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.
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
With local journalism in crisis, more and more cities are beginning to recognise the vital role of local news in building informed communities. An increasing number of initiatives launched by city councils reflect a growing commitment to sustaining local journalism.
Local journalism is facing a significant crisis, with newsrooms closing down at an alarming rate and leaving communities in news deserts, areas where there is little to no local news coverage. The repercussions of this decline extend far beyond the news industry, impacting local democracy, civic engagement, and even public finance.
Local journalism serves several critical functions within a community. It acts as a watchdog not only for government accountability, but also for the private sector, encouraging adherence to laws and regulations. It is also an effective tool for city governments to disseminate public notices and information on various topics.
Furthermore, as Tarsi Dunlop, Senior Program Officer, the German Marshall Fund’s Cities programme argues, local journalism helps people engage in their communities and bolster trust in local institutions. As cities consider their public reputation, supporting strong local news and prioritising active engagement suggests a willingness to be scrutinised and held accountable. An informed community is vital, as it helps local officials be more effective in their work. In addition, local news benefits cities more broadly by covering arts, culture, or local businesses, and providing reliable information during crises related to public health or safety, such as the Covid-19 pandemic or natural disasters. Ideally, local journalism also helps ensure that different communities and their lived experiences are represented, giving a voice to those less likely to be heard.
At the same time, a lack of local journalism is associated with less informed voters, lower voter turnout, and has even been linked to increased borrowing costs for local governments, as the lack of media scrutiny leads to reduced trust and higher perceived risks among investors.
Recognising these challenges, some cities have begun to take proactive steps to support local news media. Across Europe and the United States, supported is offered through various approaches, including direct financial aid, service contracts, and public policy measures. These efforts are diverse, but they all share a common goal: to sustain local journalism.
One form of support is direct funding to media outlets. Lisbon, for example, has revised its municipal statutes this year to allow city agencies to fund local journalism projects directly. This initiative aims to bolster the local news ecosystem by providing financial support to media outlets that serve the community.
Similarly, the Vienna Media Initiative, a funding programme launched by the City of Vienna in 2020, provides substantial funding to support quality journalism and innovation within the media landscape. With a budget of 16 million euros until 2025, the programme supports self-employed journalists and small media companies through two funding schemes, offering grants of up to 10,000 euros or 100,000 euros respectively. An international jury evaluates applications based on criteria such as journalistic quality, innovation, and sustainability. Funded teams receive additional support through workshops.
In the United States, direct funding takes various forms. For example, New York City recently issued an executive order requiring city agencies to allocate half of their advertising budgets to local press, Dunlop explains. Washington, DC has introduced the Local News Funding Act, which would dedicate 0.1 percent of the city council’s annual budget to supporting local news coverage. This funding would be distributed as coupons given to registered voters, allowing them to choose a local news outlet from which to receive free content, whether it’s a newspaper, podcast, blog, or newsletter.
Another method of support comes through service contracts. Some cities, such as Chicago and Seattle, provide financial support to local media through service contracts, Dunlop says. For instance, the City Bureau of Chicago, a nonprofit civic media organisation, was contracted for note-taking services, while in Seattle, if the city needs content production, they may submit a proposal to Converge Media, a local news organisation. These contracts offer a way to financially support independent media without raising suspicion of influencing the news coverage.
In addition to these financial strategies, public policy measures have also been introduced at the state level. States like New Mexico, New Jersey, and California, have implemented public policies such as journalism fellowships and tax credits for newspaper subscriptions, to bolster local reporting and address the decline in local news outlets. Wisconsin and Illinois are also considering similar legislation.
In the summer of 2023, amidst ongoing debates on artificial intelligence’s cultural and economic impact, the American Journalism Project (AJP) announced a partnership with OpenAI. This collaboration aimed to provide funding for the innovative use of AI in local newsrooms. Although OpenAI’s donation of US$10 million was smaller than recent contributions from Meta and Google, it marked a significant moment where a leading technology company sought to support the news industry through philanthropy.
Sarabeth Berman, CEO of the American Journalism Project, emphasised the opportunity to involve local news organisations in shaping the implications of generative AI. She highlighted the dual role of venture philanthropists in both fostering innovation and mitigating the financial decline of local news. AJP is part of a broader movement of venture philanthropy programmes, including the Google News Initiative and Meta Journalism Project, which are increasingly influential in journalism. These organisations position themselves as key players in revitalising local journalism through entrepreneurial ideologies and market-oriented solutions.
