Autocrats in Central and Eastern Europe are obsessed with independent journalism. They badmouth the press and label them as ‘opposition’ every chance they get. They create Foreign Agent Laws to starve independent outlets of their funding. They resort to legal intimidation, physical threats and murder to silence the truth. They understand and fear the power of information and will spare no expense to control it. On the flipside, our Philea membership survey points to journalism as the least chosen topic of interest two years in a row. Are philanthropists missing a trick? Are we not valuing journalism as much as the likes of Orban? Or are we unconvinced that our support could make a difference?
Last week at KoneKtor, I brought together a panel of journalists and journalism funders in the CEE region to help foundations understand why supporting journalism has become more indispensable and meaningful than ever before.
A politicised market model
In 2011, Tamas Bodoky founded atlatszo.hu – “atlatszo” means transparent in Hungarian – as the first Hungarian investigative journalism non-profit. While Tamas left his former publisher and established Atlatszo to be free from political influence, the challenge to retain editorial independence remains. In Hungary, where mainstream media is captured by the state and critical voices are labelled as opposition, advertising revenue doesn’t follow the market model, but political logic. With businesses afraid of being associated with critical reporting, sustaining an investigative outlet solely on ad revenue is simply infeasible.
To finance their work, some outlets experiment with forms of paywalls. For journalism non-profits established to promote transparency, accountability, and freedom of information, using paywalls feels contradictory to their goal. It would also mean losing even more readers to propaganda news, which is freely available. Instead, many critical outlets turn to crowdfunding. Yet the pressure to choose a side remains. Whilst the situation in the Czech Republic is not as alarming as that in Hungary, polarisation creates a highly volatile readership… to quote Pavla Holcová, “We are not publishing stories about local kittens”.
The kind of stories published at Investigace.cz are bound to create strong opinions and spark emotions. As investigative outlets naturally report more often on those in power, especially the ones spending taxpayer money, they attract more readers and donors that align with the opposition or are unwillingly identified or branded as against the reigning party. When they inevitably produce an article that criticises someone in the opposition, the result can be a devastating loss of donors and readership, and accusations of having been bought up by ‘the other side’.
Polarisation doesn’t only endanger the editorial independence of investigative journalism. Politicised and contentious reporting gets more traction and is actively promoted by Big Tech platforms. In contrast, general interest media focused on keeping the public informed and engaged in their local and national environments have a hard time ‘selling’ their non-politicised content to the public, and also attract less funders. David Klimeš understands foundations favouring specific outlets, especially when they align with their personal or organisational values. With the Endowment Fund for Independent Journalism however, David is on a mission to help local donors (e.g. business owners) understand that a model of concentrated ownership where public opinion is swayed by the highest bidder can easily backfire when in the ‘wrong’ hands. In other words, a stable and independent media is good for business. While project funding or targeted funding for a specific outlet can serve as a great entry point for funders new to journalism, the NFNZ brings local funding together and invests in media pluralism, balancing support for a specific issue or outlet versus support for the sector as a whole. Additionally, it is now also looking to redirect more support to local media outside major cities where the only access to information is through outlets owned by local majors.
Scare tactics
My main takeaway from the conversation at KoneKtor is that in times of state sponsored polarisation, philanthropic support is a more crucial source of income than it ever was. It alleviates the pressure on independent media outlets to conform to a polarised readership or a market logic that serves the political agenda. It promotes nuanced reporting, critical yet party-neutral investigations and it safeguards the access to general interest information.
This last lifeline is exactly what Orban and other autocratic regimes in the CEE are now trying to cut. With a recent surge in ‘Foreign Agent’-style laws, European autocrats have added a dangerous instrument to their playbook. Despite the official communication that Hungary’s new Sovereignty Protection Office was established to stop domestic political actors from accepting foreign funds, one of the first targets they cracked down on was the independent media outlet Atlatszo. Not only do these laws impose crippling monitoring and reporting requirements, they are an obvious attempt at delegitimising their target’s work in the eyes of the public and scare off funders.
We at Philea will continue to voice our concerns over the rise of Foreign Agent Laws; their detrimental effects on targeted grantees should be taken seriously. Fortunately, the message from journalism funders at KoneKtor was resoundingly clear: these laws will not stop international funding from reaching independent media in Central and Eastern Europe. They will not deter foundations already active in the region and some have even ramped up their support. Yet much more funding is needed if we want independent journalism in Europe to endure. If you are not supporting journalism yet, let Orban’s obsession be all the proof you need of the power and value of a free press.
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.
