Part I: Trusted Journalism Under Fire
What happens when there are no longer any journalists to report?
By Jeff Danziger
Cartoons by kind courtesy of Jeff Danziger, cartoonist and author, plus member of Cartooning for Peace, a Global Geneva Group partner.
“Truth is the first casualty of war”. For a foreign correspondent with over forty years’ experience covering conflicts, humanitarian crises, and political upheavals across the globe, I am all too often reminded of this well-worn maxim attributed either to the Greek tragedian Aeschylus or to Hiram Johnson, a U.S. senator during the First World War.
Autocrats, populists, and demagogues, too, are familiar with the concept. But truth is not their concern. Their first instinct is to control the narrative, whether by silencing independent voices, intimidating reporters, or flooding the information space with propaganda.
Beyond obvious assaults by the likes of Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Xi Jinping’s China or Recep Erdoğan’s Turkey, journalism is more than ever under siege today than before – and on multiple fronts. This includes governments which like to portray themselves as respected democracies, such as Israel, increasingly viewed as a pariah state by former friends and allies. Media-wise, many Israelis live in a self-contained bubble refusing to acknowledge what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank, alienating themselves from the world.
As B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights-Israel and other Israeli human rights advocates remind us, the world largely ignored what was happening in Nazi Germany. The same thing is now occurring in Israel with the mainstream press refusing to acknowledge, according to a July 2025 report, the “deliberate and calculated policy to destroy Palestinian lives in Gaza in what amounts to genocide.”
Destroying local press: a recipe for ignorance and polarization
Of equal concern is the deteriorating situation in the United States, where polarisation has led to a similar bubble. One in five Americans now lack complete access to local news. Their only option is to rely on national broadcasters and newspapers, if they can afford the subscriptions, as well as politically-slanted social media, much of it heavily biased and misleading.
As National Public Radio (NPR) CEO Katherine Mayer recently pointed out on Stephen Colbert’s Late Show, this means that many Americans have little idea with what is happening in their own backyard. Ninety-seven per cent of the country currently has access to local NPR stations, she said, but many of these outlets are now in danger of closing because of President Donald Trump’s slashing of federal funding. Given that America’s over 1,500 public radio and television stations also serve as the nation’s emergency alerts, this will effectively deny many Americans access to critical information on tornadoes, earthquakes and other catastrophes.
As Mayer stated, “no one is covering PTA meetings, or traffic and community, or the issues of how their forests are being managed, or what prices look like with agricultural and commodity sales."
As both Mayer and others emphasise, the steady decline over the past 20 years in local news has resulted in higher rates of polarisation with a growing lack of trust in civic institutions, including democracy. “When you take away local news and public radio, you are undermining our ability to trust one another and to talk about how we want to live together in our towns and cities and make democratic decisions,” Mayer added.
From Führer to Führer
Jeff Danziger
The promotion of hatred
Since coming to power, Trump has been stoking political division while pursuing his own personal pogrom against independent press through financial intimidation, lawsuits and outright threats. He and his cohorts have also been exploiting the recent killing of Charlie Kirk to promote even greater division and hatred among Americans.
Speaking at Kirk’s memorial, Trump resorted to Islamist rhetoric by referring to the conservative activist as a ‘martyr’. He also said that he preferred to ‘hate’ his opponents. Erika Kirk, the victim’s wife, on the other hand, responded that she forgave her husband’s killer and that “the answer to hate is not hate.” (See William Dowell two articles - first and second - on Kirk in Global Geneva)
As Monika Bauerlein, CEO of the Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), points out, Trump wants newsrooms that ask tough questions to either “shut up or shut down.” She also notes the staggering extent to which many in Congress and corporate media are lining up to help him do it. When media get intimidated into playing it safe, Bauerline argues, it is the truth that loses, while fear wins.
Who needs freedom of expression?
A rise of information deserts
The traditional business model through subscriptions and advertising that sustained credible reporting for two centuries has collapsed, hollowing out newsrooms and leaving whole regions as “information deserts” not just in North America but Europe. In Switzerland’s Italian-speaking Ticino region, local newspapers are desperately appealing for funding to cover costs warning that without support, there will no longer be any independent on-the-ground civic reporting.