Venture philanthropists frame the crisis in local news as an opportunity for innovation, portraying themselves as essential in matching financial resources with deserving organisations. They argue that their investments can achieve sustainability and growth in local news where market forces have failed. John Thornton, a co-founder of AJP, compared venture philanthropy to venture capital, suggesting that these funds are necessary to support mission-driven news organisations.
This approach links financial growth directly to the success of local journalism, positioning revenue generation as a critical measure of success. AJP’s impact report claims that their grantees generally grow significantly in revenue, suggesting that venture philanthropy can address market failures in local journalism. However, critics note that much of this funding tends to benefit already affluent communities, raising questions about the equitable distribution of resources.
Venture philanthropists also play a crucial role in disseminating practical knowledge and technical capabilities in journalism. They offer training, best practice guides, and case studies to help news organisations integrate new technologies and business strategies. For example, the Google News Initiative supports projects like the Post and Courier’s use of Google Analytics to develop paid newsletters, demonstrating how local newsrooms can adopt innovative practices to drive revenue growth.
The influence of venture philanthropy also extends beyond financial support, to shaping the discourse around journalism’s future. These organisations produce significant discussion about journalism, promoting their own role as arbiters of change and innovation. They position themselves as knowledgeable experts who understand how to best use available philanthropic capital to achieve sustainability in journalism.
The discourse of venture philanthropy often merges financial and public missions, suggesting that market-oriented strategies can serve the public interest. For instance, Elizabeth Green, co-founder of AJP, stressed the need for expert teams to raise diverse revenue and develop strategic leadership within local news organisations. This framing implies that financial sustainability and public mission are intertwined and that successful organisations must navigate market realities to fulfil their public roles.
Venture philanthropy organisations also respond to journalism critiques, such as the need for diversity and equity, by framing these issues as mission and business goals. They highlight successful examples of integrating diversity into their product and audience development strategies, suggesting that these efforts can attract philanthropic funding.
According to this study, venture philanthropy’s blending of financial concerns with public mission creates a powerful discourse that shapes how resources are directed in journalism. While some critics argue for increased public and government support for local journalism, venture philanthropists present a compelling alternative by leveraging market-driven innovation and philanthropic capital to address the ongoing crises that the industry has been facing for more than a decade.
Creech, B. (2024). Venture Philanthropy, Local News, and the Murky Promise of Innovation. Media and Communication, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7496
Reaching young people has become a strategic priority for Public Service Media (PSM) in many Western countries, as these organisations face challenges in engaging those audiences with the news. To expand their reach, PSM organisations often rely on social media platforms. However, this reliance creates dependencies on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. These platforms are driven by commercial interests, leading to datafication and algorithmic filtering, which do not align with the values driving PSM, such as universality, independence, diversity, and accountability. As gatekeepers, these platforms significantly influence news dissemination, posing challenges to journalistic integrity and PSM’s core ideals. These concerns are particularly relevant given the central role of digital intermediaries in reaching youth.
This study focuses on the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK), Norway’s public service media (PSM) organisation, and its efforts to target young audiences on Snapchat. Despite the global popularity of TikTok, Snapchat remains a major platform in Norway, particularly among young adults. As scholarly research on how newsrooms navigate Snapchat’s rules and metrics for disseminating news is limited, this study aims to fill that gap by exploring how journalists produce news for Snapchat, while adhering to PSM obligations and examining the implications for content dissemination and audience reach.
The research uncovers complex gatekeeping processes throughout the publication process, referred to as “dynamic gatekeeping,” in which journalists navigate Snapchat’s algorithmic gatekeeping. This involves interpreting audience metrics, adhering to Snapchat’s guidelines, and responding to audience reactions as seen in analytics. NRK’s news flow on Snapchat involves a reciprocal relationship between journalistic decisions and platform algorithms. The study identifies three key gate-keeping stages: pre-publication, publication-stage, and post-publication.
In the pre-publication phase, journalists at NRK UNG (NRK Youth) use Snapchat metrics from the Story Studio to prioritise and produce news stories. This data provides detailed information about the audience and influences decisions on news topic selection and presentation. The goal is to maximise engagement from the target youth demographic. The newsroom monitors metrics such as click-through rates, reading times, and audience demographics. They adjust the content to align with audience preferences and algorithmic influences. Despite relying on these metrics, journalists argue that they prioritise independent editorial decisions based on news values and ethics.
