In March 2024, a consortium of seven media organisations and a media-focused technology provider launched the Taktak project, with the objective of developing an innovative donation solution, supported by the European Commission. The initiative addresses a fundamental challenge facing modern journalism: the need to identify sustainable revenue sources in the context of evolving consumption patterns and the adverse circumstances faced by freelance journalists. It introduces an innovative approach to donations, whereby readers can decide which organisations to support.
The concept for Taktak was developed by Worldcrunch, a Paris-based digital magazine known for its work with international partners. Lucie Holeček, a design-thinking expert and consultant on the project at Transitions Online, outlines that Worldcrunch’s distinctive collaborative model presented challenges that existing payment platforms were unable to accommodate. As Worldcrunch frequently translates and shares articles with various international media partners, a key challenge emerged in relation to the allocation of donation revenue across contributors. “None of the existing payment solutions worked,” Holeček states, adding that a new approach was needed to ensure funds were distributed fairly among all parties involved.
The Taktak project represents a convergence of three key developments in the journalism sector. Firstly, the initial research phases revealed significant problems faced by journalists, particularly freelancers, in terms of job stability, financial security and stress levels. “We were aware of the difficulties, but not to this extent,” Holeček recalls. Secondly, there is significant untapped potential for joint reporting efforts across languages and borders, which could enhance the scope and reach of journalism. Finally, there is an increasing need to generate direct revenue from the audience.
The Taktak consortium, formed by Worldcrunch, comprises an impressive array of local, national, and international media outlets, which are coming together to explore these opportunities. The consortium includes Mensagem, which provides local news in Lisbon; Pod Tepeto, a media outlet based in Plovdiv, Bulgaria; La Marea, a Spanish publication; and Livy Bereg, a Ukrainian news source. The platform’s geographic diversity and the difference in scale between its members enables it to address the needs of journalists and readers at multiple levels, from the hyper-local to the transnational. The involvement of these media groups also benefits younger journalists, who are facing an increasingly unstable job market and income situation. The consortium’s reach is extended further through the inclusion of WAN-IFRA, the World Association of News Publishers, and Transitions Online, both of which have extensive networks within the journalism community.
Taktak is currently a closed consortium, funded by an investment of €1,376,040 over two years. Eighty percent of this funding, totalling €1,100,832, is provided by the European Commission under the Journalism Partnerships Collaboration call. The remaining 20% is provided by the Taktak partners themselves. “The funding goes toward creating the tool,” said Holeček. She adds that the tool is currently in development and will support various types of content, including articles and podcasts, with options for transparent payment distribution. The tool enables readers to make donations and to see precisely where their contributions are being allocated. This transparency is a key element of the project’s value proposition for donors, as it builds trust.
One of the distinctive features of Taktak is its flexibility. Readers are able to select the total donation amount, while collaborating journalists can choose the ratio of how it is shared. Holeček states that Taktak’s donation model provides an alternative to the fatigue that many readers feel with multiple subscriptions. This new solution offers flexibility, allowing readers to give money without any obligation. They can simply indicate their appreciation for an article and choose to support the publication directly. This approach is particularly beneficial for freelancers, who might otherwise be excluded from revenue-sharing models even when their work is particularly successful.
Taktak’s primary objectives extend beyond the mere creation of a new revenue stream. They also encompass the fostering of collaboration across media, the promotion of diverse voices, the growth of reader engagement, and the encouragement of a more resilient journalism sector. Taktak’s donation-based model encourages journalists and media organisations to commit to quality, in-depth coverage that resonates with readers, with the aim of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. The platform’s secondary objectives include facilitating the sharing of best practices and insights among media outlets, which can ultimately benefit the wider sector.
The tool is currently in the development stage and has been designed with the objective of collecting payments efficiently while distributing them fairly. The tool is essentially a flexible ‘donate’ button that allows readers to decide how much to give to each party involved in the content’s creation. This flexibility addresses a market gap for direct support of journalists, particularly in cases where readers wish to contribute without committing to a full subscription. As Holeček explains, the objective is to make the process “as flexible as possible”, offering financial support to journalists facing financial difficulties who might otherwise go unrewarded.
The first prototype of the Taktak tool is scheduled for release in 2025, following which it will undergo further refinement based on feedback. Holeček emphasises that, while the eventual aim is to roll out Taktak across Europe, the team is mindful of the regional nuances involved. “Every country is specific,” she states, citing differences in consumer attitudes towards paying for news content and in regulatory frameworks. The consortium’s approach to scaling will be strategic and tailored to the specific needs and context of each market.
Tetiana Gordiienko of the Media Development Foundation offers insights into the challenging task facing Ukrainian media as they navigate donor dependence, operational challenges, and the urgent need for more sustainable funding models amid the ongoing impact of war.
“I have almost stopped writing stories… We spend up to 30% of our time on [operational workload related to] grant projects. This seems to me like a lot and we can turn into a media outlet for donors and not for our audiences. This scares me a lot. I see such examples […] and I am very, very, very afraid to become the same“
“The emphasis I want to make is that donors need to sit down, look around, find ways for themselves to choose projects they trust and give them a chance to relieve a little administrative burden and give them the opportunity to secure long-term funding. […] To live and work here, you need a little more trust, because if we lose it now, we lose it gradually, then there will simply be no one to make good journalism.”
The preceding quotations are not intended as a frightening narrative for journalists as part of a Halloween prank. They are drawn from a recent research study, “The Donor Dilemma: Rethinking Support Models for Ukrainian Media’s Future” conducted by the Media Development Foundation (MDF), a Kyiv-based non-governmental organisation (NGO).
Following two years of full-scale war with Russia, Ukrainian media outlets are facing significant challenges. On the one hand, they have established close cooperation with numerous international donor organisations, which have become the main source of funding for most Ukrainian newsrooms, especially at the local level. On the other hand, such close and prolonged interaction could not fail to have had an impact.
The respondents who took part in the MDF study concluded that their media organisations develop their financial plans while taking into account the financial year of donors, or postpone major strategic decisions until they receive funding or confirmation of project agreements. They also pointed to the additional operational burden associated with project-based financing and the necessity to align their goals with the strategic goals of the projects funded by donor organisations.
This research is based on in-depth interviews with representatives of nine media outlets and consists of a thematic analysis of the collected data. Furthermore, it forms part of a number of other MDF research projects. To illustrate, MDF ran a study of the state of local media in Ukraine that comprised a survey of 37 media outlets, 12 in-depth interviews, and three expert interviews. The study revealed challenges related to funding, strategic planning, and human resources in media organisations. “The Donor Dilemma…” employs a nuanced qualitative approach to investigate these issues in a smaller sample of respondents.
