In Bishoftu, Ethiopia’s media community builds a lifeline for journalists under threat

The answer that emerged from the safety of journalists meeting was both practical and symbolic: a shared commitment to advance the development and operationalisation of the Consortium for the Safety of Journalists’ (CSoJ) Rapid Response Safety Fund, or RRSF, a mechanism designed to provide timely support to journalists and eligible media workers facing threats, attacks, legal harassment, digital insecurity, displacement, trauma or other emergency risks linked to their work.

The meeting marked more than a discussion about creating an emergency fund; it represented a shift from fragmented concern to coordinated action. In a country where journalists have often navigated threats alone, the coalition offers a promise that media workers under pressure will not be abandoned. It also places Ethiopia within a growing global movement that recognises journalist safety as a democratic necessity, not a professional privilege. Despite political polarisation, the participation of media, civil society and public institutions, including the Ethiopian Media Authority (EMA), the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the Ethiopian Institution of the Ombudsman (EIO), demonstrated the value of multi-stakeholder engagement on journalist safety. Their participation should not, however, be understood as formal endorsement of every proposed aspect of the fund.

Around the world, attacks on journalists have become more complex. Physical assaults, arbitrary arrests, online harassment, surveillance, legal intimidation, gender-based abuse, economic pressure and psychological trauma now overlap in ways that make journalism increasingly dangerous. IMS has advanced the safety of journalists based on the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists and the Issue of Impunity, anchored in prevention, protection and prosecution, and calls for coalition-based, multi-stakeholder responses involving governments, media, civil society and international partners.

The Bishoftu gathering came at an important time for Ethiopia’s media sector. Since 2018, the sector has experienced a mixture of political openings, conflict-related restrictions, legal pressures, polarisation and economic fragility. Journalists covering conflict, corruption, elections, human rights, displacement or community tensions often work in environments where risks are unpredictable and support systems are stretched. The RRSF is intended to help close this gap by enabling fast, targeted and accountable assistance when journalists face verified emergencies.

Support may include temporary relocation, emergency medical care, legal defence or representation, digital security assistance, psychosocial counselling and short-term cash support where these are necessary to address an immediate and verified safety risk. Such interventions may appear modest, but for a reporter seeking safety from attackers, a freelancer facing legal proceedings, a woman journalist targeted by technology-facilitated gender-based violence or a photojournalist injured while covering unrest, timely assistance can determine whether that journalist can recover safely and continue working.

Eligibility and support decisions must be based on clear and consistently applied rules. Assistance should respond to a direct connection between the reported threat and legitimate journalistic work, the seriousness or urgency of the risk, the proportionality of the proposed response and the availability of other support. The fund should not become a general livelihood, an institutional rescue or a media-sustainability mechanism.

IMS has consistently argued that journalist safety must be holistic; hence, our safety approach combines training in risk assessment, first aid, secure communications, media law and conflict-sensitive journalism with practical measures such as emergency assistance, safety funds, hotlines, safety equipment and legal aid. IMS also emphasises advocacy, monitoring violations, coordinating international support, engaging governments and building national safety mechanisms aligned with the UN Plan of Action.

The proposed CSoJ Rapid Response Safety Fund reflects this same logic. It responds to immediate danger, but it also encourages a broader culture of prevention. A strong safety system is not built only when a journalist is arrested, attacked or traumatised. It begins earlier, in newsroom risk protocols, editor responsibility, digital hygiene, peer solidarity, gender-sensitive policies, legal preparedness and trust between journalists and protection actors. The fund is intended to operate as a coordinated mechanism involving CSoJ, Ethiopia Guild of Editors and relevant media partners. This coordination is essential to prevent duplication while maintaining the separate financial and audit requirements of different donors.

Global experience offers useful lessons for Ethiopia. In Afghanistan, IMS partner the Afghan Journalists Safety Committee provided mental health training and counselling to nearly 700 media personnel in 2023, including 543 men and 156 women journalists. The initiative responded to the deep psychological strain facing Afghan journalists after the Taliban’s return to power, especially women journalists whose professional and personal freedoms were severely constrained. Participants received support on self-care, depression, anxiety, fear and trauma, followed by one-on-one counselling.