During the publication stage, Snapchat’s algorithms directly influence the selection of “tiles” (front page visuals for Snapchat editions) through ABCD testing. This testing helps determine which tile will engage the audience most effectively, influencing the prominence of specific stories. The newsroom creates multiple tiles for each story and uses algorithmic feedback to improve future editions. This process highlights the interplay between the platform’s algorithmic decisions and journalistic content creation.
Post-publication, Snapchat’s flagging system enforces community guidelines by restricting the dissemination of content deemed inappropriate. This flagging often frustrates journalists, as it limits the reach of what they believe to be important stories. Violations, such as those related to graphic content or commercial elements, result in flagged stories that only reach existing subscribers. Journalists adapt by modifying content to avoid flagging but express concerns about the inconsistent enforcement of guidelines and its impact on editorial integrity.
The study examines the complex and ever-changing relationship between PSM journalists and Snapchat’s algorithmic gatekeeping. It underscores the difficulties of upholding journalistic independence while reaching out to younger audiences on external platforms. These findings call for careful consideration of the implications for PSM’s editorial autonomy and the credibility of their news coverage. As PSM organisations grapple with these challenges, the study recommends additional research into the broader effects of platform algorithms on journalistic methods.
Røsok-Dahl, H., & Kristine Olsen, R. (2024). Snapping the news: Dynamic gatekeeping in a public service media newsroom reaching young people with news on Snapchat. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241255701
The role of AI in journalism offers both benefits and risks. Whilst it enhances efficiency for tasks such as transcription and data analysis, it also poses ethical concerns, propagates misinformation, and causes dependency on tech companies. Responsible AI use, editorial oversight, and robust training are crucial to navigating these growing challenges. Support from donors is essential for building capacity and fostering innovation in newsrooms.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to: “a collection of ideas, technologies, and techniques that relate to a computer system’s capacity to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence.”
Large language models (LLMs), able to comprehend and generate human language text, became widely accessible in late 2022, with OpenAI’s ChatGPT pioneering these efforts. Following its launch, companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft released their own generative AI products, integrating the technology into existing systems.
The role of AI in journalism emerges as a double-edged sword. Whilst it has already inflicted much harm through social media algorithms and surveillance practices, it also holds promise for enhancing efficiency in the media. Journalists can harness AI to mitigate risks through informed adoption, leveraging its capabilities to increase the speed of monotonous tasks, track malign government funding, and identify deepfakes, particularly benefiting data journalists. However, it is imperative to maintain awareness of the risks posed by AI, especially considering past mistakes with social media and the tendency towards overreliance on it for audience reach.
AI Usage in Newsrooms
Media professionals are increasingly making use of AI tools. A May 2024 global survey conducted by the public relations firm Cision found that 47% of journalists used tools like ChatGPT or Bard. At the same time, in an AP report published in April, 70% of respondents, journalists and editors worldwide indicated that their organisation had, at some point, used various AI tools.
However, geographical differences in AI usage in newsrooms can also be observed. According to a new report by the Thomson Foundation and Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), focusing on the Visegrad countries (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary), “AI adoption is slower and marked by ethical concerns, highlighting the need for careful management and collaboration.”
At the same time, journalists have been using AI tools for longer and on a much broader spectrum than most would think, says Damian Radcliffe, a professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Oregon.
In a recent survey by the Oxford-based Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ), media professionals mentioned back-end automation, such as transcription and copyediting, where AI tools are the most helpful in the media industry. This was followed by recommender systems, content production, and commercial applications. Another common example of AI application in newsrooms includes data analysis and automating repetitive tasks. This helps improve efficiency and frees up journalists to focus on more complex stories, whilst simultaneously increasing the speed and decreasing the costs of content production and distribution. Nowadays, “it is almost impossible to work without AI tools, especially if one works with large datasets,” says Willem Lenders, Program Manager at Limelight Foundation.
AI tools are used in newsrooms for various other purposes as well. According to Radcliffe, one significant use is in programmatic advertising: over 90% of US ads are handled this way. Another innovative application is dynamic paywalls, which adjust based on user-specific factors such as location, device, and visit frequency. This approach, employed by larger outlets like The Atlantic and The Wall Street Journal, allows organisations to tailor the number of free articles and subscription offers to individual users. Additionally, AI is used for predictive analytics, helping newsrooms identify trending stories, influence article placement, devise social media strategies, and plan follow-up stories.
AI-Associated Risks
The use of AI in journalism also presents significant concerns, as the usage of AI poses substantial risks related to reliability, ethics, and the dissemination of misinformation. AI’s ability to “hallucinate” facts, or generate plausible but incorrect information, makes its use in information gathering problematic. Therefore, experts argue that news organisations should implement ethical guidelines and robust training to navigate these challenges.
Limelight’s Lenders emphasises that responsible AI use depends not just on its application but on who owns the tool, drawing parallels to the influence of big tech on content distribution. He advocates for a balanced use that includes human oversight, to prevent the exclusion of critical editorial judgment. Radcliffe also identifies the most significant risk as removing human oversight in newsrooms. He thinks there are topics where AI tools can be helpful, for example in sports coverage, which can often be quite formulaic. However, other beats might require more nuance, and AI cannot provide that yet. An example of this risk is the insensitive headline generated by AI in an MSN obituary of a basketball player, underscoring the need for editorial supervision to avoid catastrophic mistakes. Furthermore, Lenders argues that LLMs regurgitate what has been written before, which can lead to reproducing harmful stereotypes.
The current function of generative AI jeopardises access to trustworthy information. It does not distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources and often fails to disclose its primary source of information, making verification difficult. This amplifies misinformation and public confusion, emphasising users’ need for digital and media literacy.
Accountability is another critical issue. Unlike human-generated content, AI lacks clear attribution, undermining public trust in journalism. Journalists’ intellectual property can even be compromised this way, as AI often uses information from journalistic articles without credit, exacerbating existing viability issues in journalism.
Radcliffe notes that smaller newsrooms might embrace AI as a cost-saving measure, reducing the number of reporters. Those roles will never come back. He warns of the dangers of dependency on platforms, highlighting the lessons from social media where algorithm shifts have impacted reach, and the control has always remained with tech companies. “It is not a partnership; all power lies with the tech companies,” he argues.
Lenders echoes this concern, pointing out that the primary aim of tech companies is profit, not public interest or quality information. He suggests developing independent tools and technologies, like those by OCCRP, ICIJ, Bellingcat, Independent Tech Alliance, AI Forensics, and others. However, these require significant investment and user support from the journalism sector.
Radcliffe further cautions that news organisations risk becoming redundant if users turn to chatbots for information. To mitigate this, he advises preventing chatbots from scraping content and looking to the newsrooms to create unique content that adds value beyond what AI can offer. He believes fostering trust, and educating the audience on why journalism matters, are crucial. Lenders concurs that AI cannot replace the relationship with the audience, highlighting trust as the main issue. He also believes smaller independent newsrooms will recognise that they cannot maintain quality by relying solely on AI.
The debate about AI in journalism often polarises into two extremes, Lenders adds that it will either save or ruin the industry. “We don’t need to worry about the robots, we have to look at the reality,” he argues. A realistic perspective acknowledges the harm algorithms have already caused, such as in ad distribution and spreading disinformation. An AI Forensics study showed how Meta allowed pro-Russia propaganda ads to flood the EU, illustrating the potential for AI misuse.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also raises alarms about AI-generated websites that mimic real media sites and siphon ad revenue from legitimate news outlets. Research by NewsGuard identified numerous sites predominantly written by AI, aiming solely for profit by maximising clicks with minimal effort. This approach eliminates ethical journalism, floods the market with questionable articles, and diminishes access to reliable information. These AI-generated articles also sometimes contain harmful falsehoods, underscoring the moral necessity to disclose AI-generated content and ensure transparency, so readers can critically evaluate the information.
The Potential Role of Funders
In this evolving landscape, donors could play a crucial role, not by providing direct solutions but by supporting organisations which, together, form an ecosystem that nurtures innovation. Their involvement could bridge the gap between technology and policy, particularly in journalism. For example, donors can invite experts with a high level of tech knowledge to critically assess potential pitfalls and ensure they are well-informed, in order to avoid simplistic utopian or dystopian narratives.
