern compared to 11% among journalists facing lower risks. This finding highlights that risks associated with exposing and sharing information are not limited to journalists themselves.

When the public fears speaking with journalists due to potential repercussions, it can severely undermine the integrity and openness of the information environment.

Journalists are facing harassment from the public and the government, often through the use of technology

The risks journalists face are well documented and continue to grow. Our findings confirm that the journalists who report feeling unsafe are facing significantly higher levels of job-related harassment.

Those experiencing high levels of risk are more likely than those experiencing low levels of risk to have experienced harassment. This is true for every type of harassment covered in the survey, including threats of legal action (39 vs. 15%), physical harm to themselves (30 vs. 7%), exposure of private information (26 vs. 7%), sexual or gender based-harassment (24 vs. 6%), threats of financial harm (22 vs. 6%), racial or ethnic harassment (20 vs. 3%) and threats of physical harm to their family (18 vs. 1%)².

Journalists experiencing high levels of risk are also more likely to have experienced government overreach than their colleagues. This is true for every form of overreach covered in the survey: receiving direct complaints about their content (48 vs. 25%), being denied access to a government hearing or other official event (39 vs. 24%), censorship (35 vs. 14%) and being arrested, detained, or imprisoned by the government or an affiliated group (9 vs. 2%).

Journalists facing high risks do not feel more supported by their news organization than their peers

Despite facing different levels of risk, our data shows that journalists perceive their news organizations to be paying similar amounts of attention to relationships with the government and online abuse, surveillance and cyber threats. While two-in-three journalists say their organization is paying attention to government relations, about half say the same about online abuse, surveillance and online threats.

About six in 10 journalists are confident that their organizations are prepared to deal with external online abuse directed toward their employees. That’s true whether those journalists are facing high or low risks. Although a majority of both groups perceive their organizations as being prepared, four in 10 respondents lack this confidence.

Journalists facing high risks feel less comfortable than journalists facing low risks in talking to colleagues about topics related to their safety. That said, strong majorities of all journalists surveyed do still feel comfortable discussing all four topics with colleagues generally.

When it comes to handling online abuse, surveillance and cyber threats, the journalists surveyed indicate there is room for newsrooms to increase both the amount of attention paid and improve their ability to address online abuse.

For the most part, all respondents take similar security precautions, but when it comes to being informed, journalists facing high levels of risk are more likely to feel very informed about journalists facing online harassment around the world than their peers who face lower risks (25 vs. 14%).

Why this matters

Journalists around the world consistently report that they feel unsafe as they confront serious threats, ranging from harassment and surveillance to government overreach and censorship. Journalists who are facing high risks believe their sources are, too. When the public is unable or is afraid to share information due to potential consequences, there can be severe negative impacts on the information environment.

Our findings suggest that journalists perceive that their news organizations could be doing more to support them. Specifically, about half of all journalists say that their organization is paying at least a fair amount of attention to online abuse, surveillance and cyber threats. About two-thirds say the same for government relations. Journalists facing the highest levels of risk are not only more exposed to threats, but they are no more likely to adopt protective security practices than those who do not face these risks.

Additionally, journalists who are facing high levels of risk are less likely to feel comfortable discussing safety concerns or experiences with their colleagues. This can lead to isolation and inhibit them from sharing experiences and strategies to improve protection.

Varying levels of comfort in discussing risks, along with insufficient institutional support, leave journalists exposed and less empowered to respond effectively to the threats they face.

TThis research underscores the urgent need to strengthen safety and security practices across the journalism profession. Not only is this vital for journalists, but also for continuing and improving free and independent media globally. Better supporting journalists who face high risks ensures that they are able to inform the public, hold power to account and contribute to the defense of democracy.

About This Study

This project is part of CNTI’s broader Defining News Initiative, which seeks to understand how journalism is perceived by audiences and journalists today. Access to information is not just important for its own sake; it makes democracy possible.

The journalist data in this article are a subset from a larger global survey, What It Means to Do Journalism in the Age of AI: Journalist Views on Safety, Technology and Government.

How we recruited participants

Surveys are a snapshot of what people think at a particular moment in time. CNTI partnered with journalism organizations on multiple continents. The questionnaire was crafted with input from partner organizations who knew the current situations and challenges of their members across various country contexts. These partner organizations also shared the survey with their members and can be found here.

CNTI collected responses between October 14 and December 1, 2024. This data highlights the perspective of journalists around the world during that time frame. The data reflects the responses of 433 journalists across 63 countries, with 256 respondents (59%) coming from three countries: Mexico, Nigeria and the U.S. Because no global census of journalists exists, no survey can be “fully representative” of all journalists.

How we addressed attrition

The survey was lengthy (with an estimated completion time of 20 minutes) and consisted of five distinct sections on different topics. The survey was broken into sections, and we treated each as a drop-off point: that is, if a respondent answered at least one question within a section, non-responses were treated as true non-responses. Respondents who answered no questions within a section were not included within the section’s N.

For transparency, topline tables include both percentages of the full survey N (Percent) as well as percentages of the section N (Valid Percent).

How we protected our data

CNTI did not collect any identifiable information that risked the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Data collection was supervised by CNTI staff only. The survey included individual-level information such as gender and the country where one worked and resided. It would be very difficult to identify study participants because CNTI did not collect their personal contact information or contact participants directly and the participants’ personal information was not shared by the partner organizations.

The data is securely stored in an encrypted folder, which is only authorized to the core research team at CNTI. More information about how each survey was administered may be found here.