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.
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.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) represent a growing threat to press freedom, as powerful entities abuse legal systems to silence criticism and investigative reporting. While overt threats like physical violence also persist, legal intimidation has become increasingly prevalent, aiming to suppress independent voices and shield the powerful from scrutiny.
These lawsuits, primarily aimed to intimidate, target journalists and media outlets, alongside activists and NGOs. Perpetrators, often well-resourced individuals or institutions, exploit their advantage to exhaust their targets financially and emotionally. While some SLAPPs are eventually dismissed, the prolonged litigation process inflicts significant harm on journalists, distracting them from work and causing reputational damage. Even news organisations that win these lawsuits face pyrrhic victories, as the ordeal exacts a toll on their resources and wellbeing.
SLAPPs have become a tool to suppress dissent even in democratic countries. The European Commission has responded with an anti-SLAPP Directive adopted by the European Parliament in February 2024. The directive aims to safeguard public participation against legal abuse. However, the complex nature of SLAPPs requires ongoing research and concerted efforts to protect press freedom and democratic values.
The rise of SLAPPs has led to a shrinkage of investigative journalism, with media owners and editors often pressuring for simpler stories due to the financial burden of lawsuits. Journalists face self-censorship and editorial pressure, prompting many of them to become more reluctant when pursuing investigations. While some journalists continue their work unabated, others become more cautious and seek approval from their legal department before publication.
SLAPPs also impose significant restrictions on press freedom in general, with journalists facing economic intimidation and the fear of job loss. Therefore, self-censorship becomes prevalent as journalists weigh the consequences of their reporting, affecting both their professional practices and willingness to cover sensitive issues.
SLAPPs also impact journalists’ professional and personal lives on multiple levels. Concerns about future employment, the time-consuming nature of legal proceedings, and the psychological toll on journalists and their families are all significant factors. Lack of support from employers and colleagues exacerbates the situation although international press freedom organisations often provide practical assistance.
Participants of the survey conducted for the research presented in this study emphasised the need for legal reforms to address SLAPPs and protect media professionals. Press unions are called upon to provide economic, legal, and psychological support, as well as to raise awareness about the impact of SLAPPs on press freedom.
Despite the study’s limitations, including a small sample size and country-specific experiences (journalists from Greece and Cyprus participated in the survey), its findings shed light on the hidden costs of SLAPPs and the urgent need for comprehensive legal frameworks and institutional support to protect press freedom. Ultimately, SLAPPs represent a sophisticated form of censorship that undermines democracy and journalism’s role as a watchdog.
Papadopoulou, L., & Maniou, T. A. (2024). “SLAPPed” and censored? Legal threats and challenges to press freedom and investigative reporting. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241242181
Recognising the challenges faced by news media, Civitates offers core funding with flexibility for two years in an attempt to address the funding gap that many media outlets in Europe are grappling with. Prioritising organisational development and sustainability, Civitates’ support has been thus far deployed to media outlets across eight European countries.
Democracy is under attack in various European countries as the space for civil society diminishes, with governments imposing barriers, vilifying groups, and impeding access to crucial funding. The digital public sphere, essential for democracy, is threatened by disinformation and a decline in media trust, fuelled by technological changes.
Enter Civitates, a pooled fund comprising 18 foundations, aimed at beefing up the civil society sector. Initially concentrating on countries witnessing democratic erosion, the initiative swiftly recognised the main role of media capture in this phenomenon, which included frequent attacks against civic space, democracy and the rule of law.
Independent journalism faces a triple threat of diminishing public trust, receding media freedom, and financial instability due to disrupted business models. “Our overarching objective is a healthy, pluralistic, and democratic Europe,” says Eszter Szűcs, Senior Programme Manager at Civitates, adding that they focus on supporting independent public interest media, predominantly non-profit organisations.
Civitates does not solely focus on the state of democracy but considers an array of factors in its selection process. Among them, the availability and quality of funding in a country play an important role. Questions about the presence of local funding sources or reliance on international donors become key considerations in how Civitates shapes its support strategy.
Currently, Civitates supports 11 organisations across eight countries: Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain. Szűcs explains their approach as “thinking in cohorts,” emphasising their goal to strengthen connections between grantees, which allows organisations to learn from each other’s experiences, fostering a collaborative environment. Szűcs cites successful implementations of paywalls as an example of shared knowledge among grantees.
It is crucial, she added, that Civitates provides core funding, typically spanning two years, with a notable degree of flexibility. This addresses a significant gap in the funding landscape, as long-term core funding is rarely provided by donors, even though strong, sustainable independent public interest media need stability to flourish.