The Afghan example is important because it expands the meaning of safety. For too long, journalist protection has been understood mainly as legal support, helmets, hostile environment training and evacuation. These remain essential, especially in conflict and crisis settings. But journalists also carry invisible wounds: exposure to violence, death, hate campaigns, threats to family members, newsroom pressure and financial insecurity can produce burnout, anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress. Without psychosocial support, journalists may self-censor, withdraw from public interest reporting or leave the profession.

For Ethiopia, where journalists may face pressure from state and non-state actors, security institutions, online mobs, community groups or economic precarity, mental health must be treated as part of the safety infrastructure. The rapid response fund can therefore be most effective if it not only pays for lawyers or transport, but also recognises counselling, peer support and trauma care as legitimate emergency needs. Gender-responsive support must also be integrated across the entire mechanism, rather than addressed only through referral to a specialised organisation. Women journalists may face distinct and disproportionate risks, including online abuse, technology-facilitated gender-based violence, sexualised disinformation and threats against family members. The fund should therefore apply gender-sensitive risk assessment, survivor-centred confidentiality, safe communication and trauma-informed case management throughout intake, verification, decision-making, referral and follow-up.

The Bishoftu meeting also underlined that journalist safety is not only a media issue, it is a public-interest issue. When journalists are silenced, people lose access to verified information. When reporters are forced into self-censorship, corruption thrives. When women journalists are driven offline by abuse, public debate becomes narrower and less representative. When local reporters cannot safely cover conflict or humanitarian crises, affected communities disappear from national attention.

The launch of Ethiopia’s rapid response fund is therefore a beginning, not an endpoint. Before becoming fully operational, the mechanism requires clear governance arrangements, institutional validation, secure referral procedures and adequate financial controls. Its success will depend on trust, transparency and sustainability. Journalists must trust that asking for help will not expose them to further risk. Consortium members must agree on clear criteria, confidentiality rules and response timelines. Development partners must invest not only in emergency grants, but also in the long-term systems that prevent emergencies from recurring. The case-management system must be designed around the principles of informed consent, “do no harm” and minimum necessary information. Journalists should know how their information will be used, who may access it and when it may be shared. Sensitive details should not be circulated through a common platform unless access is restricted, operationally necessary and supported by appropriate consent or another documented lawful basis. The mechanism should also provide safe procedures for complaints, appeals, conflicts of interest and data breaches.

Above all, the fund must remain journalist centred. It should listen to reporters in major urban centres such as Addis Ababa as much as it listens to regional states, freelancers and editors, women journalists, digital publishers and community-based media workers. Their lived experiences should shape what protection means in practice.

Alongside the fund, IMS will support practical cooperation between CSoJ, media regulators and law enforcement through dialogue, designated focal points and clearer referral channels for journalists facing urgent threats.

In Bishoftu, the message was clear: Ethiopia’s journalists need more than statements of solidarity after attacks occur. They need systems that move quickly, coalitions that act collectively and institutions that understand that protecting journalism protects society itself. The proposed Rapid Response Safety Fund can become a lifeline, but only if it is carefully designed, formally validated and implemented through transparent and accountable procedures. But it is also a statement of intent: that journalists under threat should not stand alone, that trauma deserves care, that impunity must be challenged and that the future of Ethiopia’s public sphere depends on the safety, courage and resilience of those who continue to report in the public interest.

Additional references

1. 2025 Ethiopia Annual Safety of Journalists Assessment Report
2. 2024 Annual Ethiopia Safety of Journalists Assessment Report
3. UNESCO Global Toolkit for Law Enforcement Agents
4. State of Media and Safety of Journalists in Ethiopia March-May 2025 This EGE-CSoJ report, prepared with IMS support, may help identify practical cases and recurring gaps in communication and institutional response.
5. State of Media and Safety of Journalists in Ethiopia June-August 2025 provides additional information on safety incidents and challenges affecting Ethiopian journalists.