As the donor and media systems become increasingly complex and intertwined, the situation is further complicated by the reduction of funding for quality journalism. The respondents observed a notable decline in the number of grant opportunities for media. Concurrently, the advertising market in Ukraine, which has been affected by the ongoing war, is only showing minimal signs of recovery. As a result of the widening funding gap, there is a risk that media organisations may be forced to downsize their teams and reduce their capacity. The least resilient players may ultimately be forced out of the media market.
“It seems to me that core support is the best model in general that can be now [for media]. I know that many Russian media outlets in exile receive core support with not so much effort, while Ukrainian editors, unfortunately, have to constantly invent some projects. Plus, these permanent projects, it seems to me, still slightly distort the reality of the needs that exist within our audience” – An editor-in-chief of a local media outlet in Ukraine.
This excerpt from the MDF report focuses on the challenge of donor relations, but there are other needs as well, including psychological support for teams under immense pressure, a crisis of human resources, and the development of a strategic planning culture.
The Ukrainian media market is approaching a point where it must undergo another round of transformation. Media organisations have already demonstrated remarkable resilience in maintaining their teams and operating effectively, despite the challenges and risks posed by the ongoing conflict.
Particularly in the Ukrainian context, the media plays a significant role at both national and local levels in supporting democratic processes, post-war recovery, and community development. While some needs, such as funding or retaining qualified personnel, are relatively visible, the research conducted by the MDF also revealed a need for solutions to maintain the progress that the media have made with an incredible effort over the last two years. One of the most urgent requests from the independent Ukrainian media is to renegotiate the funding models with the donors to allow them to work in a more sustainable and predictable way.
We encourage European partners to consider new, sustainable approaches to donor funding that will help build a resilient, independent media landscape in Ukraine, and also to join MDF in the effort to develop the Core Media Fund, an initiative designed to raise funds for sustainable ways of financing independent journalism and media advocacy in the country.
Lot Carlier, Executive Director at V-Ventures, the investment arm of the Netherlands-based Veronica Foundation, emphasises the critical importance of fostering financial independence for media outlets to maintain editorial freedom. V-Ventures supports investigative journalism, engages younger audiences, and backs regional media. Their strategy is twofold: providing funding and practical consultancy to help media companies strengthen their business model and establish sustainable revenue streams, and invest in companies that create technology, tools and channels for these media companies.
Why is it important for the Veronica Foundation to fund journalism, and what led to the establishment of V-Ventures?
Carlier: We created V-Ventures as our investment arm to focus on strategic investments, while keeping donations under the Foundation’s purview. Although part of the same organisation, V-Ventures specialises in the investment side of supporting journalism. Our roots lie in media—we were once a rebellious media company broadcasting from a ship in extraterritorial waters when we weren’t allowed to broadcast in the Netherlands. This unconventional start has defined our innovative approach and commitment to independent journalism.
Over recent years, we’ve witnessed a decline in media independence across Europe, marked by increased concentration and political influence over media outlets. Supporting innovative, independent voices, especially in regions where media freedom is under pressure, is more important than ever. We have been dedicated to supporting independent media since selling off our own media assets, and we have recently broadened our focus to also include smaller and mid-sized independent media companies that ensure pluriformity of the press and innovation in the sector.
What is V-Ventures’ approach to supporting media companies?
We have a dual approach. First, we support media companies on the business side to help them become less reliant on grants and donations and develop new revenue streams tailored to their specific markets. This support is essential because donor dependency can lead to a shift in focus away from building a strong audience and sustainable revenue generation. We support these companies to establish revenue models that fit their context, whether through syndication, subscriptions, or other methods.
Second, we also invest in media tech companies that support content creators, such as those developing innovative tools to enhance efficiency. Additionally, we have initiatives like SV-Docs, a documentary fund to support journalistic storytelling. This holistic approach allows us to create a blended return on our investments while fostering growth across the media ecosystem.
In which regions does V-Ventures focus its investments?
Our focus is on Europe, and we target three main topics. First, we support news and investigative journalism in countries where media freedom is at risk or where there’s a significant concentration of media ownership, which reduces pluralism. Second, we focus on media companies that are engaging younger generations (Gen XYZ) who are not as connected to traditional media; reaching them with independent news is crucial. Third, we prioritise regional and local journalism as trust in national media declines. We are exploring sustainable business models for all media to replicate. Additionally, as already mentioned, we invest in tools that make the sector more efficient and effective and in channels, like podcast companies. Lastly, we invest in funds to broaden our reach, such as Mercuri and NBM.
Do you provide only capital, or do you also offer guidance or training?
For media companies, we offer more than just capital. We often provide a three-day consultancy programme where we work closely with the entire team to identify the best ways to generate revenue. We may fund specific business roles, like a publisher, for one or two years to help build the business side until it becomes self-sustaining. This approach is different for media tech companies, which operate with their own market strategies.
What is the most important lesson you’ve learned through investing in media companies?
The most critical lesson is that financial independence is key to maintaining editorial independence in the longer term. Media companies must generate revenue beyond donor support to remain free from external influences. In the early start-up phase, donor funding may be necessary to build an audience and establish a critical mass of content. However, as the organisation matures, it must develop diversified revenue streams to become truly financially independent.
What challenges have you faced in funding journalism in Europe?
One major challenge is that many smaller independent media organisations haven’t developed a business strategy yet. Journalists often focus on creating impactful content driven by their convictions, and shifting attention to revenue generation can be challenging. This is where editors sometimes step in to handle subscriptions or other business tasks, but it’s tough to balance this with their focus on high-quality journalism. Dedicated staff to take care of the business side allows journalists to focus on what they do best—creating valuable content.
What has been your biggest success story so far?
While we’ve completed successful exits on the business side, our blended investment approach combining business and content-focused support is still relatively new. We have seen promising indications of a solid blended return over the past five years, although it’s too early to present final financial results. We aim to demonstrate this model’s viability to other impact investors in the coming years by showing that media investment yields reasonable returns while having a huge impact on democracies.
Do you have advice for organisations considering funding journalism for the first time?
It’s crucial to raise more awareness about the need for support in this sector. The current state of media in Europe, and globally, is challenging, and more help is needed to preserve independent voices. Impact investors can create immense change. The message should be clear: funding journalism isn’t just valuable—it’s essential for sustaining democracy and informed societies.
By offering financial aid, mentoring, and training, journalism-funding programmes can significantly enhance media sustainability, despite ongoing challenges such as government pressure and revenue limitations. Lessons learned from a four-year programme highlight the need for long-term support for independent journalism in authoritarian environments.
In 2021, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) launched a four-year programme designed to support independent news media in heavily controlled environments, where market conditions are so distorted that independent journalism struggles to survive. For safety reasons, MJRC does not disclose the names and locations of the media outlets in the programme.
