Rwanda has invested heavily in digital transformation, smart governance and national development. But one pillar of modern nation-building remains under-discussed and unattended- the quality of the information environment that citizens rely on every day. This matters because the challenge of our time is no longer simply access to information. It is trust.
Across the world, people are surrounded by content but increasingly unsure what to believe. Digital platforms have widened access and sped up communication, but they have also amplified misinformation, disinformation and manipulation. In such a climate, every country must ask itself a difficult but necessary question. Do we have an information system that serves the public interest, or one that is being steadily eroded by economic pressure, technological disruption and declining public trust? That is why Rwanda should begin a serious conversation about building a public interest information ecosystem.
Such an ecosystem is not built on one principle alone. It rests on several mutually reinforcing pillars. These are information integrity, freedom of expression, media freedom, access to information, editorial independence, safety of journalists and, crucially, media viability. When one pillar weakens, the others are affected. When several weaken at once, the public sphere itself becomes fragile.
This is the first in a series of reflections on how Rwanda can strengthen that ecosystem. I begin with a pillar that is often treated as a private business concern, yet has profound public consequences: media viability-a fundamental pillar of journalism independence.
At the most basic level, media viability means the ability of a media house to meet its financial obligations, pay staff, invest in reporting and remain operational. Without money, no newsroom can function. But journalism is not just another commercial enterprise. It is also a public institution. It informs citizens, scrutinises power, creates space for debate, amplifies community concerns and supports accountability.
That is why journalism occupies a difficult but important position. It must survive in the market, yet it also has a public duty that cannot be measured only in profits. A newsroom under severe financial strain cannot consistently serve the public. It cannot retain experienced reporters, support investigations, cover remote communities or resist pressure from advertisers, political actors or other powerful interests. If journalism is to remain editorially independent, it must also be economically sustainable. In that sense, media viability is not merely a business issue. It is a democratic one.
Over the past two decades, that viability has been badly shaken. The global financial crisis of the 2007 for examples weakened traditional media markets. The Covid-19 pandemic deepened the pain. Many media organisations across the world closed, downsized, retrenched staff or migrated fully to digital platforms in search of survival. At the same time, large technology platforms disrupted advertising and distribution models, drawing revenue away from newsrooms while benefiting from the attention generated by news content.
The effects are now visible in many countries. Weaker newsrooms, fewer reporters, more precarious journalism, lower public trust and a more polluted information space. When credible journalism weakens, falsehood travels with less resistance. The decline of public-interest journalism therefore creates fertile ground for confusion, propaganda and social fragmentation.
This is why some European countries did not leave journalism entirely to market forces. In parts of Northern Europe, media subsidy arrangements have long been used to support public-interest journalism, local reporting and media diversity and pluralism. The important lesson is not simply that support exists, but that it has often been designed in ways that seek to protect editorial independence through law, policy and arm’s-length governance principle. That distinction is critical.
Support does not have to mean control. The real issue is not whether journalism can be supported, but how. A poorly designed model can easily become political patronage. A well-designed one can strengthen journalism without compromising editorial freedom.
Africa has been slower to engage this question seriously. Part of the hesitation comes from a familiar fear that any state-linked support to media will inevitably undermine independence. Another argument is that many African countries are too financially constrained to support journalism, especially where public broadcasters themselves remain underfunded. These concerns are understandable, but they should not shut down the debate.
The answer is not to romanticise the market and pretend it will save journalism on its own. Nor is it to hand governments unchecked power over media financing. The answer lies in institutional design. It is entirely possible to imagine a public interest media support mechanism anchored in law, governed transparently, insulated from capture, and overseen by a broad coalition of credible stakeholders including media practitioners, civil society, academia and public-interest institutions.
Such a framework would not exist to reward loyalty or fund propaganda. Its purpose would be to support the forms of journalism that markets often underfund but democracy badly needs. local reporting, investigative journalism, civic and public affairs coverage, fact-based reporting on development issues and content that strengthens informed public participation.
There are already early African examples that show this conversation is possible. Sierra Leone has established a National Fund for Public Interest Media, while Kenya’s Universal Service Fund has featured in wider policy discussions about access, communication and public-interest content. These models are not identical, nor are they perfect. But they show that the question is no longer whether Africa can think in this direction. It is whether more countries are willing to do so boldly and intelligently. Rwanda should be one of them.
The country has made major gains in governance, institutional rebuilding, technology adoption and development planning. But a modern, ambitious nation also needs a credible information infrastructure. Connectivity alone is not enough. Citizens must also have access to reliable, professional and trusted journalism that helps them understand public life and participate meaningfully in it.
A Rwandan model need not be large or expensive at the beginning. It could start with a modest public interest media support framework developed collaboratively by the media associations, regulators, civil society, academic institutions, development partners and funded directly by the government from the treasury. The point would not be to rescue failing business models indiscriminately. It would be to protect and promote journalism that serves society.
Reliable journalism is not a luxury. It is part of the infrastructure of democracy, development and national trust. If Rwanda is serious about building a resilient public interest information ecosystem, then it must confront the issue of how to sustain public-interest journalism in an age of digital disruption and economic stress. That conversation is not a threat to democracy, governance or political power. It is part of defending it democracy, rule of law, empowering citizens to participate in national conversations including development. It should be seen as one of the drivers of vision 2035, Vison 2050 and Africa agenda 2060.
In the next article, I will turn to another key pillar of a public interest information ecosystem- the safety and security of journalists.
Haron Mwangi, PhD, specializes in the Political Economy of Development and serves as a Media and Communication Consultant.
