For those of us who care deeply about Ethiopia’s future, the state of our national media presents a profound dilemma. It is simultaneously a vital pillar for our democracy and a source of significant societal tension. Having recently concluded a series of focus group discussions with media professionals across the country for a separate research project, I was struck by the convergence of concern from individuals of vastly different backgrounds and affiliations. The diagnosis is clear: the current path is unsustainable. A new consensus is urgently needed, one that moves beyond the stale debate of control versus chaos and towards a shared vision of empowerment and responsibility.
The traditional government approach – viewing critical media primarily through a security lens – has proven to be a strategic failure. As one seasoned editor in our discussions starkly put it, “You cannot jail your way to a harmonious information space.” This strategy does not eliminate toxic narratives; it merely decentralises and radicalises them. The proliferation of partisan, often virulent, YouTube channels run by exiled journalists is a direct symptom of a stifled domestic ecosystem. Meanwhile, within the country, a permissive environment for misinformation that aligns with certain viewpoints, coupled with a punitive one for dissent, has created a crisis of credibility that erodes the very notion of shared truth.
Concurrently, the media market itself is failing. The commercial and algorithmic incentives of the digital age disproportionately reward sensationalism, conflict, and polarising content. As one talk show host noted with frustration, “A nuanced discussion on constitutional law gets a fraction of the views of a heated debate filled with personal insults and ethnic baiting.” This is a market failure that actively undermines social cohesion and national unity.
The question before us is not whether to reform, but how. The insights from media professionals point to a blueprint built on three core, interconnected pillars: institutionalising truth, empowering the public through the media itself, and strategically correcting the market to support peace-building journalism. The recent announcement of a government-led Media Centre of Excellence could be the catalyst that brings this blueprint to life, but only if it embraces a truly collaborative and inclusive model.
Pillar One: Institutionalising Truth Through Independent Fact-Checking
At the heart of the current information crisis is a deficit of trust. The public is adrift in a sea of claims and counterclaims with no universally accepted arbiter of truth. Government statements are often viewed with suspicion by large segments of the population, while partisan media outlets preach to their own choirs. The solution, widely advocated in our discussions, is the establishment of robust, autonomous fact-checking organisations.
These cannot be government departments or state-affiliated bodies. Their power derives entirely from their perceived impartiality and independence. Their mandate would be to serve the public, not any political master. Imagine a nationally recognised entity, governed by a board comprising retired judges, respected civil society leaders, academic experts, and veteran journalists from diverse backgrounds. This structure would be designed to insulate it from the political pressures of the day.
The work of such a body would extend far beyond simply debunking viral social media posts. It would need to be technologically sophisticated, employing digital verification tools to detect deepfakes, analyse manipulated imagery, and trace the origins of coordinated disinformation campaigns. Furthermore, it could maintain a public, searchable database of verified claims and promises made by public figures, institutions, and media outlets themselves, fostering a culture of long-term accountability.
The benefits for the media industry would be immense. Instead of every newsroom struggling to verify every piece of information independently—a resource-intensive process—they could partner with and cite this independent body. This would raise the professional standard across the board, create a shared basis for factual reporting, and free up resources for deeper investigative work. For the public, it would provide a desperately needed neutral resource, a compass to navigate the chaotic information landscape. This is not about creating a “Ministry of Truth,” but about fostering an independent institution dedicated to evidence and verification, a foundation upon which rational public discourse can be built.
Pillar Two: Empowering the Public Through Media-Led Education
A common reflexive response to the problem of misinformation is to call on the Ministry of Education to integrate media literacy into the national curriculum. While this is a valuable long-term goal, it is insufficient to address the immediate crisis. We cannot wait for a new generation to graduate; we must equip the current population of media consumers now.
The more direct and powerful solution is to leverage the media itself as the primary vehicle for public education. The core suggestion is not that the government should teach the public about the media, but that it should actively support and encourage media organisations to produce and broadcast programming that educates its audience on how to consume media critically.
This is a mission that aligns perfectly with the media’s role as a public trustee. Imagine prime-time programming dedicated to deconstructing how misinformation spreads. This could include weekly television or radio segments where journalists break down the week’s most viral rumours, showing the public their “forensic” process of verification; public service announcements that offer simple, memorable tips: “Check the source,” “Look for corroboration,” “Be wary of emotional manipulation,” talk shows and documentaries that explore the business models of attention-based media, explaining why sensationalism is so prevalent; and collaborations with tech companies and civil society to amplify these messages on the very platforms where misinformation thrives.