MJRC worked closely with local experts to combat this phenomenon, also known as media capture, by financially supporting independent online media organisations in rural areas. The programme aimed to enhance their sustainability, focusing on three critical areas: financial stability, organisational resilience, and audience growth.
The programme was funded with nearly US$1 million. In addition to financial support, it incorporated a mentoring component. At the outset, each participating media outlet set specific goals aimed at achieving sustainability. It quickly became apparent that outlets with solid business management were more successful in reaching these objectives, while those led purely by journalists faced more significant challenges, particularly in the programme’s early years.
Key Successes
One of the most apparent successes of the programme was the significant improvement in the operations of participating media outlets. As one editor remarked, the programme was instrumental in maintaining and enhancing their business. A distinguishing feature of the MJRC programme when compared to similar initiatives was the provision of core funding (defined as financial resources to cover all operational costs). Many other support programmes focus exclusively on training journalists in specific skills or reporting on particular topics, which, while beneficial, do not address the critical need for stable core funding. Such financial support is essential for small media outlets, especially those striving for sustainability.
The MJRC programme integrated training and counselling as a complementary element. The training was designed to be non-intrusive, allowing participants to balance these activities with their daily responsibilities. Webinars on topics like fundraising and managing internship programmes were particularly valuable, with one editor describing the experience as “eye-opening.”
The programme also significantly boosted the reach of participating media outlets. Almost all participants reported increases in social media followers and readership. The financial stability provided by the programme allowed these outlets to publish impactful stories on topics often neglected by mainstream media. In regions where local media is controlled mainly by government-aligned owners, these outlets usually serve as the sole sources of critical local news coverage.
Challenges
Nevertheless, the programme also highlighted significant challenges. The media landscape in captured environments, where the media are controlled by the government, owners with vested interests rather than the public good, or a combination of both, remains a formidable barrier to supporting independent journalism. Independent outlets often struggle to gain access to government officials, are labelled as opposition media, and are subjected to continuous smear campaigns. These difficulties are compounded locally, where news organisations frequently encounter resistance from municipalities.
Securing advertising revenue is another major challenge. In markets dominated by the government, advertising funds are typically directed only to aligned outlets. Even in towns governed by opposition parties, municipal funds are rarely allocated to independent media. Additionally, many private companies are reluctant to advertise in independent media, due to fear of government retaliation. Editors in the programme shared instances where potential advertisers were explicitly warned against buying ads with them.
Challenges related to human resources are also significant, with many outlets struggling to attract and retain staff for essential roles like sales managers or community coordinators. This is often due to salary constraints and the stigma attached to working for independent media in authoritarian environments, where such affiliations could have negative repercussions for employees and their families.
Moreover, the heavy reliance on Facebook as a primary platform for reaching audiences poses a significant risk. Changes in Facebook’s algorithm in 2023, which reduced the reach of news media, led to a noticeable drop in daily traffic for many outlets. In response, some began exploring alternative outreach methods, such as launching newsletters or expanding to other social media platforms like Instagram or YouTube. However, these efforts require additional funding to hire skilled social media managers.
The Path Forward
One of the most important lessons learned from the programme is that long-term sustainability for media outlets in captured environments hinges on diversifying revenue streams. However, this is particularly challenging for outlets in rural areas, where access to ad revenue is severely limited. As a result, these outlets often rely on philanthropic funding or direct audience support. While philanthropic funding is vital, it is not a long-term solution in authoritarian environments. Therefore, the most viable path forward is to focus on building a strong, engaged audience base.
Still, due to the limited purchasing power of potential audiences in many of these rural areas, it is unrealistic to expect audience revenues to sustain these organisations in the short or mid-term. Media outlets should, however, be encouraged to continuously seek feedback from their audience, refine their content strategies to align with audience interests, and explore ways to generate financial support directly from their readers.
For journalism funders, this also calls for a change in strategy. Rather than continuing to fund outlets hoping they will quickly become self-sustaining, funders should consider long-term commitments of at least five to eight years. This would provide outlets the stability needed to build strong relationships with local audiences and develop sustainable business models.
Ultimately, the MJRC programme, which concludes soon, has demonstrated that while supporting independent media in captured environments is fraught with challenges, it can result in significant strides. As one editor in the programme noted, the funding provided a lifeline that helped their outlet survive and transformed it into a legitimate news organisation. Without such support, the very existence of these independent outlets would be at risk, underscoring the critical importance of long-term investment in the future of independent journalism.
For more information, please contact the Center at mjrc@journalismresearch.org.
Defector, a for-profit, employee-owned news organisation, has successfully balanced its economic viability with its journalistic values—an achievement many news outlets struggle to attain. Founded in 2020 by former journalists from the sports blog Deadspin, Defector has distinguished itself with its employee-owned cooperative model and its rare economic success.
Traditionally, US journalism’s financial model has been anchored in the “dual-product model,” where news organisations generated revenue by selling content to the public and selling the public’s attention to advertisers. However, with the rise of the internet, this model has faced significant disruptions, prompting a search for new revenue streams.
One proposed solution has been audience engagement, which involves news organisations interacting with their audiences, mainly focusing on diverse and marginalised communities. This idea has been championed by some as a moral obligation and a potential source of revenue. For instance, studies have suggested that engaging with marginalised communities can lead to new financial support for news organisations. The Columbia Journalism Review has also noted that more engaged audiences tend to contribute more financially. This optimism is based on the belief that, as journalism shifts towards direct audience support, engagement activities will become essential in building and sustaining these audiences, thereby increasing revenue potential.
However, there is scepticism regarding the effectiveness of engagement activities as a revenue strategy. Critics argue that, while engagement might foster a sense of community, there is little empirical evidence to support the notion that it leads to economic success. Moreover, some contend that the focus on engagement, especially through web metrics, can harm journalism’s financial health by encouraging the pursuit of viral content at the expense of long-term loyalty and viability.
Defector serves as a compelling case study in this debate. Its success is closely linked to its emphasis on audience engagement, particularly through its comments section, which plays a central role in both community building and economic gain.
Defector’s business model features a tiered subscription system, with a notable portion of subscribers opting for the more expensive tier that grants access to engagement activities like commenting. This indicates that a significant number of subscribers are willing to pay a premium for the ability to engage with the community, suggesting that Defector’s economic success is indeed tied to its engagement practices.
Defector’s engagement activities, including an active comments section, Q&A sessions, and interactive events, contribute to its community-building efforts and financial stability. The comments section, in particular, is highlighted as a key engagement tool. It encourages subscribers to interact not only with the content, but also with each other, fostering a sense of ownership and accountability among users. This self-moderation helps maintain a civil and constructive discourse, contrasting with the often-toxic environments found in free-to-access comments sections on other sites.
In addition to the comments section, Defector regularly hosts Q&A sessions and events on platforms like Twitch, where journalists engage with subscribers in a more informal, personal manner. This helps journalists better understand their audience and solidifies the bond between the staff and the community, creating a sense of belonging that goes beyond the typical journalist-reader relationship.
Three key factors contributing to Defector’s success can be identified: positive engagement, a strong sense of community, and delivering clear value to subscribers. The positive environment fostered by the site’s paywall ensures that those who participate are genuinely interested in the content, benefitting both subscribers and journalists. This sense of community, carried over from Deadspin, is intentionally cultivated and has led to a loyal subscriber base willing to pay for premium engagement opportunities. Finally, Defector’s success is also attributed to the high quality of its content, which subscribers view as worth paying for, ensuring that engagement efforts are not just superficial, but are tied to delivering real value.
While Defector’s model is not universally applicable, especially given its niche focus on sports and culture and its roots in Deadspin, it offers valuable insights for other news organisations. By centring their business models around their audience, news organisations can potentially achieve a better balance between economic stability and journalistic ideals. However, there is still a need for further research to explore how Defector’s model can be adapted or replicated in different contexts, particularly in understanding the perception of its audience and how this contributes to its success.
Ferrucci, P. (2024). Engagement as Revenue in Journalism: Turning Community, Comments, and Access into Economic Viability. Journalism Studies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2380713
George Leech, Director of Outreach and Communications at the Prague Civil Society Centre, emphasises the importance of providing institutional funding for independent journalism. By offering flexible support, the Centre helps media outlets continue their vital work, even in exile or under authoritarian pressure across Central Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Why is it important for PCSC to support journalism? How did you come to the decision to include media in your programme?
Leech: We’re approaching our 10 year anniversary next year, and we’ve been supporting the media since 2016-2017. So really, as soon as we started, we kind of realised that the media had to be part of the strategy and can’t really be taken apart from civil society. It’s so important for amplifying the voice of civil society, exposing the failures of authoritarianism, promoting reform, accountability, it’s a key component. If you don’t have robust, strong, independent media, then all these groups doing all this amazing work, in a way, are losing a point of access to the population.
We also recognised the gap in donor funding, that a lot of media support was technical support, or it was very project-driven, whereas our approach since the very start has been to try and provide institutional support for media, funding to pay journalists’ salaries, pay for rent, and cover the costs of doing journalism. We don’t have a kind of editorial approach or thematic priority approach. We are not a donor that is interested in X, Y, Z and would like to see articles on those topics. We really want to fund the media to achieve what they want to do, reach their audiences, and be journalists. Our approach has been to decouple it from thematic priorities and really have it as a core media support programme.
It has also taken a lot of convincing at certain points within the donor sector, and convincing large institutional government donors that actually providing this institutional support is necessary and valid, because it also takes a lot of trust from people giving the money, right? It’s very easy to form a project where you say, at the end of this, we’re going to have had 30 articles on this topic, and we’ll have had five training sessions on these various topics. Whereas if you’re just giving institutional support, you’re saying that the media is going to continue to work, it might grow its audience. It’s very hard to package that into a very nice, clean project. But working with the big donors and convincing them of our approach has been part of our work and has been successful. We have grown our media support programme substantially over the years and really had a lot of buy-in from large donors, such as the European Union, on the necessity and validity of this kind of support.
In addition to providing grants for institutional funding, is anything else included in your support programme?
Leech: It’s a combination. Most of our support goes through grants, as we are a re-granting organisation. The Prague Centre exists to take large, predominantly government, donor money, and repackage that into smaller grants and try to remove a lot of the burden that comes with, say, being a USAID grantee, or a Foreign Office grantee, or a European Commission grantee. We’re like the middle man in making that money accessible.
But we do also have a full capacity building programme, and that ranges from many different kinds of support. In general, we don’t have media technical expertise in house. Rather, we have a wide network of trusted providers, and we talk with the media. When we’re in the process of making a grant, or we’re discussing their projects with them, then they self-identify that it would be really good to have training on security, or some kind of audience research. And we know people, we can put them in touch.
So we really try to empower the media we support to get the best support that’s tailored to their exact needs, rather than saying, here’s the Prague Centre’s media capacity building, this is our prescription. We listen to the needs and suggestions of our media partners and have a network of proven and trusted providers that we can recommend to circulate, and if someone is necessary and relevant, that’s perfect.
What kind of media are eligible for your support?
Leech: A huge range of media. From traditional newsroom media focused on Eastern Europe and Central Asia, to investigative media, various niche media, all the way down to various social media channels. We also include in our media support programme NGOs that have kind of advanced media arms. We also support them in similar ways, to do campaigning and communication. So our grantees range from traditional large newsroom-style media to people with a YouTube channel across the whole region where we work.
Which region do you work in?
Leech: We have a mandate to work in all the countries of the former Soviet Union, apart from the Baltic States. Two years ago, we started a media support programme for Central Europe. So Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovenia were added onto that.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from the programme?
Leech: I will reiterate the necessity that we must provide institutional support. There’s not enough of it in the sector. There is a cost of being the kind of flexible donor that we are. We pride ourselves in making this funding as adaptable, as flexible, as useful as possible for the grantees that we work with. But that requires, of course, a lot of talking with them, adaptation of proposals, changing proposals mid-project, which really puts a lot of extra work on our grants team, and I really wouldn’t underestimate the work it takes to stay true to the commitment to be flexible, adaptive, and responsive.
For example, when the full-scale invasion happened in Ukraine, we were making grants immediately as part of our emergency response to civil society and the media. There was one media [outlet] to whom we gave a grant to relocate from Kyiv, as the Russian army was advancing. When it became clear that Kyiv wasn’t going to be overrun and actually they’d be able to remain in Kyiv, we were then able to basically change the grant and say, OK, hang on, you don’t need to relocate, but you still have all this money, let’s see what we can do, and use the money in the way that you need it most. That’s a sensible and obvious thing to do, but you still have to change the project and work out how to manage it, what the new objective is. This is constant change, especially when you’re working in an area as volatile as those we work in. This just requires constant communication, adaptation, and tailoring.
In addition to the war in Ukraine, what are the biggest challenges you have had to face?
Leech: I think the war has dominated this region since 2022. Pre-2022, we were working with some exiled media, but now that has increased substantially. There’s a lot of media now located in the EU that present opportunities, but also challenges […]. Also, as a donor, you have media in exile that are still targeting audiences inside the country where they’ve come from, facing attempts to block them. So from investing in technology to circumvent censorship, there are different kinds of needs for the media to be able to continue doing the work. There’s obviously also the increased costs of being located in the EU rather than in your country of origin.