Lenders highlights the importance of donors informing themselves about the possible harms and risks of AI and encouraging grantees to improve their technology knowledge profoundly. He emphasises the need for good core funding to avoid reliance on cheaper, riskier solutions. Lenders argues that, given the rapid pace of technological change, it is crucial to have robust organisations that can anticipate risks and support journalists in connecting with these entities or conducting their analyses. Rather than shifting funding every few years, building capacity within newsrooms and CSOs to keep up with AI advancements is a more sustainable strategy.
Conversely, Radcliffe underscores the necessity of AI training, particularly for smaller news organisations. Whilst large organisations are well-resourced and capable of developing in-house AI solutions, smaller ones often lack the resources to follow or contribute to debates on AI. These smaller newsrooms are also less able to engage in legal battles against tech companies. Thus, donors should support them in lobbying for their needs and amplifying their voices. Training surrounding the uses and dangers of AI, especially increasing revenue through methods like dynamic paywalls and facilitating connections among smaller newsrooms to share their AI experiences and use cases, are crucial steps donors can take. “But I would encourage all donors to ask newsrooms what they need,” he adds. “Don’t dictate the training and funding, ask the outlets you want to support how you can best help them in this space.”
Smaller publishers often turn to third-party AI solutions from platform companies due to the high costs and challenges of independent development, such as the need for extensive computing power, competition for tech talent, and the scarcity of large datasets. These platform solutions offer convenience, scalability, and cost-effectiveness, allowing publishers to leverage AI capabilities without the financial burden of in-house development. However, Lenders points out the risks associated with cheaper solutions. “We need newsrooms that have the capacity to be critical of what they use,” he argues, adding that it is not a question of utopia versus dystopia: understanding how AI tools can help newsrooms requires a realistic analysis of its benefits and risks.
Launched in 2018, the Google News Initiative (GNI) aimed to strengthen journalism through collaboration with news institutions through financial and training support paid for by Google. The initiative claimed to focus on elevating quality journalism, evolving business models for sustainability, and empowering news organisations through technology. Initially targeting European newsrooms, the programme later expanded globally, supporting hundreds of media organisations with over US$ 300 million. Amidst journalism’s institutional crisis due to digitisation and declining ad revenue, the GNI provided crucial funding, especially in regions like the Middle East and Africa.
Innovation in journalism, essential for survival, encompasses incremental and radical changes driven by technological advancements like AI and data practices. Responsible innovation emphasises anticipating and mitigating potential harms, ensuring innovations align with societal values. However, challenges include power imbalances and the risk of infrastructural capture, where news organisations depend heavily on tech platforms for innovation, potentially compromising editorial autonomy. As digital platforms shape news content distribution, news publishers increasingly rely on them, raising concerns about platform power and editorial autonomy. The concepts of media capture and infrastructural autonomy shed light on the implications of the financial support given by digital platforms to news organisations to cover costs related to innovation projects.
The GNI Innovation Challenge, analysed in this academic article, has supported 43 projects in Africa and the Middle East until 2021, with a significant concentration in 2019 and 2021. Projects primarily focused on technological innovation, audience building, and business model development, with a notable emphasis on AI solutions in newsrooms. The study shows that this support has been unevenly distributed across the region. Middle Eastern countries like Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon have attracted more projects involving emerging technologies compared to other countries.
Yet, as the study found, the implementation of technological innovations in these regions has been faced with several challenges, including the lack of skilled professionals, high hiring costs, and reliance on third-party vendors. Moreover, many projects have not led to viable products due to funding limitations and a lack of ongoing support. Additionally, the co-funding requirement imposed by Google on the media outlets requiring this support has added a financial strain on news organisations, further hurting their sustainability.
While some projects strove for inclusiveness by engaging diverse stakeholders, others were developed primarily by organisations outside Africa and the Middle East, limiting their impact on local development. Generally, the reliance on platforms like Google for infrastructure and funding creates dependencies that can hinder the autonomy of news organisations.
In conclusion, while the GNI Innovation Challenge has provided valuable support for technological innovation in Africa and the Middle East, there are significant challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the sustainability and inclusivity of these projects.
de-Lima-Santos, M., Munoriyarwa, A., Elega, A., & Papaevangelou, C. (2023). Google News Initiative’s Influence on Technological Media Innovation in Africa and the Middle East. Media and Communication, 11(2), 330-343. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6400
In an era where the value of journalism is increasingly scrutinised, understanding its impact presents a complex puzzle. From traditional metrics to innovative methodologies, the quest to measure impact evolves, with new tools emerging.
