WACC General Secretary Philip Lee reports from the latest meeting of the CDAC Network, a global alliance of organisations working to ensure people can access safe, trustworthy information and communicate during crises.

“Information in Crisis” was in focus at the recent public forum of the CDAC Network in Bonn, Germany, on 10 December. Participants explored different understandings of the crisis from the perspective of humanitarian and media development organizations.

The background to the Forum lay in cutbacks by major donors – including the US, UK, and EU member states – to funding for independent media, humanitarian action, civil society, and efforts to promote information integrity. At the same time, journalists and activists face growing repression through legal threats, censorship, and attacks. Tech platforms, meanwhile, remain largely unregulated.

Digital platforms have dismantled traditional media revenue models and concentrated influence in a handful of tech companies. Their algorithms favour sensational, divisive content over accurate reporting because emotional, polarised posts attract more engagement.

Public and donor funding for trusted local media has sharply declined, particularly for those serving marginalised communities. Where funding does exist, it increasingly comes with political or strategic expectations, with some donors treating media as a tool in a global information war rather than an independent public service.

The rise of AI-generated and synthetic content has increasingly blurred the line between what is real and what is fake, contributing to an “epistemic rupture” – a breakdown in our shared understanding of what truth is.

When people feel isolated, insecure, and a loss of belonging, they are more likely to believe false narratives. The vast array of easily accessible, highly competitive narratives generates increasingly polarised views. As trust in institutions declines, many disengage altogether, believing that no information can be trusted.

Caution over safety and “do no harm” has led to humanitarian actors saying and doing less. This leaves a vacuum for opportunistic actors to step in and dominate the information and humanitarian spaces with unverified or harmful narratives and actions.

Those closest to crises carry the heaviest responsibility for response but remain under-resourced, often treated as implementers rather than agenda-setters. As the humanitarian sector is further disrupted, local communities are left to handle credibility, information sharing and aid delivery – often without support.

Participants in the symposium agreed: