By Susanne Fengler
A new research project at the Erich Brost Institute for International Journalism is examining how BRICS+ actors influence professional standards and editorial practices. China and Russia are systematically expanding their media presence in Africa, while Western funding programs are on the decline. How do journalists navigate between geopolitical interests and professional autonomy?
The international research project focuses on one of the central questions in current journalism research: How are geopolitical power shifts altering journalistic practice and professional standards in Sub-Saharan Africa?
The three-year project is funded by the Daimler-Benz Foundation and led by Prof. Dr. Susanne Fengler at TU Dortmund University. At the first project workshop in early February, researchers from seven African countries gathered in person for the first time at Makerere University in Kampala to discuss the results of a desk study conducted in the participating countries.
The central question is how newsrooms and journalists are responding to the growing influence of BRICS+ actors—particularly China and Russia—and how this is affecting training, routines, and professional self-perception.
Western media funding is declining
Context is crucial. The abrupt withdrawal of Western media funding—particularly the de facto end of virtually all USAID media programs in 2025—
marks a turning point. Decades of investment in journalism training and media development have been halted. European countries, too, are now spending significantly less on (media) development cooperation.
At the same time, BRICS+ countries have intensified their activities in the African media sector.
The comparative preliminary study conducted as part of the new project identifies China as the most structurally entrenched actor in the field of journalism. It cites infrastructure projects, content partnerships, and extensive training and exchange programs. On average, around 10,000 journalists and trainers are expected to participate annually in training or exchange programs in China.
In several countries—including Nigeria, Ghana, Tanzania, and Kenya—these programs are particularly visible. Chinese actors are attempting to establish frames in reporting that emphasize stability, modernization, and “win-win” cooperation. Training programs also brand themselves with the label of “constructive journalism”—though in a form that focuses on stability and development and excludes democratic oversight functions.
Russia’s engagement appears less institutionally anchored but increasingly visible. Digital offerings such as RT and Sputnik, content distribution via local partners, and exchange formats are described. In 2024, a pan-African journalism training center was also established in Namibia.
Brazil and India Less Visible
Brazil and India play a significantly smaller role by comparison. Their presence is largely limited to cultural and academic exchange programs.
Eight countries were examined as part of the desk study: Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Nigeria, Tanzania, and Uganda. This selection allows for a systematic comparison of different political systems, levels of media freedom, and historical contexts. Field studies are planned starting in 2026, including interviews with media practitioners.
Initial findings suggest that national contexts are decisive. In more restrictive media systems, stability-oriented cooperation initiatives can more easily align with existing governance structures. In comparatively pluralistic systems, external resources tend to be used pragmatically.
The project is situated within the debate on the “de-Westernization” of journalism research. It asks whether a pluralization of journalistic norms is actually taking place—or merely a shift in geopolitical dependencies.
The comparative study of these transformation processes began with the kick-off meeting in Kampala. The coming years will show how African newsrooms navigate between new centers of power and professional autonomy.
Image by Lara Jameson via Pexels.