“People need to understand that we represent an essential part of democracy, and if we go, so does democracy,” said one Swiss journalist. “It is in everyone’s interests, including the state, to support us.” It is a similar lament elsewhere, such as across the Mediterranean’s 24 countries and regions, where well-reported, independent storytelling is becoming increasingly crucial to highlight concerns ranging from the impact of climate change to the erosion of cultural heritage sites. (See the HelpSaveTheMed multimedia and educational initiative)
This steady degradation of the press means that people are finding themselves without the broad and balanced information they need to discern what is credible, and what is not. Instead, they rely on pro-government or politically and religiously oriented media. Or they simply do not bother to inform themselves.
Equally worrying, a whole generation of young people across the planet is drifting away from professional reporting, turning instead to social media influencers and online podcast personalities, many of whom are rarely bound by respect for facts or ethics. “Young people simply can’t be bothered to read legacy media preferring to go with what they find online,” observed Susan Adams, a former Forbes magazine editor in New York.
Even worse, not only are many high school and college students no longer reading, but they cannot write properly either. “They don’t even know how solid journalism is supposed to operate, including the basics, like checking out different sources,” lamented Jon Randal, a former Washington Post foreign correspondent based in Paris. "We're cultivating a generation of ignorance."
While others might not be so harsh, it is much to the chagrin of parents and teachers that such reliance on easily manipulated information is leading dangerously to basic ignorance, hatred for those who think differently, and rising social division. For youth whose world is increasingly defined by the social media they swipe through on their mobile phones, online bullying and isolation is leading to depression, even suicide.
Democracy dies in darkness unless there is credible information
Trusted reporting: An endangered species
Trusted journalism remains one of the last defences against authoritarianism and corruption. Foremost, reliable journalism, increasingly referred to as ‘authenticity’ reporting, can hold politicians and institutions to account in the public interest. This is precisely what MediaPart, an independent French news platform, was doing when it broke the story on France's Lionel Sarkozy's corruption affair with Libya. This could serve as a stark lesson for politicians, including Trump and Netanyahu, who seek to rise above the law, given that the former French president has now been indicted for corruption with the prospect of up to five years in jail.
At the same time, trusted and credible journalism can offer itself as a non-political information vehicle for public South African-style reconciliation initiatives as radical Left and Right movements, all too often based on lies and ignorance, move farther apart.
A Long History of Press Manipulation
But for this to happen, independent quality journalism needs to survive.
Attempts to control or undermine journalism are nothing new. Ever since newspapers and magazines emerged from the pamphlets and “penny tracts” of the coffee house debates of the 18th and 19th centuries in London, Paris, Vienna or Philadelphia, governments and interest groups have sought to manage public opinion.
When Napoleon Bonaparte became First Consul of France in 1800, one of his first acts was to shut 60 of Paris’s 73 newspapers, denouncing them as “enemies of the Republic.” Over two centuries later, Donald Trump, who likes to cast himself as the tribune of the people, borrowed the same phrase, branding the press “enemies of the people” whenever it challenged his oft-fabricated version of events.
As the press matured, so too did its influence. From The Times of London, founded in 1785, to the New York Herald, which famously dispatched Henry Morton Stanley to find the missing explorer David Livingstone in Africa, newspapers became powerful players at home and abroad.
Some sensationalized events - “yellow journalism” in the late 19th century helped fuel the Spanish-American War - while others staked their reputation on sober reporting. The Christian Science Monitor, founded in 1908, was deliberately created to combat sensationalism by offering fair, fact-based news.
For dictators and strongmen, critical journalism has always proven dangerous. Hitler’s thugs beat and murdered reporters even before he seized power in 1933. The British in colonial India censored news about the Bengal famine of 1943, which claimed an estimated three million lives. Some news outlets complied; others resisted.