“It is very important to pay attention to fund the organisational development of the grantees,” Szűcs argues. While it may be easier for media outlets to fundraise for specific projects, this can divert their focus towards initiatives they may not necessarily want to pursue but that they will in any case undertake due to financial necessity.
News organisations require a robust structure and functional operations, elements often overlooked in the chase for project-specific funds. Civitates has identified this gap and tries to address it, a rather uphill battle as many journalists may lack expertise in organisational development.
“The core funding provided by Civitates (…) means that the organisations are not pressed to deliver certain stories within a predetermined time window or to follow predetermined financial strategies,” said Diogo Cardoso, journalist and member of the governing body at Divergente, a Civitates-funded organisation from Portugal. “This creates the base for both a truly free independent media and the room for experimenting in the field of alternative sources of revenue, with the financial sustainability in mind.”
Furthermore, funding from Civitates is not just financial aid; it comes bundled with capacity-building support and a focus on networking. This includes facilitating conference participation and exchanges among organisations funded as part of the programme. “We share a lot of the same challenges and doubts while consolidating our projects, so being able to benefit from others’ experience while analysing our own challenges helped us to make wiser decisions,” Cardoso said. “We benefited from visiting and hosting different organisations, and thus acquiring knowledge in specific areas that helped to cover gaps that we had in our organisation.”
Supporting business model development, editorial growth, audience engagement and outreach, and capacity to achieve impact on the public debates is expected, and hoped, to contribute to the long-term sustainability of news organisations, Szűcs argued.
“Before we won the grant from Civitates, Átlátszó Erdély was a small investigative journalism outlet run by journalists, with me, the editor-in-chief constantly juggling, and often overwhelmed by, editorial, admin, fundraising and outreach tasks,” explains Zoltán Sipos, chief editor and manager of Átlátszó Erdély, an investigative journalism project focusing on the Hungarian community in Romania. He adds: “The Civitates grant allowed us to hire an administrative assistant, and later to add a marketing person to the team. This freed up my schedule so I could focus more on the content, and also on the longer-term projects that are essential for our growth of Átlátszó Erdély. Thanks to the Civitates grant, Átlátszó Erdély became a bigger, and considerably more resilient organisation.”
“The Civitates core grant was a game-changer as it allowed to put in motion a long term plan that transformed our organisation from a small journalism project into one of the most awarded independent newsrooms in Europe, with presence at international journalism networks and multiple cross-border cooperation with other organisations,” Cardoso argued.
By providing funding to cover the needs of media outlets in those areas, Civitates hopes that it contributes to the sustainability of independent media, and thus, to the fabric of a thriving democratic Europe.
A new study by Maria Latos, Frank Lobigs, and Holger Wormer, TU Dortmund, attempts to systematically transfer established funding models in research to journalism, where the state is involved in funding, but peer review models reduce funding bias. Using the example of the German Research Foundation (GRF), the authors developed a concept for a German Journalism Foundation, which awards funding to journalists and cooperative projects based on a peer review process.
The peer-based journalism funding model aims to address the challenges faced by media organizations by promoting excellence in journalistic projects through a competitive peer review process. It suggests awarding funding to projects in areas that are often neglected due to time and cost constraints, such as investigative journalism and fact-checking. The proposed funding areas also include innovations, infrastructure, technology, training, and in-depth journalism.
The concept involves creating an association under private law, similar to GRF, that would allow journalists, editorial teams, and cooperative projects to organize independently. The review process for funding proposals involves a combination of methods, including written statements for individual funding and group decision-making for coordinated programs. It is suggested to have interdisciplinary review groups, which include non-journalists from foundations, NGOs, and communication scientists, to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. Emphasis is placed on clear criteria for reviewer selection and application evaluation.
The study highlights the need for alternative measures to determine eligibility for journalism funding, suggesting certification or registration procedures that are aligned with journalistic principles. Funding sources could include a combination of reallocating funds from public media, direct financing from the government, and contributions from foundations and private donors.
The proposed funding amount is conceptualized with a gradual approach, initially starting with smaller amounts and eventually reaching a maximum estimate of approximately €700 million per year in Germany, which falls within the same range as the annual VAT reduction for newspapers in the country. This funding model aims to compensate for the economic challenges faced by journalism, ensuring a more targeted and sustainable approach to supporting the industry.
Latos, M., Lobigs, F., & Wormer, H. (2023). Peer-based research funding as a model for journalism funding. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231215662