join

The quality of news articles is assessed not only by their content but also by the media brand which publishes them. In today’s information-saturated environment, brands serve as cognitive shortcuts for readers, helping them navigate vast amounts of information. Consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), defined as the value a brand holds based on consumers’ awareness and associations, plays a critical role in this process. It is crucial for those providing financial support to journalism to understand this dynamic, as it emphasises the significance of brand reputation and the potential influence of brand equity on public trust and the perception of journalistic quality.

The role of journalism in supporting democratic societies is widely acknowledged. The quality of journalism is often gauged by its impartiality, reliability, and factual accuracy. However, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of news quality. There is a discrepancy between how journalists and consumers evaluate quality. However, studies indicate that the majority of news recipients can distinguish high-quality articles. This research extends this understanding by examining how media brands affect recipients’ assessments of news articles, particularly through CBBE.

Media brands act as reliable indicators of news quality, particularly in an environment where readers cannot personally verify the events covered in news stories. Brands convey emotional and cognitive associations that shape perceptions of content even before it is consumed. For example, articles from well-known, quality brands are typically rated more favourably than those from tabloid brands, even when the content is identical. This makes the media brand a critical factor in shaping audience evaluations, particularly in the online news environment, where strong brands often exert a greater influence on news selection than the content itself. The increasing prevalence of sensationalism has further obscured the distinction between quality and tabloid media, resulting in a convergence where both seek to deliver factual yet appealing content.

The study reveals that consumers rely on heuristic cues, such as media brands, to assess news quality when direct content evaluation is not possible. In this context, CBBE emerges as a critical factor. A positive CBBE results in stronger brand loyalty, higher perceived quality, and more favourable brand associations, all of which influence how consumers assess news quality. The familiarity of a media brand can prompt the formation of cognitive associations, which in turn influence the perceived credibility and accuracy of the news articles it publishes. The research demonstrates that articles from reputable brands like Süddeutsche Zeitung are generally evaluated more favourably than those from sensationalist brands like Bild. This effect is mediated by CBBE.

For journalism funders and donors, the implications are clear. CBBE, driven by brand awareness and consumer associations, directly impacts the perceived quality of news, particularly in areas such as factual accuracy, impartiality, and relevance. News outlets with a strong, positive brand identity can effectively signal high-quality journalism to their audiences, even in cases where the actual content may not be significantly different from that of their competitors. This indicates that maintaining a robust and reliable media brand is vital for maintaining audience trust and ensuring that quality journalism is recognised and valued by the public.

The research also examined how the impact of CBBE differs across various quality subdimensions. It revealed that brand influence was particularly strong in assessments of factual accuracy and impartiality, while its impact was less pronounced for dimensions like comprehensibility. This suggests that readers may rely more heavily on brand equity when evaluating elements of news that are more challenging to assess based on the content alone. For journalism funders and donors, this emphasises the value of investing not only in the production of quality journalism but also in the development and maintenance of strong media brands. A positive brand image is an effective tool for ensuring that quality journalism is perceived as such by its audience.

The convergence of quality and tabloid journalism also presents another challenge. The role of media brands in signalling news quality becomes even more critical. Funders and donors need to consider how this convergence affects public perception of journalistic quality and what it means for their support of independent, high-quality journalism. In a media landscape where strong brands can enhance the perceived quality of journalism, supporting media outlets in building their brand equity may be as important as funding content creation.

Nevertheless, while CBBE plays a significant role, other factors like brand knowledge and the physical presence of media outlets (e.g., their visibility in public spaces) also contribute to how news quality is perceived. For funders and donors, understanding the full range of factors that influence audience perception of quality is essential for making informed decisions about where to direct their support. By helping media outlets build positive brand equity and maintain a strong public presence, funders can enhance the impact of their contributions, ensuring that quality journalism is recognised and trusted by the public.

Leuppert, R., Bruns, S., Rahe, V., & Scherer, H. (2024). What’s a news media brand worth? Investigating the effect of cognitive brand representations on recipients’ quality assessment of news articles. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241285497  

While the new moderate government in Poland has taken steps to restore media pluralism and increase media freedom, experts stress that true reform requires more than policy shifts. Restoring trust and fostering genuine media diversity will be a prolonged effort, offering critical lessons for countries struggling with illiberal governments and their legacies.