The battle for information control continues in much the same vein today except that it has become far more ruthless, devious – and publicly acceptable. It is also becoming more acute by the day, even the hour, as politicians try to direct the news narratives. Each entity, whether Trump's MAGA or Putin's AI manipulators, seeks to promote its own ‘truth’ in the face of honest reporting.
Trump's constantly changing perception of Russia's war in Ukraine.
Dictators, Propaganda, and the New Frontlines
Putin, an indicted war criminal by the International Criminal Court (ICC), has ensured that the Russian people know as little as possible of his war in Ukraine. While his forces deliberately target civilians or execute POWs, there is little in the Russian press about the hundreds of thousands of hapless soldiers (western intelligence now believe the figure to be well over one million) on both sides who have died or been wounded on the frontlines.
More than 60 percent of the Russian population reportedly still relies on state-controlled television as its sole information source. As with other state-beholden media, it depicts Putin’s “special military operation” as a heroic struggle against "gangs of drug addicts and neo-Nazis". While some credible information does manage to slip through on social media or by word-of-mouth, independent reporters have been jailed, driven into exile, or killed.
The current situation in Russia is a far cry from what happened during the Soviet Union’s disastrous occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Opposition to the war eventually led to the withdrawal of the Red Army, largely prompted by the outspoken wives and mothers of killed soldiers (up to 25,000 Soviet dead) coupled by Gorbachev’s decision to allow more candid press reporting. Moscow’s well-informed KGB had also decided as early as 1983 that its military intervention was pointless.
While silencing the press and encouraging a return to Stalinist denunciations, Putin today ensures that families who have lost loved ones in Ukraine remain quiet by being paid off or threatened with jail. The same goes for critical military or intelligence officers. As recent events have shown, the same is happening under Trump with people denounced for critical emails and social media posts causing them to lose their jobs or to be publicly ostracized.
China's nigh-total repression of press freedom.
China: Dismantling independent press “in the public interest”
It is a similar story in China, where independent news outlets have been shuttered, outspoken journalists prosecuted. In Hong Kong, once a vibrant media hub, critical newspapers and broadcasters have been systematically dismantled.
The same goes for public dissent whether regarding state coverup of the Wuhan virus (Covid-19) or corruption by communist party officials. The Xi regime systematically quashes any form of opposition to its ongoing repression of Muslim minorities by beating up, ‘re-educating’ or even killing those who dare speak out. The same goes for ongoing political and religious opposition in Tibet, which China invaded in 1950.
Nevertheless, a few “citizen journalists” who secretly video police actions do manage to show what is happening behind the CP’s walls of silence and detention centres.
Chinese repression of minorities
Fact-checking for accuracy
Given the amount of rampant AI disinformation found on social media ranging from YouTube to TikTok and X, it is crucial to verify videos, photographs, documentary claims as well as facts and figures. Fact-checking teams from Le Monde and CNN to the New York Times regularly oversee the accuracy of posted content, whether by opposition elements, pro-government influencers or politicians. (See Alexander Girardet article on why, from the business point of view, content is your start-up's secret intelligence weapon).
Diverse fact-checkers, such as BBC Verify, point out that up to 70 per cent of Trump’s speeches are often blatantly incorrect or poorly informed. And yet, all too often such claims go unchallenged quickly becoming part of the accepted ‘truth’.
Even the revered BBC has its problems of holding political interests to account. During a recent interview with the BBC World Service, Trump falsely asserted that the United States pays for “almost 100 percent of NATO costs”. It is more like four percent, but the assertion was not countered by the reporter leaving the US president with the conviction that the more you repeat it, the more ‘real’ it becomes.
BBC management was also bitterly lambasted last July 2025 by over 400 journalists, including more than 100 BBC staffers, for holding back, even manipulating upfront coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in favour of Israel. This, the journalists maintained, appeared to be a "political decision" by the directors, demonstrating that they were "crippled by the fear of being perceived as critical of the Israeli government.”
While other leading British news organizations have also held back with their coverage of the British government's often non-transparent military support for the Netanyahu regime, certain plucky journalistic initiatives such as the non-profit Declassified, which declares itself as "challenging the establishment in the name of the public," have persevered with highly detailed investigative reporting.
