When I began reporting on health at AAP in the late 1980s, a small army of specialist health and science journalists would attend National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) meetings. We were given large folders containing agenda items and related discussion papers. We waited outside the Council meetings and interviewed key NHMRC members about the decisions made.
No doubt, some of our stories were uncomfortable for the NHMRC at times, but our work ensured that broader communities were kept informed about its operations. As a journalist, I felt connected to the NHMRC and its work. Council members often developed working relationships with individual journalists, which fostered ongoing coverage of health matters in the public interest.
I’m not sure exactly when these arrangements changed, but over the following decades, journalists’ access to policymakers has become increasingly restricted.
When governments, agencies, and organisations focus on controlling the message and minimising authentic engagement, there is a cost. The health sector has followed the broader trend toward centralised, command-and-control communications models.
As we discuss public interest journalism, it’s important to be clear about what we mean – and what we don’t. At Croakey, we define it as:
“Public interest journalism gives people the information they need to take part in the democratic process. It informs and contributes to policy and practice. It holds power to account and amplifies the voices of those who are not well served by the current distribution of power.”
Clearly, some media organisations do not share this vision. In fact, they can be seen as part of the network of commercial determinants of health.
It is critical that we, as a civil society, do all we can to ensure the safety of those producing public interest journalism.
I phrase it that way deliberately – because it often involves teams, not just the person on the front line. Their safety is increasingly at risk in this era of rising authoritarianism.
When public health and global health sectors raise concerns about, for example, the Trump Administration’s attacks on science, health, and human rights, we must also acknowledge its assaults on public interest journalism – both in the US and globally.
Positive public health outcomes often depend on public interest journalism. It plays a vital role in combating misinformation and disinformation, and in investigating the commercial forces polluting our information landscape.
Holding decision-makers to account, amplifying community voices, and empowering informed, connected communities will only become more important.
But, as recent global events have shown, holding power to account carries significant risks for journalists.
Truth-telling can be extremely dangerous. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, more journalists were killed in 2024 than in any other year since the organisation began collecting data over 30 years ago. At least 124 journalists and media workers were killed – nearly two-thirds of them Palestinians killed by Israel.
A European Union statement marking World Press Freedom Day earlier this year said:
“We are increasingly concerned by the growing threats to journalists and other media professionals, including online and offline intimidation and attacks, arbitrary detention, legal persecution and transnational repression, all aimed at silencing their work. Emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence, can intensify these risks by enabling pervasive surveillance and targeted harassment … Across the world, free and independent media need urgent and decisive support. Without their survival, democracy falters, along with the safety, security and freedom of citizens.”
This brings me to a second call to action: we must ensure that public interest journalism is economically sustainable.
That is clearly not the case now, as evidenced by job losses, shrinking newsrooms, and the rise of ‘news deserts’. Governments have a role to play, but so does wider society.
The health sector collectively spends a small fortune on public relations and communications. If even a fraction of that were redirected to support independent media and emerging models of public interest journalism, the impact could be profound.
Croakey is proud to be a member of the Local and Independent News Association (LINA). At the recent LINA Summit, we heard many inspiring stories of small, fledgling organisations working hard to serve their communities – often on shoestring budgets or with volunteer support.
The health sector has a real interest in supporting such efforts; LINA recently released a tool kit to help communities establish their own newsrooms, an exciting opportunity for civil society to step up for public interest journalism.
Protecting public interest journalism also requires critical reflection on our professional practices and how we can do better. We must ensure that our work has integrity, reflects the communities we serve, and resists the seduction of power. Our mission is to provide a public service to those most in need of better policies, environments, living conditions, and futures.
Finally, protecting public interest journalism requires a systems approach. It does not stand alone – it is part of broader systems that support informed communities and accountability. These include civil society, whistle-blowers, community advocates, academics, and activists. In Australia and globally, many of these roles are under threat.
We live in a time when truth feels precious, disputed, and endangered.
At the launch of the historic Walk for Truth in Portland, Tasmania, on 25 May this year, Travis Lovett, Deputy Commissioner of the Yoorrook Justice Commission in Victoria, spoke about the importance of truth-telling in creating a more just future. He said, “Truth matters more than ever today.”
At Croakey, we advocate that protecting public interest journalism is a public health good. But we also recognise that a sustainable sector requires broader systems and structures to step up and take responsibility.
The stakes are too high to let disinformation usurp the truth.
Melissa Sweet is editor-in-chief at Croakey Health Media.
This article is an edited version of comments made at a roundtable discussion, ‘How to protect public interest journalism as a public health good’. Read more here.