By Shawn McIntosh
Independent journalism is not a luxury. It is the foundation of functional democracy, the first line of defense against corruption and disinformation, and a cornerstone of peaceful, prosperous societies. When journalism crumbles, democracy falters. When democracies falter, instability follows — as does violence, with alarming frequency. That makes supporting media not just a matter of free expression, but of international security and economic resilience.
This is no longer theory. It’s a reality playing out in fragile democracies around the world. A new report conducted in Armenia by the Baltic Center for Media Excellence offers a revealing case study and a global warning As we marked World Press Freedom Day this past week, it is a fitting moment to appreciate the fundamental problems besetting independent journalism in developing democracies, especially with the dismantling of virtually all U.S.-government media development projects by the Trump Administration.
For decades, U.S. government programs like USAID’s media assistance portfolio have played a quiet but indispensable role in keeping independent journalism alive. They’ve funded cybersecurity training, supported legal defense for journalists under threat, financed infrastructure improvements, and helped fragile outlets build sustainable business models. These were not ideological projects — they were democracy infrastructure, national security policy in practice. And today they’re being gutted.
Fueled by a wave of isolationist rhetoric and billionaire-fueled attacks on anything labeled “foreign aid,” USAID’s media support programs, which educational institutions like mine have relied on, are being defunded or dismantled altogether. The decision may win short-term political points, but it reflects a profound misunderstanding of how global influence works—and how democracy is defended.
Armenia may seem peripheral in global affairs. But as a small democracy wedged between authoritarian powers with little or no press freedom—Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Azerbaijan—it has become a frontline state in the struggle between democratic resilience and autocratic influence.
On the surface, Armenia’s journalism landscape may look robust. Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index 2025 saw Armenia’s ranking rise from 43rd in 2024 to 34th this year—a score similar to Moldova and Slovenia, and not far behind several Western European countries. (Shamefully, it’s also more than 20 places higher than the U.S. score of 57th place (a drop of two places).
But the index belies the many serious vulnerabilities faced by journalists in Armenia today that U.S. journalists generally have not had to deal with to nearly the same degree. Armenian journalism is being squeezed not by a single source of repression, but by a thousand quiet breakdowns: legal ambiguity, digital insecurity, financial fragility, burnout, and rising physical risk.
The Armenian Media Vulnerability Report 2025, co-produced by Armenia’s Media Initiatives Center, offers a detailed look at several areas that seriously threaten the viability of Armenian media.
What it finds is as illuminating as it is alarming. Armenian media outlets, many of which do courageous investigative reporting, are structurally unprepared for the challenges they face. Most lack backup power or secure internet. Many operate without crisis communication strategies or relocation plans in case of emergencies. Journalists reporting from high-risk zones often do so without protective equipment, insurance, or even evacuation protocols.
Critically, freelancers — who constitute a vital part of Armenia’s media ecosystem — often work without formal contracts. This creates a cascade of risks: journalists may be unpaid or unprotected; outlets may not own the rights to the content they publish; and there is no enforceable commitment to ethical standards, confidentiality, or data security. In a region rife with political interference, this kind of informality can be fatal — not just for careers, but for public trust and journalistic integrity.
Ethical vulnerability is another area of concern. Most Armenian outlets lack conflict-of-interest policies – which in the long run will harm credibility. Journalists are not required to disclose personal, financial, or political affiliations that might bias their reporting. There are few clear standards on accepting gifts or favors. And in a polarized environment, where credibility is everything, this lack of internal regulation can quickly lead to reputational collapse—even if reporters are acting in good faith.
None of these issues are unique to Armenia. This country is merely functioning as a revealing microcosm of what’s happening in media environments around the world. From Eastern Europe to Latin America to underserved U.S. news deserts, many of the same structural weaknesses are present. The difference is often just a matter of how many other structures — political, institutional, legal — can be relied on to support journalism. And we see those structures being dismantled in many places, not just with the evaporation of support for global media development.
When we abandon journalism, we don’t just abandon reporters. We abandon the watchdogs who keep elections fair. We abandon the red flags that signal democratic backsliding. And we abandon the only credible voices capable of cutting through disinformation in moments of crisis. Nature abhors a vacuum — and when legitimate, trustworthy journalism is not there that vacuum gets filled by state propaganda, by weaponized narratives, and by hostile actors who know exactly how to manipulate public emotions.
The Armenian report makes clear that saving journalism isn’t prohibitively expensive. The needs are modest but urgent: back-up power supplies like UPS systems and Starlink connections to keep newsrooms online. SecureDrop installations to protect whistleblowers. Contracts and protocols for freelancers. Training on ethical practices, cyber hygiene, and AI verification. Safety kits and trauma support for reporters in conflict zones. In short, the building blocks of a profession under siege.
Even small investments can have outsized impact. And the return on investment is enormous: resilient media that can expose abuse, hold leaders accountable, and act as a stabilizing force in polarized societies. That’s not just good for the countries in question. It’s good for the world. Because democratic breakdowns don’t stay contained. They spread, across borders and timelines, in the form of refugees, extremism, economic shocks, and geopolitical volatility.
We should not wait for another full-blown media blackout or politically motivated purge to act. It’s time to stop treating media support as philanthropy or idealism, or expecting market logic to solve the issues. It is hard strategy. It is early-warning defense. It is the low-cost insurance policy we will wish we had paid into when democratic collapse comes to collect the bill.
Let Armenia’s vulnerability serve not just as a cautionary tale — but as a call to action. The world should care about developing the media in small, vulnerable countries feeling their way from darkness to democracy. If the U.S. government won’t do it, philanthropists and NGOs should pick up the slack.
Download the report here.
Shawn McIntosh is Chair of the M.A. in Multiplatform Journalism Program at the American University of Armenia, and has lectured in Strategic Communications at Columbia University and journalism at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts and at the College of Saint Rose. He is a graduate (’99) of the Columbia University School of Journalism.