Killing journalists: a growing phenomenon
Quashing information by killing journalists
Whether in Burma (Myanmar), Sudan or Ukraine, war zones are highly vulnerable to information abuse especially if independent fact-finding reporters are refused access – or are considered targets as with Israel’s current military assault in Gaza.
As pointed out by organizations such as Reporters sans Frontières (RSF) and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), ever since the 7 October 2023 Hamas assaults, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has sought to silence reporting. Not only does he seek to intimidate journalists trying to highlight ongoing abuses by illegal settlers in the West Bank or the torture and killings of Palestinians illegally held without trial or charge in Israeli prisons, but he is pulling all stops to prevent reporting of the Israeli Defence Forces' (IDF) abusive actions against civilians in Gaza.
Apart from allowing occasional highly controlled embeds with the IDF. Netanyahu has consistently blocked independent Israeli and international journalists from freely operating in Gaza. The last thing he wants are credible journalists able to confirm international claims against his government for war crimes regarding the slaughter of over 65,000 Palestinians, including women and children, while deliberately destroying medical facilities and denying food aid. The IDF's interception beyond Israeli territorial waters of vessels sailing to Gaza as part of the highly publicized Global Sumud Flotilla (GSF) is another such example.
Plus ça change - echoes of a horrendous past
The latest such allegation is the September 2025 UN Commission of Inquiry, which characterized Israeli military actions in Gaza as ‘genocide’, a term directly inspired by the genocide of six million Jews by Nazi Germany. While Netanyahu cohorts dismissed the report as ‘fake’ and produced by “Hamas proxies”, they seemed to ignore that an earlier commission had similarly condemned Hamas as responsible for war crimes with its 7 October 2023 attacks.
Equally staggering, the Tel Aviv government has severely brutalised press freedom with the IDF’s killing of over 210 Palestinian journalists to silence witnesses according to RSF, the International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) and other press organizations. It has done the same in Yemen with the recent killing by Israeli airstrikes of 31 journalists.
“At the rate journalists are being killed in Gaza by the Israeli army, there will soon be no one left to keep you informed,” said RSF. Many of those killed worked professionally as news gatherers for major international press organizations, with respected foreign correspondents such as the BBC’s Jeremy Bowen and Lyse Doucet providing critical historic context based on years of reporting experience.
An officially tolerated silencing of journalism
Using ideology to confront criticism
Not unlike Trump and his entourage, the IDF tend to provide their own vitriolic propaganda to confront public criticism, or they simply ignore information. The Israeli mission in Geneva, for example, used to persistently approach journalists at the United Nations to promote Tel Aviv's side of the story. No longer. They refuse to offer any explanations as to why international journalists are denied access to Gaza.
While some Israeli press outlets such as Haaretz seek to report honestly, most mainstream coverage aligns with official narratives. Pro-government proponents condemn critics, including American, European and Israeli Jews, as well as civil society groups, of being “antisemitic”. Ironically, this constant and very deliberate association of criticism of the Israeli government as being the same as attacking Jews worldwide is only provoking even greater anti-semiticism.
Nonetheless, while lambasting Netanyahu for ignoring the plight of the remaining hostages held by Hamas, some Israelis openly criticize him for being little different to the Nazis and an embarrassment to Holocaust victims. They also point to the Netanyahu regime’s growing corruption and paying off of his extreme right-wing orthodox partners in a bid to remain in power rather than face criminal proceedings which await him once he leaves office.
Without on-the-ground journalistic corroboration, hardline governments can continue unchallenged with their denials. But this is where background ‘authenticity’ reporting experience and knowledge remain crucial. Whether dealing with Afghanistan’s mujahideen or Taliban, Sri Lanka’s government forces and rebel Tamil Tigers, or Liberia’s warlord factions during their various brutal conflicts, the presence of reporters can make a difference.