We’re leading a project called Free Media Hub East, which is a consortium of media support organisations funded by the European Union. We provide the re-granting component, but there are also organisations like People in Need (Czechia), Warsaw Helsinki Committee (Poland), Media in Cooperation and Transition (Germany), Sustainability Foundation in Latvia, and Baltic Centre for Media Excellence, also in Latvia, and together we’ve created a body of established practitioners that are providing the full scope of support for media in exile. So from the Prague Centre there’s funding available; from other organisations, there’s visa support, relocation support, psychological support, registration support, language classes, people that will help navigate the bureaucracies of Berlin, Warsaw, Latvia, wherever it may be, help advocate the case for exile media. So the move to exile and the needs that have come with that have also required slightly different solutions that we’ve also had to adapt to as an organisation.
What was the biggest success story?
Leech: The fact that a lot of the media that we support are still running, still managing to engage their audiences, and in some cases, managing to increase their audiences, despite efforts to liquidate the space for freedom of expression, to shut down any kind of independent voices. I think the continuation and ability to still reach audiences is, if not a glamorous success story, a really important one.
But also the ability to respond so quickly. I gave that example of finding the media to relocate during the full-scale invasion. We’ve been able to mobilise a substantial amount of support for Ukrainian media, large, small, regional. Exactly with this institutional support logic that I was talking about before, which has been kind of outsized in its help for the sector, because there has been so much donor funding that’s gone to Ukraine, which is fantastic, but also so much of it is tied up in certain requirements, certain topics, certain training, you know, it comes with a lot of strings attached. The fact we’ve been able to mobilise millions in unrestricted institutional support is something that I’m really proud of.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Leech: First of all, it is great to do it, 100%. If you’re thinking about doing it, keep thinking along those directions, but also question yourself about why you want to do it, and what the results are that you want to achieve through your media support programme.
There are lots of different entry points to supporting media, or lots of different reasons to support media. Know yourself what you’re trying to achieve. If that is to shed more light on the area that you’re focused on, that’s great, but know that this is what you want to do it for. If you believe that independent media is vitally important, it’s underfunded, and needs more support, then do that, and really I’d encourage anyone to go down the core support and institutional funding route.
And partner up! There are a lot of established media support organisations in Europe that have been doing it for a long time. I don’t think people need to always think they need to go alone, or try to do everything themselves. Share, talk to people about their experiences, and identify your niche. There’s always power in the aggregate, right? So maybe, if you can join something that’s existing or amplify something that’s already going on, maybe that’s the way to go about it.
Also, if you’re getting involved in the geographies that we are involved in, then security risk is a really important thing to consider. Understand the operating context of the media, where you’ll be working. You know, we work in Central Europe, in Eastern Europe, in Central Asia, all of those carry very different risk profiles, very different processes, very different approaches to grant-making and supporting media. It’s not a one-size hat that fits all.
Pierrick Judeaux, Director of Portfolio and EU representative at the International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM), explains the critical role of funding independent journalism in low and middle-income countries, and shares his insights into the Fund’s commitment to providing flexible, long-term financial support.
Why is it important for IFPIM to fund journalism? Which outlets are eligible for funding?
Judeaux: The Fund was created as a new multilateral and independent vehicle to fund journalism in low and middle income countries. We created this new vehicle because independent media globally are facing a major economic and financial crisis. The business models that have underpinned independent journalism in past decades have been under massive pressure. And the current level of support that is dedicated to independent media is not of the scale required to meet the challenge.
What we’re seeing globally, with even more acuteness in low and middle income countries, is a lot of outlets shutting down, or being captured by private or political interests. Perhaps more frequent and less visible, but extremely important, is a slow degradation of the capacity of media organisations working in the public interest to maintain their coverage and to hold power to account. That slow degradation is deeply worrying for the future of our information ecosystems and for democracy.
All of this is happening in the context of growing threats to information ecosystems and information integrity, including disinformation, misinformation, and various campaigns and operations led by a number of authoritarian actors. For all of these reasons, we created the Fund as a way to drastically scale up the amount of funding that is being made available to support public interest media in low and middle income countries.
How do you provide support? Are you cooperating with other donors?
Judeaux: Yes, we work very closely with other media funders. We’re very conscious that there are a number of other actors that have been doing really important work in terms of supporting journalists and media organisations for a long time. So we work extremely closely with other actors that fund journalism, and local market actors, journalists, researchers, and civil society actors that follow the information space closely. It’s a very important principle for us to fully acknowledge that we don’t operate in a vacuum, and we want to make sure we use the funds and financial capabilities to be complementary to the support that already exists.
In terms of how we provide support, we’re trying to be as driven as we can by both the local context and the needs of our partners, our grantees. So the types of grants we provide will be slightly different from one grantee to the next. There are, however, a couple of principles.
The first is that we strive to provide institutional support and mid- to long-term support. We’ve realised that the need for core funding or institutional funding is really acute. There is a lot of project funding, there is a lot of short-term funding. This kind of support is very important, of course, but it most often doesn’t allow organisations to cover their core costs and to invest in the future and future-proof their organisations at a time where markets are deeply changing. So we endeavour to provide relatively long term support that gives media outlets visibility. These are two- or three-year grants that can be renewed. In the vast majority of cases, it is core institutional funding rather than project-based.
The size of our grant varies, but because of the core funding and the long-term funding, they tend to be relatively large compared to other funders. We do pay a lot of attention, however, to the risk of being too large a source of revenue for a given outlet, and so we ensure that in almost all cases, with a few exceptions, we fund no more than 30 percent of the operating costs of an organisation.
Finally, how do we identify the organisations we support? We source future grantees through four complimentary channels. We run open calls for proposals. We do a lot of proactive engagements, within countries where we work, with a lot of market actors to identify potential partners. We have a system for referrals from trusted partners, such as other funders and development organisations, to suggest partners we should support. And finally, any media organisation that is interested in collaborating and working with us can submit an expression of interest on our website. So we have these four channels to identify potential partners and then all relevant independent media that meet our eligibility criteria (which are described on our website) go through the same assessment and due diligence process.
I’ll end with a very important point. When we created the Fund as a multilateral financing mechanism, we were extremely careful to strike the right balance between creating a partnership that would mobilise many government funders while ensuring the Fund would make funding decisions independently. None of our funders can direct or influence which media organisations the Fund supports. All funding decisions are made under the control of an independent board made of independent experts who don’t serve any specific organisation or government. This was always absolutely central and non-negotiable. It allows [us] to shield donors from allegations of interference. But most importantly, that’s the only way to guarantee the editorial integrity and independence of the media organisations we support.