Both journalists and donors recognise that the media operates within a larger ecosystem, making it difficult to isolate and measure the precise impact of journalism. Furthermore, impact can vary significantly depending on the goals and priorities of different journalists and newsrooms. For instance, while one news organisation might prioritise educating its audience and measure impact by assessing changes in public opinion on contentious issues, other outlets may focus on different indicators.
Still, journalists and media organisations worldwide are engaged in assessing the impact of their work, driven by a dual motivation of self-evaluation and the need to demonstrate value to donors, investors, and the public. Increasingly, media outlets recognise that communicating the positive outcomes of their work not only boosts trust and loyalty among audiences but also holds potential for revenue growth.
This shift reflects a common belief among funders that investing in journalism requires tangible evidence of impact, moving beyond viewing it solely as a public good. Such recognition underscores the need for donors to evaluate their investments in media and journalism programmes thoroughly.
Insights into measuring impact, such as those outlined by the International Journalists’ Network, highlight its multifaceted nature, encompassing not only the dissemination of information but also its broader societal effects. From shaping public opinion and encouraging public discourse to driving policy change, the impact of journalism spans various phases, often defying simple cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, methodologies for measuring impact extend beyond traditional metrics like online engagement, with a broad range of tools developed by academics. Add to that cross-border collaborations, or even negative consequences, such as potential backlash against journalists.
To analyse impact, there are a lot of different studies across various fields like economics and political science, focusing on topics from government spending and corruption to voter behaviour, argues Anya Schiffrin, director of the media, technology, and communications specialisation at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), adding that these “measurement tools are becoming more and more sophisticated.”
The Impact Dashboard, developed by Pluralis in collaboration with the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), is one of such tools. It evaluates supported media organisations across three key dimensions: long-term sustainability, plurality, and accessibility to information, analysing impact on three levels. On the micro level, it tracks how supported organisations change in terms of revenues and audience reach over the course of working with the funder. On the meso level, the Dashboard collects evidence to measure the level of media plurality in the country. Finally, on the macro level, it examines the impact on society, searching for evidence such as potential policy changes resulting from coverage by the media receiving the grant.
Another approach is proposed by Schiffrin, who, with Andre Correa d’Almeida, Lindsay Green-Barber, Adelina Yankova, and Dylan W. Groves developed a multi-faceted metric system to analyse media impact. As they argue, three primary research strands contribute to understanding media impact: social scientists focus on identifying causal effects, often related to citizen knowledge, attitudes, and government responses; media researchers offer accounts of causal processes and diverse media effects; and media practitioners provide an insider’s view, highlighting the impact on journalists and media organisations. These approaches can complement each other, hence their proposed taxonomy that can unify measures of media impact, and inform decisions by practitioners and donors.
The taxonomy comprises three levels of impact. At the individual level, media reports influence beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. The network/organisation level involves the collective impact on social networks, norms, and actions, including effects within media organisations and journalist communities. The institution level pertains to long-term effects on institutions and culture. The taxonomy also distinguishes between external impact on society and internal impact within the journalism community, providing a framework that can be adapted to different objectives, acknowledging the diverse goals of donors, activists, journalists, and media outlets. “One can look at the table and then measure those metrics their organisation cares about,” Schiffrin said.
In evaluating the impact of journalism, it is important to recognise that some news organisations have smaller audiences rendering metrics like pageviews or listenership alone inadequate. Furthermore, while one traditional measure of journalism’s impact involves influencing government policy or prompting officials to address issues, achieving such outcomes often demands sustained reporting over an extended period.
Furthermore, in countries with more autocratic rulers and intensified attacks on journalism, government responses to policy concerns or official misconduct exposed by investigative reporting cannot be expected. In fact, in such landscapes if donor funding contributes to the survival of a news organisation, it can already be perceived as having a significant impact. “It is important to keep the flame alive,” Schiffrin said. “You don’t want these outlets to die.” She added that, when measuring impact, journalism donors should avoid burdening grantees with overly demanding reporting requirements, focusing instead on listening to their feedback.