Repressing reporters: A serious threat to press freedom that is becoming normal
The murdering of reporters is nothing new
As demonstrated by the brutal killing and dismembering at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul of journalist Kamal Kashoggi at the behest of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in 2018, the deliberate eradication of reporters is nothing new.
As a foreign correspondent, I have never managed to personally cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless, I vividly recall the Gaza killing – or murder - in 2003 of James Miller, a five-time Emmy-awarding winning filmmaker, by an IDF soldier. Based on testimony, including a detailed investigative documentary by British producer Saira Shah, Miller was deliberately shot despite being clearly identified as ‘PRESS’. According to the Israeli Military Police, there was ‘insufficient’ evidence to indict the shooter.
Confronted by such political extremes, it is even more vital that news organizations persist with their efforts to report without constraint, particularly of under-covered stories such as the war in Sudan or Indian Prime Minister Modi's efforts to stifle public interest reporting.
For quality journalism to regain its trust, however, it needs to remain accurate, balanced and, above all, honest. All too often, journalists are attacked, sometimes justifiably, as having their own agendas. If solid reporting is to be respected, it needs to ensure the highest of standards.
Good journalism, too, should not indulge with terminology often used by rival sides to denigrate each other.
One good example is the word 'terrorist' by some news organizations such as select American press and Swiss broadcasting for describing groups, notably Hamas (but not the Israeli government) as a terrorist group. Despite enormous government pressure, the BBC has so far refused to use the term given that one man’s ‘terrorist’ may be another’s ‘freedom fighter’. Instead, independent media prefer to use more neutral terminology such as ‘insurgent’ or ‘belligerent’.
While the above examples differ in scale and context, the logic remains the same: silence independent scrutiny, and the official narrative prevails.
The Collapse of Journalism’s Business Model
The greatest threat to journalism today, however, may not come from governments but from economics. Good journalism can only persevere if it can find the funds to pay for reporting.
Until the 1990s, most newspapers and broadcasters relied on a simple model: subscriptions and advertising paid for newsrooms that could afford foreign correspondents, investigative teams, and specialist reporters. With the rise of the internet, this model collapsed.
Tech giants such as Google, Facebook, and Amazon have captured the bulk of advertising revenue, while freely circulating journalists’ work on their platforms without compensation.(See Big Tech’s Invisible Hand, a September 2025 report by a global consortium of 17 media outlets across 13 countries).
The result: mass closures of newspapers and magazines, especially local outlets. Even once-powerful weeklies like TIME and Newsweek have lost their influence; young people have never even heard of them.
Many news outlets now rely on paywalls in the hopes of covering costs: $4 a month for the Washington Post, $20 for Le Temps in Switzerland, $10 for Spain’s El País. But this does little to attract new audiences, especially youth accustomed to free content.
So in the end, these news gatherers are killing themselves. Even the BBC World Service, long considered a global public good, now charges U.S. users a subscription fee denying huge swathes of populations the information they should have.
The consequences are stark: fewer resources for investigative journalism, fewer foreign correspondents, and fewer opportunities to hold power accountable, or to provide the stories we need to make informed decisions about what is happening in the world.
Conflicts in Yemen or Congo, for example, receive minimal coverage. With local journalists often lacking the means to report properly, aid workers working in the field remain the only sources for glimpses of realities in the field.
Similarly, Chinese economic interests are steadily asserting themselves, wheeling and dealing with governments lacking transparency, and often without proper coverage, along the Road and Belt Initiative in Asia, or across Africa. For business interests, whether in Europe or the United States, not being properly informed is proving highly detrimental to both western and developing country economies.
Burning accountability
Jeff Danziger
Losing the Next Generation
Perhaps most alarming is journalism’s failure to cultivate its future audience. In conversations with high school and university students, I often encounter bewilderment at the very idea of professional reporting. One 17-year-old in Geneva recently asked me: “Isn’t this just the sort of thing I can find on YouTube or Instagram?”
The painstaking work of fact-checking, editing, and ethical accountability barely registers.