Footnotes

1. In our 2024 survey of 433 journalists around the world, about one-third (37%) of respondents confirmed that they are facing high levels of risk. ︎
2. We only asked these questions of people who said they had experienced job-related harassment. ︎

The post Journalists Who Face High Risks Require Better Security Practices to Provide News appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

This is a never ending process, but with support from organizations like CNTI, my region can, and must exercise the right to question its leaders based on solid facts and hold them accountable to what they say or do. Without that, we will never secure justice, human rights and democracy.

In the troubled region I come from, it often feels as though the world is looking somewhere else. Let me talk to you about my colleagues in the Middle East, some of whom are living in the ruins of their homes in Gaza or Lebanon, mourning the family members who have been killed, scavenging for food and water for their loved ones who are still alive.

They define what is best in our journalism, the refusal to give up, the refusal to crouch in fear and indulge in self pity, and the unwavering commitment to document the human suffering, the battles, the criminality and the selfless commitment of so many who daily risk their lives to help others. 

They report the story and they are the story. 

Journalism, real journalism, is never easy in my region. Many of my colleagues have been sacked or imprisoned or died. 

In the West, their cases get little, if any, publicity. 

I understand that stability in my region is a legitimate foreign policy goal for the West. Terror has to be fought. But aiming for stability in the region also means accepting injustice, the lack of human rights and a press that’s far from free. 

Look at Tunisia’s slide into a dictatorship after the country became a poster child of the so-called Arab spring. It is a grizzly example of how one leader can use democracy to gain power and then use power to destroy the system that put him there.

The West has been largely silent about the President’s coup against democracy. Why? He promised to work with Europe to stem the flow of migrants in return for millions of euros. Egypt is another example. In March, the EU gave Cairo millions of dollars to curb illegal migration in the Mediterranean.  

The list is long. 

As for my own experience, I was summoned recently to a government office and invited to choose between my loyalty to my job and my loyalty to my country. I told them: “I love my country and my job, and that’s why I was reporting on those who broke its lows and looted its riches.”

The question went away, but inevitably it will return to me and to others.

I’ve been fired from too many positions: chief editor of the Jordan Times, and founder, editorial adviser and columnist for Al-Ghad, what was sold to us by its publisher, and to society as the newspaper that would look for the truth by peeling away the camouflage that had obscured it.

The reason for my sudden firing by the government and the intelligence was simple. 

I refused to toe the official editorial line or give up my commitment to a free press. 

In both instances, I was replaced by the man who is now Jordan’s foreign minister, Ayman Al-safadi, a former journalist for the Jordan Times, where I began my career in 1985.

My experience and that of hundreds of brave investigative journalists I worked with throughout my 40-year career as an independent journalist and mentor, has shown that journalism in the region can never be a safe profession, and yet it’s all relative.

Tonight, as every night, reporter Mohammed Abu Shahmeh will lie under the nylon roof he has built on the site of his destroyed house in Gaza City, where some 40 members of his family have been killed. He says he has no time to grieve them. We bury nine corpses in one go and immediately leave to find water and food. For us, this has become a normality. This is what he said. His family is starving to death, he tells me, asking me if I could provide him with some cans of fava beans and a bag of rice. I am unable to send him across the heavily-guarded border into Israel a microphone for his mobile, and the bronze statue he recently won for best investigation in Beirut. 

Tonight, as every night, brave Sudanese journalist Fatha Rahman will eat dinner in his tiny new room in the UK after fleeing death threats by warlords who want to silence Israeli journalism.

Iraqi colleague Assad Zelzali and his four-member family will be asleep in their new refuge in the West. In one year, he was beaten up four times by militias, sustaining severe back injury. They called him a traitor because he was working for Al Harra, a satellite TV channel funded by the U.S. government. 

Yemeni colleague, Asil Sariah, who won refugee status in Sweden November 2023, is waiting to reunite with his family after fleeing a civil war raging for nine years.

So I’d like to dedicate my award to Mohammed, Fatah, Assad and Asil who have been investigating corruption and injustice with me — first at the Amman-based Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ) which I co-founded in 2006 and ran until early January 2020, and now at  OCCRP.

I would like to dedicate it to the hundreds of brave Arab colleagues I have worked with over 40 years. They risk everything day after day to bring us the news and document the facts. They represent the best of Arab society.

And with this award, I salute their courage and sadly, all too often, their ultimate sacrifice. 

Rana Sabbagh is the Senior MENA Investigations Editor at The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

The post Stories of Success at a High Price: Accountability Journalism in the Largely Autocratic MENA appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.

Introduction

This report is also available in Spanish.

The safety and security of journalists is under threat globally, but with greater intensity in certain parts of the world. Mexico is one of those places. Reporters Without Borders states that Mexico is one of the most dangerous countries to be a journalist and a 2022 report by Article 19 found that over 40% of documented attacks (both online and offline) against journalists in Mexico were connected to government actors. Since 2000, the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented 144 journalist and media worker deaths in Mexico.

Driven by these concerning developments, CNTI co-sponsored a convening in Mexico City with the Organización Editorial Mexicana (OEM), a leading news organization in Mexico. We assembled a group of local leaders from civil society, technology, government, news and academia to discuss the topic of Sustaining Journalism in the Face of Security Threats.

The conversation was especially illuminating to those who do not live in the constant state of threat and uncertainty that Mexican journalists experience. While recognizing the great challenges at hand, the group identified several practical steps to mitigate harms. These steps, while oriented around Mexican journalists, are applicable around the world. Among these strategies is the creation of a global community to provide both connection and support.

This report (en español) lays out these strategies in detail with references to the current environment in Mexico and other elements of the discussion. Participants agreed to follow a modified Chatham House Rule allowing their direct, unattributed quotes to be included in the report. We thank the participants for sharing their perspectives and expertise.

The post The Global Threat to Journalists’ Safety Online and Offline: Lessons from Mexico appeared first on Center for News, Technology & Innovation.