You have just announced a new round of support in Latin America. Are you planning to expand your programme in Europe as well?
Judeaux: The mandate of the Fund is to work in low and middle income countries. We don’t work in high income countries. In Europe we currently operate in four countries, in the Eastern Partnership: Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. We’re currently finalising a number of additional grants and we’ll be supporting a new cohort of partners in those countries.
We will also be looking at potentially expanding the set of countries in which we work in the near future. The fund is currently in its first phase of operations, but later this month, we’re going to be launching a campaign for fundraising and replenishment of our financial resources for the next phase of our development. As we raise additional funds, we’ll be able to expand geographically as well.
Now, coming back to the four countries where we work, we’re currently finalising the selection of a new cohort of grantees based on the global open call that we’ve launched on World Press Freedom Day [3 May]. And so, relatively soon, within a month or two, we’ll be announcing a new set of grants across those countries.
What is the most important lesson you have learned since the launch of the Fund?
Judeaux: The one thing we are hearing constantly from almost all our partners is how important unrestricted institutional funding is and how critical it is for them to adapt to the future and survive in contexts where they are facing a lot of pressure. That’s true in all of the Eastern European countries that I just mentioned, and it’s true globally as well. It’s the single most frequent piece of feedback that we get from the partners we work with. The acknowledgement that there is really a market gap when it comes to providing that kind of unrestricted, flexible, long-term funding, is the most important lesson to date.
What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
Judeaux: We need to make difficult choices all the time. We have raised a significant amount of money for the first phase of operations, close to EUR 60 million, but this is a drop in the ocean compared to the needs. Independent journalism outlets that do really important work for society need funding, and hard decisions have to be made, because there are a lot more needs than actual funding available.
Yet the unmet need remains vast. Following the launch of two calls for proposals, the Fund received expressions of interest from over 600 organisations, requesting grant funding worth a total of US$ 120-130 million. These calls were limited in scope and applied to only a small subset of countries. Globally, the level of demand is many times higher. Scaling up the capital available for public interest media remains of paramount importance.
A second challenge, I think, has been that a lot of media organisations are now asking themselves questions around how to adjust their editorial practices to meet the audience where it’s going to consume content. That’s particularly true in case of younger audiences. We’ve tried to identify those actors that pay particular attention to trying to find ways to cater to the needs of younger audiences. This is part of a broader approach of the fund, to ensure that audience needs are at the core of how media organisations think about their work. We are trying to ensure we identify media organisations that do the best job possible to address the needs of younger and underserved audiences.
We’ve learned a lot of lessons as a community, but it’s still very complex for many organisations, especially those that have existed for some time, to design and execute a strategy by which you not only think about your distribution and your marketing, but also about the types of formats, the topics you cover, also the composition of your newsroom, and make sure you have more diversity and representation within your newsroom.
The shift that’s required to make sure you talk to everyone and address all audiences is far bigger than just thinking about meeting people on social media. Identifying and supporting those organisations which try to go through that transformation has been a challenge, but it’s a very promising area of work.
Finally, in many markets it’s hard to see a future for sustainable independent media without deeper, more structural changes. That’s why we also invest in supporting initiatives that look to create new ways to finance journalism and change the rules of the games that shape the environment independent media operate in. For instance, we’re supporting the creation of several new National Journalism Funds, such as in Sierra Leone and Brazil. We’re also working closely with actors that design models and advocate for fairer value sharing between big tech and the media.
What was the biggest success story in your programme?
Judeaux: There have been a number of media organisations we’ve supported that have highlighted that we’ve allowed them to survive and continue to play a really important role for the community in difficult times, whether it is one of the oldest community radio stations in South Africa, called Bush Radio, or whether it is independent media in Georgia, Netgazeti, or Mtisambebi. We have a number of cases where our partners have highlighted how critical core flexible funding has been to maintaining the ability of these outlets to continue their work.
However, it is not only survival that the grants provide. We also have a number of, I would say, early success stories where we see media organisations that are able to pilot innovation and roll them out in a way that’s proven very successful. Let me share a few examples.
One area relates to the point I was making earlier around transforming newsrooms. For instance, Himalmedia in Nepal has improved its reach and coverage of underreported issues affecting marginalised communities, facilitated by a fellowship programme for young journalists from underrepresented backgrounds.
Experimentation with new revenue streams has been another area of transformation to support growth and independence. For example, in Colombia, Mutante launched its production arm, Mutante Estudio, which within a year has already generated about 10% of its revenue in 2023.
Finally, we’ve also seen several of the media we support experiment very successfully with new formats and distribution strategies and grow their audiences rapidly. In Eastern Ukraine, News of Donbas’ new tailored content for social media has quickly generated a significant increase in traffic. Videos on its YouTube channels were seen over 40 million times in the first three months of the year and their newly created TikTok channel has also rapidly accrued millions of views.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Judeaux: I have three pieces of advice. First: do it! Do it because the integrity of our information ecosystem and the existence of independent trusted voices in the countries where your foundation or your institution is working is critical for almost anything else you want to achieve, whether you’re working on issues like social justice or climate change, you name it. It’s certain that having a healthy information ecosystem is central to achieving your goals, so investing in stronger independent media is actually instrumental in advancing your objective as a foundation or an institution.
Second, there are lots of ways to do this. Maybe you don’t feel like you have the bandwidth or the desire to create an entire programme and to build the capacity to do this, because media funding is quite complex, in the sense that you need to understand not only media, but also the politics in a given country. You need to be very careful about media capture. So if you either want to protect yourself, or don’t want to build the entire infrastructure to do this, then there is an existing structure called the International Fund, a pooled global funding mechanism that allows for organisations that care about information integrity, but might not want to develop an entire programme on media funding to be able to do that very efficiently and quickly.
Then third, invest in local capacity. The field of media development and media support has evolved a lot over the past couple of decades, and the funders that are doing the best work are those which invest in local resources and local capacity, because media is so complex and so embedded in the fabric of society and politics. Being able to work and to be driven by people that live in these environments is extremely important.
Joanna Krawczyk, Member of the Management Committee at the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF), talks about the importance of supporting fact-checking and media literacy to combat disinformation, which can disrupt democratic processes and societal stability. EMIF focuses on funding diverse, collaborative projects across Europe to strengthen these efforts.
EMIF focuses on fact-checking and media literacy initiatives. Why do you think it is important to support such initiatives in Europe?
Krawczyk: We do pay special attention to fact-checking and media literacy in Europe, and I believe that these two areas are especially crucial due to the very pervasive nature of disinformation in general. Disinformation can, and does, impact public opinion. It can disrupt democratic processes and, in turn, it can undermine societal stability. We have many geopolitical crises right now; the invasion of Russia in Ukraine; the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza; and we also have a full cycle of elections across the world. With this kind of accumulation of crucial geopolitical moments, there is an urgent need to empower citizens with the skills to read and evaluate information critically.