Research by the Reuters Institute and the Pew Research Center confirms this trend. In 2025, for the first time, more young Americans cited social media and video platforms (54 per cent) as their primary news source followed by television (50 per cent) and news websites (48 per cent). Many turn to online personalities such as podcaster Joe Rogan or political comedians rather than professional journalists.
In Britain, more than 70 per cent of young people prefer social media over traditional broadcasters like the BBC, ITV or Sky News. Across Europe, similar patterns are evident. Most of these young consumers are unable to distinguish between misinformation and credible reporting, a vulnerability that propagandists and political influencers exploit with ease.
Journalists, educators, and parents bear some responsibility. We have failed to integrate media literacy into school curricula, leaving younger generations without the tools to navigate an increasingly chaotic misinformation environment. The result is a generation sceptical of “legacy media” yet unprepared to recognize they are constant victims of online manipulation.
Journalism as a Democratic Safeguard
And yet, history shows the irreplaceable role of a free press. Investigative reporting has repeatedly changed the course of nations:
- The New York Times and Washington Post publishing the Pentagon Papers during the Vietnam War.
- The Washington Post’s dogged pursuit of Watergate, leading to President Nixon’s resignation.
- The Miami Herald’s revelations in the Iran-Contra affair.
- El País in Spain exposing the Gürtel corruption scandal.
These were not accidents. They were the result of professional journalists pursuing facts despite political pressure, financial risk, and, at times, personal danger.
But they seem like history today although Hollywood films highlighting the impact of journalism such as All the Presidents' Men and Good Night, and Good Luck still manage to get the message across. So do TV series like The Morning Show, The Newsreader and The Newsroom.
As several editors and analysts have noted, even autocrats such as Netanyahu and Trump must feel nervous that their own self-promoted and largely illegal legacies could be crash in flame through diligent reporting. While dedicated reporters and news outlets around the world from small independent publications in Kenya or El Salvador to established institutions like Le Monde or The Atlantic, they are still operating against all odds.
The problem is not that credible journalism no longer exists. It does. The problem is that its reach and resources are shrinking at precisely the moment when societies are most polarized and vulnerable to disinformation.
Reminiscent of Nazidom: Trump's constant denigration of the US constitution
Political Polarization and the “Enemy of the People”
Even in democracies, political leaders have learned to exploit division whether right-winger Nigel Farage in the UK or Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. As with Trump, their repeated denunciations of critical journalism as “fake news” have eroded public trust. In France, Germany, and other European countries, diverse political factions are increasingly treating the press as an adversary rather than a civic institution. Conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccine activists, and partisan influencers amplify the distrust, creating an environment where facts themselves become contested territory.
The irony is that many who criticize “the media” in a lump manner often fail to distinguish between responsible reporting and propaganda. To denounce journalism as a monolith - as though poor cooking could be blamed on “food” - is to ignore the diversity of journalists and organizations, from the reckless to the diligent.
The Stakes for Democracy
What is at stake is more than the survival of newsrooms. Without trusted reporting, citizens cannot make informed decisions. Democracies cannot hold leaders accountable. Corruption flourishes in the dark.
As I reflect on my over four decades of reporting from Afghanistan to Haiti, from famine zones to political upheavals, one lesson stands out: accurate information saves lives and shapes history. Whether exposing atrocities, warning of impending crises, or documenting corruption, journalism provides the knowledge that allows societies to respond.
Today, however, this crucial role is imperiled by authoritarian regimes that lie and restrict access, while tech companies siphon off revenues as young audiences drift into unverified echo chambers.
Trusted journalism has always been under pressure, but in 2025, the convergence of authoritarian suppression, economic collapse, and generational disengagement has created a perfect storm.
And yet, I remain convinced: honest, professional reporting is not only possible but indispensable. It is the only viable antidote to disinformation and division. The question is how to sustain it, how to rebuild trust, and how to engage the next generation before it is too late.
That is the subject of Part II of this series: how we might renew journalism in an age of polarization and misinformation?
Edward Girardet is a Geneva-based foreign correspondent and author. He has reported conflict, humanitarian and environmental issues worldwide for more than 40 years.