The Ethical Media Alliance (EMA) in Romania aims to tackle quantitative metrics: the main flaw of the digital advertising ecosystem that undermines public interest journalism. The initiative aims to allocate funds based on ethical principles to support trustworthy media in achieving a positive social impact and financial sustainability, while also securing brand safety for advertisers.
In the age of web 2.0, the advertising market disproportionally incentivises clickbait content. The quest for the higher reach at the lowest cost has led to an emphasis on viral content, often at the expense of responsible, public interest journalism. However, amidst this challenging landscape, initiatives like the Ethical Media Alliance (EMA) in Romania are emerging as beacons of hope for independent media organisations, especially those dedicated to public interest journalism.
The initiative was born as a “result of frustration over how much money is funnelled to irresponsible content producers,” says Dragos Stanca, EMA’s initiator. He thinks that there is a critical flaw in the digital advertising ecosystem, where the focus on quantitative metrics such as clicks and impressions undermines the value of public interest journalism. This has led even serious publishers to embrace clickbait content to survive in the era of programmatic advertising.
In the first phase of the project, EMA positions itself as a not-for-profit sales house guided by ethical principles, involving journalistic startups and projects often excluded from commercial funding due to their relatively modest audience numbers. Stanca acknowledges the necessity of speaking the language of the advertisers, thereby integrating metrics and key performance indicators (KPIs) into their approach. Additionally, EMA aims to foster a positive social impact by supporting content essential for democracy.
The network currently includes 15 journalistic projects employing over 120 journalists, with a joint monthly reach of 1.2 million users and 550,000 video views on average. Advertisers are required to commit to a minimum one-month campaign that spans across all portals. In other words, the same ad is on display on all the sites thus increasing its reach to a level that, as Stanca puts it, “makes sense for a media buyer.” EMA ensures brand safety by allowing only organisations producing public interest content to join. This guarantees advertisers that their ads will be associated with responsible content.
Furthermore, EMA also reforms the distribution of ad revenue in the network. Half of it is distributed among partners based on the number of employed journalists, while the other half is based on quantitative metrics (35% based on the number of ad impressions and 15% on social media reach). This follows the usual ‘cost per mille’ (CPM) approach, which is the cost an advertiser pays for one thousand views or impressions of an advertisement.
The initiative sets an ambitious target: diverting 1% of the total ad spending in Romania to public interest journalism. In Romania, where the total ad market is €700m a year, with only €30-35m spent online by local companies (out of a total digital ad spending of €255m), the EMA initiative has the potential to double the funds allocated to digital journalism. Currently, no more than €3.5-5 million a year is allocated to digital journalism, according to the initiators of the Ethical Media Alliance.
Stanca believes that shifting even relatively smaller amounts to trustworthy media could significantly enhance their financial sustainability. Particularly for emerging journalistic startups, even a few thousand euros per month can make a significant difference.
Early successes are evident, with the initiative launching last fall and the first campaigns commencing in October. The two largest banks in Romania have joined to date, contributing €35,000 for the first two months as a test campaign.
“Drawing from our experience in the commercial digital brokerage market, I can confidently say that anything that is new takes up to one year to become adopted by the market,” says Stanca, adding that he aims for an ad spending of €100,000 per month by the end of the year.
Recently, he outlined the operating principles of the alliance and presented what his team considers to be an initial format for ethical advertising in a dialogue hosted by independent journalist Petrisor Obae, who operates the media-focused portal Pagina de Media. The principles the EMA operates on aim to create an “ethical algorithm” to be used for the allocation of funds from the ad space. The principles the EMA operates on aim to create an “ethical algorithm” to be used for the allocation of funds from the ad space. The primary goal is to provide enough resources to motivate especially young people to choose a career in journalism, according to Stanca. Moreover, the EMA wants to motivate them to produce content in and for the public interest, “not just to focus on gaining the programmatic advertising revenues or, more seriously, to exclusively serve the interests of media owners with questionable agendas or to write solely for and about brands that are essentially seeking disguised advertising,” Stanca added. “The Ethical Media sales house part is just the first phase of the project; we plan to propose additional initiatives that support an ecosystem which, in our opinion, is essential for the survival of democracy,” he said.
While the initiative is currently confined to Romania, Stanca is open to expansion. As EMA pioneers ethical advertising to support public interest journalism, it could have an impact far beyond national boundaries, ushering in a new era for responsible media funding.
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