We believe in EMIF that the right to be informed is a human right, and being able to evaluate information, to be critical towards information that surrounds us, is also one of the skills that adds to being able to execute this human right. So, yes, fact-checking and media literacy are the areas providing us with skills that are crucial in managing the complexities of our geopolitical surroundings and circumstances.
On which regions do you focus? What kind of organisations do you support?
Krawczyk: As the very name of our fund suggests, we are a European pooled fund, which means that we have a regional focus, we do focus on European Union and EFTA [European Free Trade Association] countries and the UK. But we also extend the scope of our activities towards other countries, in the sense that we support organisations that are based in eligible European countries; however, in their projects, the scope of analysing or countering disinformation is broader. This is important to understand that we do not focus just on disinformation happening only here in Europe; we look at it on a wider scale, since disinformation disregards any geographical borders.
When it comes to the type of organisations we are supporting, they are really diverse. We support, first and foremost, independent fact-checking organisations and media literacy groups, mostly NGOs. Because we also fund research, so obviously we support academic institutions and research-focused entities. We also support independent quality media outlets.
It is important for us to value collaboration: the majority, if not all, of our funded projects are collaborative projects of at least two entities. And then, they are also very often cross-border. It is our preference to make sure that the project supported by us is addressing the challenges of not only one community, and also that the solutions designed and implemented in the project are the result of different approaches presented by different organisations. This produces an added value of joint work of different organisations from different backgrounds and with varied experiences. In short, EMIF is a European fund funding different types of independent entities.
What does the support look like? Do you provide grants, do you offer training, knowledge-sharing among grantees, etc.?
Krawczyk: In general, we were designed as a grant-making mechanism, which means that we provide financial support for projects focused on fact-checking, media literacy, and disinformation research. Since we began our operations, we have approved grants up to almost €12.5 million, and we have funded 87 projects in 26 countries. The scale of our grant-making is quite substantial on the background of European media and information funding. We believe this, and our evaluations prove we do have a big impact on the disinformation countering field. And our support is something that organisations active in this field are looking forward to.
Grant-making is the core of our activities. However, we have a few other satellite activities. We do knowledge-sharing in the form of conventions organised twice a year: EMIF conferences, usually one in the autumn and one in late spring or summer. Actually, there’s going to be one in Lisbon on the 15th and 16th of July [2024]. These are the conventions to which we’re inviting our current and past grantees, so that they can exchange knowledge and experiences and share good practices. So, we do invest in these networking and knowledge-sharing opportunities.
And, of course, EMIF is active in its expert role and we participate in different types of conferences, workshops, and seminars, speaking about our experience in disinformation countering activities. But, and this is the least visible part of our work, we also support research. We work very closely with the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, and we support academic courses and research done there by young researchers and students. The array of our activities is vast, with grant-making at the centre of it, but we want to be, and we are, active in other areas as well.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from this programme?
Krawczyk: It is something we have been discussing a lot in the previous year: global threats and more local conflicts, the pandemic, elections disruption – all the turmoil we have witnessed and experienced in the last years has showed us that the biggest challenge that we had to face was the need for rapid responses to very quickly developing or changing circumstances. It is all about the ability to react swiftly to approaching change, challenge, or threat.
We learned, and we did it the hard way, that what is really needed in funds like ours is flexibility and adaptability in responding to this fast-evolving nature of disinformation. Thus, last year, we adjusted our funding strategies for building project support, adding rapid response grant-making to address these emerging threats as well as possible. We want to ensure that the initiatives that we fund stay relevant and effective in responding to these abrupt changes in our reality.
Our revised approach allows us now for a swift mobilisation of funding and targeted interventions during critical periods, such as election cycles and some geopolitical crises.
In general, how do you assess the success of your programme? What do you deem as the biggest success story?
Krawczyk: After funding over 80 different disinformation-countering projects, it’s difficult to name just one success story. There are plenty. We generally believe that it is the big impact the projects funded by EMIF make on their communities and broader society that is our biggest success story. And every success story of our grantees is a success story of EMIF.
Of course, I have my favourite projects. There is, for example, the FRAME project, which is very timely because it has developed an AI tool transcribing and fact-checking political statements in real-time, a resource that is acutely important and needed today amidst this election cycle. There is also an amazing project from Poland that is taking emotions as the departure point for working with youth in recognising disinformation. This is a very interesting approach, quite new, I suppose, to turn to the emotional side of a human being when faced with disinformation.
And then there are also projects whose deliverables have a broader political impact. One of them is Information Laundromat, which was designed and implemented by the Alliance for Securing Democracy: their tool detecting banned Russian propaganda across hundreds of websites has been used by many think tanks, and the results of the Laundromat activity have very broadly discussed, for example, in the American Congress, and are of interest to Polish policy-makers as well.
Our impact is visible and growing, but again, I want to highlight that EMIF’s impact and our success story is always the success story of our grantees.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Krawczyk: The first thing I would say: don’t be afraid of it. Funding journalism, funding quality media, funding organisations that are making sure that our societies are well informed and immune to propaganda and disinformation, are all really the key to sustaining democracy, across our countries and continents. I firmly believe that this is one of our main responsibilities as citizens, but also as funders, to make sure that members of our communities well understand the disinformation processes that are happening around them, and they are equipped with tools and skilled enough to be able to respond to them adequately.
There is a great opportunity for new funders, for organisations that are new to funding journalism, to join dedicated funds like EMIF. When I analyse the philanthropic scene of Europe, I see how many shared goals and shared values EMIF has with organisations that, at first sight, have not got much in common with journalism. They do care about backsliding of democracy, equality, justice or environmental issues, and these are the areas where disinformation and propaganda are often very active; these issues are also addressed by EMIF-supporting projects countering disinformation in their fields. We believe that by supporting quality journalism and projects that are fighting disinformation, malign foreign interference and propaganda spreading, such organisations will also support their own goals.
In my view, we haven’t explored the whole potential of cross-cutting goals of EMIF and philanthropic organisations, multilaterals, corporates and government funding. The time to start joining forces is now.
In this study, published in Journalism, the authors explore the difficulties that news organisations encounter in generating revenue, especially in the digital age. Journalism plays a vital role in democratic societies by providing crucial information and promoting accountability. Despite this, people are generally hesitant to pay for news, so with declining advertising income and low subscription rates, news organisations are struggling to sustain their operations. This study investigates the reasons behind this reluctance, focusing on motivation for news consumption and the perception of news as a public good.