The government’s role here is not to dictate content, but to create an enabling environment. This could involve tax incentives for broadcasters who dedicate a certain percentage of their programming to such public education initiatives, or granting such content fulfilment of public service broadcasting requirements. By supporting the media to do this job itself, we achieve a double objective: we educate the public directly through the most powerful channels available, and we foster a culture of self-regulation and professional responsibility within the industry. An informed citizenry is the ultimate bulwark against manipulation, and the media must be at the forefront of creating it.
Pillar Three: Strategic Support to Correct Market Failure
This is perhaps the most delicate and nuanced pillar of the reform blueprint. There is a fundamental and non-negotiable principle: the media must remain independent from direct government control and editorial interference. The state cannot be an editor.
However, to ignore the market’s structural incentives for conflict is to be wilfully blind. As one media owner in our focus groups confessed, “Covering a peace-building ceremony doesn’t sell. Covering a violent clash does. Our advertisers, our algorithms, our audience metrics—they all push us toward conflict.” This is a classic market failure, where the pursuit of private profit creates a significant public cost in the form of social discord.
Therefore, the government has a legitimate role in correcting this failure. The key is to provide support without demanding subservience. The model should be similar to public broadcasting support in other democracies, but with a focus on nurturing a diverse private media sector.
The mechanism could involve the establishment of an independent, transparently managed Public Interest Media Fund. Governed by a non-partisan board similar to the proposed fact-checking body, this fund would provide grants to private media outlets for specific projects that serve the public good. Funding would prioritize in-depth investigative reporting on issues of national development, the production of high-quality content that promotes inter-ethnic understanding, tolerance, and national unity, and solutions-oriented journalism that highlights successful community reconciliation and development efforts. It would also support media outlets that demonstrate a strong commitment to ethical standards and maintain diversity within their newsrooms.
This is not a handout; it is a strategic investment in social cohesion. It creates a parallel incentive structure that makes peace-building journalism financially viable. A newspaper could apply for a grant to run a series on successful cross-cultural trade partnerships, or a television station could get support to produce a documentary on the shared historical roots of different Ethiopian communities. This approach empowers media outlets to make ethical choices without facing commercial suicide. It allows the government to champion peace and fraternity not through coercion, but through smart, principled partnership with a fiercely independent press.
The Centre of Excellence: A Test of Commitment and Collaboration
The recent launch of the Media Centre of Excellence is a welcome and potentially transformative development. It signals a recognition from the highest levels that the status quo is untenable. However, its impact will be determined by its design and implementation.
For the Centre to be a true engine of reform, it must be more than a government think-tank or a training school for state-media journalists. Its credibility and effectiveness hinge on its ability to become a neutral, collaborative platform that involves private media outlets and seasoned professionals in its very fabric.
I earnestly hope that the Centre’s governance structure includes significant representation from the Ethiopian Media Council, the Association of Broadcasters, and other independent professional bodies. Its advisory boards should be filled with the most respected editors and reporters from across the media spectrum, including those who have been critical of the government.
The Centre’s work programme should directly operationalise the three pillars. It can be the host for developing the technical standards and governance models for the independent fact-checking coalition. It can be the hub that develops the curricula and training materials for the public-facing media literacy programmes, offering its resources to all media houses. Crucially, it can serve as the independent secretariat for the proposed Public Interest Media Fund, managing the grant application and review process with transparency and professional rigour.
If it becomes a closed, state-dominated institution, it will be stillborn, viewed with suspicion and dismissed as a propaganda arm. But if it embraces a bold, inclusive, and collaborative mission, it can become the linchpin of a new Ethiopian media consensus.
Conclusion: A Shared Responsibility
The blueprint outlined here—built on independent fact-checking, media-led public education, and market-correcting support for peace-building content—is not a quick fix. It is a fundamental re-imagining of the relationship between the state, the media, and the public. It replaces a paradigm of control with one of strategic empowerment.
The government’s role shifts from primary censor to primary guarantor of a healthy information ecosystem, through enabling policy and independent institutions. The media’s responsibility deepens, requiring a renewed commitment to professionalism and its role as an educator of the public. And the public becomes an active, critical participant, rather than a passive recipient of information.
The establishment of the Media Centre of Excellence is a promising step. It is now the responsibility of all stakeholders – policymakers, media owners, journalists, and civil society – to engage with this process vigorously and ensure it lives up to its transformative potential. The cost of inaction is continued polarisation and strife. The reward for getting this right is a media that truly serves the people of Ethiopia, fostering a national dialogue that is not only free but also responsible, constructive, and worthy of our nation’s immense potential.
Tadesse Biru is an experienced researcher at the London Metropolitan University in the UK. He holds an interdisciplinary doctoral degree in Social Sciences from the Graduate School for Social Research and a Master of Arts (MA) in Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution from London Metropolitan University.
Contributed by Tadesse Biru Kersmo (PhD)