The research is conducted in Singapore, a technologically advanced and economically prosperous nation with a unique media landscape. Singapore’s media is tightly regulated and mostly state-owned but generally trusted by its citizens. This context offers a fertile setting to examine the interplay between motivations, the perceived importance of news, and public willingness to pay. The study used a national online survey of 818 Singapore residents to ensure a representative sample.
The survey measures various motivations for consuming news, including surveillance (staying informed), socialisation (discussing news with others), and seeking entertainment. It also assesses participants’ perceived importance of news, both personally and socially, as well as their willingness to pay for news. The findings reveal that motivations related to socialisation and entertainment are positively associated with the willingness to pay for news. However, despite being highly rated, the motivation for staying informed does not directly correlate with a willingness to pay. Additionally, perceiving news as personally important increases the willingness to pay, while perceiving news as socially important does not have the same effect.
The analysis in the study reveals an indirect effect, where the motivation for surveillance leads to a willingness to pay, due to the perceived personal importance. This implies that individuals may not pay directly for news to stay informed, but they might be willing to do so if they consider it personally relevant. These findings show that it is important for news organisations to emphasise the personal relevance of their content to encourage subscriptions.
Additionally, the research reveals a difference in how individuals value news compared to its importance in society. People may consider news as a public good when it provides information, but as a private good when it serves entertainment or socialisation purposes. This influences their willingness to pay for news accordingly. This dual nature of news creates challenges for news organisations in monetising their content, as the traditional role of news in society does not generate financial support.
The study also acknowledges limitations, including the use of self-reported data and the specific context of Singapore, which may not apply to other countries. Future research could investigate similar questions in various contexts and analyse factors such as trust in media, current news consumption habits, and the potential market among younger audiences.
In conclusion, the article offers valuable insights into the complex connection between importance and economic viability. These findings indicate that news organisations should broaden their content strategies to appeal to a broader range of motivations and highlight the personal relevance of their journalism to encourage greater financial support. This approach can assist news outlets in navigating the ever-changing media landscape and establishing more sustainable revenue models.
Tandoc, E. C., & Seet, S. (2024). News you can refuse: If news is important, why aren’t more people willing to pay for it? Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241253143
Mia Vukojević, Program Director for the Western Balkans at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, emphasises the crucial role of supporting independent media in fostering democracy. The Fund aims to strengthen democratic governance, accountability, and transparency in a region marked by political fragility, in part through investigative journalism.
Why is it important for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to support media in Europe?
Vukojević: The Rockefeller Brothers Fund identified the Western Balkans as one of the regions we consider a pivotal place for our focus areas: democracy, peace and climate. We believe that there cannot be true democracy without strong independent media. In situations where democracy is as weak or fragile as it is in the Balkans, supporting independent media, investigative journalists, and other media organisations is absolutely critical to strengthening democracy.
What kind of news organisations do you support?
Vukojević: We mostly support investigative media organisations and independent media that cover the topics we focus on, such as democracy, governance, accountability, transparency, peace, and climate, […] around 15 organisations in four countries in the Balkans. They are all reasonably small organisations. In addition to that, we support two of their networks: Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).
Are you in touch directly with your grantees or do you work with implementers? What do you think are the advantages of these approaches?
Vukojević: We’re not that big of a funder; our budget for the Balkans is USD 4.15 million a year. Given that, we see the value in direct relationships with the organisations. We mostly support them directly, give them very flexible general support grants over a longer period of time and build direct relationships. We rarely fund projects and we don’t ask for project proposals—we support organisations for all of their work.
This is partly a question of capacity. If we had a lot more money, we would likely also contribute to some of the pooled funds. In addition to direct grants to organisations, we do provide a grant to Slaviko Curuvija Foundation, a national foundation in Serbia that funds super-small local media and individual journalists, which we would not be able to fund directly. I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. I think the biggest advantage of working directly is that, as a funder, you get to know the people at the media organisations you fund, you build relationships, you trust each other. Then it’s much easier to give general support grants, which are much more flexible than it would be through the intermediaries. I think the advantage of working through intermediaries would be that you can process much more funding and give more grants. You can reach organisations that would normally be too small for you.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from this program?
Vukojević: I think it’s the importance of long-term support. Not expecting that things will change overnight, not expecting that investigative journalism will yield results in changing the system and making it more accountable immediately. The need for funders to stay for the longer term and be flexible is very important. Journalists need to be able to work on stories, however long it takes. They need to be able to own the stories and be responsive. If we are truly good practice funders, we should fund them that way: flexible, long-term. This brings the best results.
What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far? How do you respond to these challenges?
Vukojević: One of the challenges is that the funding is generally quite scarce for independent investigative journalism work, so there is always far more need than available funding. This makes choosing who you fund, and why and how, more difficult.
There is also [the issue of] dealing with the consequences of this work for grantees. Investigative and independent journalism often puts journalists in danger. Some of them work in extremely difficult environments. They get exposed to SLAPPs [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation]. Their reputation is slandered. Some get physically attacked. Sometimes even being connected to us may expose them to challenges because we are an American foundation, and foreign funding is increasingly villainised.
It is very hard to do much about that as a funder. Our grantees are independent organisations. They realise what they’re getting themselves into and take these risks consciously. Sometimes, they need help beyond what we can provide. It is especially difficult when our grantees and their partners are personally attacked. In many of these organisations, the majority of journalists are women, and the attacks they suffer are unconscionable.
On a more positive note, what was the biggest success story? In general, how do you assess the success or impact of your programs?
Vukojević: The Balkans region is full of irresponsible, corrupt politicians. The people working in investigative media have, over the last 10 years, exposed the actions of many of those people. These journalists have worked so hard that now every citizen in the Western Balkans region has easily accessible information about properties their politicians own, buy, and hold; the big corruptive deals they’ve made on public procurement and infrastructure; their connections to organised crime. These politicians would deny it, but it is now well-evidenced and indisputable.
There are many examples of public officials, including ministers, having to resign or being prosecuted after being exposed for doing something that they should not have done.
This is a really big success in terms of the big picture and long-term thinking. The change is slow. It often takes a long time, and there are difficulties with the institutions that don’t always act or prosecute quickly, but it is happening. I’m very proud of our grantees for everything they have achieved so far. And there is still, of course, so much more to do. I am looking forward to seeing where they take it.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not yet funded journalism but are considering doing so?
Vukojević: I usually start by saying “you can’t be serious about working for democracy if you are not supporting independent journalism.” That’s number one. Number two, if you do fund journalism, please do not do projects, log frames, six-month funding. These journalists are experts and they need general support to their organisations so that they can make decisions, take action, and pivot as they see necessary. Trust them. You will be amazed to see what they can achieve.