In October 2023, after eight years under the governance of the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party, Poland witnessed a significant shift in the political landscape as voters turned out in record numbers to elect a new moderate government led by Donald Tusk. The election followed a period during which there was a notable decline in media freedom and independence. Upon assuming power in 2015, PiS promptly sought to consolidate control over state-owned media, transforming them into instruments of government propaganda. The party introduced legislation that gave it the authority to appoint management for state-controlled broadcasters and agencies, effectively transforming TVP, Polish Radio, and the PAP news agency into mouthpieces. The impact on media pluralism was significant, with consequences extending beyond the state sector.

The government’s influence extended to private media outlets, as evidenced by the 2021 acquisition of Polska Press by state-owned oil company PKN Orlen. Following the acquisition, numerous editors were dismissed, resulting in a shift in the publication’s editorial stance to align with the government’s perspective.

The government installed following the 2023 elections has committed to implementing measures to restore media pluralism. However, Michał Głowacki, an associate professor at the University of Warsaw, highlights that Poland’s media landscape remains polarised, split into “two competing media tribes.” This polarisation is further compounded by opacity in media ownership, which complicates assessments of genuine pluralism. Despite the new government’s pledge to increase pluralism, tangible results remain elusive, according to Głowacki, who adds, “I would like to see much more discussion about restoring media pluralism.”

One of the most significant actions was directed at the public service broadcaster, TVP. During the PiS administration, TVP became associated with far-right propaganda, prompting criticism from the European Union and numerous international organisations promoting media freedom. In December 2023, shortly after the Tusk government assumed power, Poland’s culture minister took prompt action to replace the leadership of TVP with a new management team. While this decision has been welcomed as a catalyst for change, it has also attracted criticism. Those in support of the former administration and a number of human rights organisations have expressed concerns about the precedent this sets. Głowacki highlights that public media has historically been susceptible to political influence, irrespective of the governing party, making it a contentious issue that dates back to the 1990s.

Marcin Gadziński, Program Director for Europe at the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), believes that while TVP no longer operates as a blatant propaganda machine, there is still room for improvement in terms of achieving a more balanced content output. “There are better journalists now, and the decision-making positions are filled by people with good reputations,” he states. However, he also notes that certain topics remain off-limits, and the TV station rarely criticises the government. Głowacki agrees that TVP’s current state is far from optimal, particularly with regard to the need for more adaptive strategies in light of the evolving media landscape and the emergence of multigenerational public service media.

The challenges associated with this transformation extend beyond editorial policy. As Gadziński notes, the dismissal of hundreds of employees from TVP has created a significant shortage of qualified journalists and editors, often drawing talent away from independent outlets and making it more challenging for those outlets to retain skilled professionals.

The issues do not solely affect the public service broadcaster. The two largest private broadcasters in Poland, TVN and Polsat, are also facing their own set of challenges. Warner Bros. Discovery’s plan to sell TVN Group has prompted speculation about potential buyers, including the Czech PPF group and an American broadcaster, as well as a Hungarian billionaire with close ties to Fidesz, the party of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of PiS. Gadziński questions the likelihood of such a sale to Orban-linked interests, noting that “Orban-related business groups are already active in the area, looking for opportunities, but would an American mega-corporation sell something to them? I doubt so.” Nevertheless, he also states that nothing is impossible.

Other significant stakeholders in this challenging situation are Orlen Press, which oversees the largest group of regional newspapers in Poland, and Ruch, the second-largest newspaper distributor, both of which are owned by PKN Orlen, the state oil company. Despite reports that Orlen is considering divesting its media holdings, there have been few public developments. Gadziński suggests that even if Polska Press were sold, its reputation, tarnished by political appointments and disregard for market trends, would be difficult to rebuild. Głowacki believes that selling these assets would not significantly change the landscape, as “people don’t really buy their newspapers anymore.”

State-controlled advertising funds represent another key factor influencing the Polish media landscape. Tadeusz Kowalski’s analysis of Kantar Media data demonstrated that state-owned enterprises allocated a considerable portion of their advertising budgets to media outlets that reflected the government’s narrative. This practice, which aimed to maintain favourable coverage while limiting the financial viability of critical outlets, attracted significant criticism from international media freedom advocates. Głowacki states that, as yet, there is no updated data available on whether these practices have undergone a change under the new administration.

In the coming period, the challenges to restoring media pluralism are significant. Gadziński states that PiS embedded “landmines” throughout the system before leaving office, presenting the current administration with a dilemma: whether to move ahead and “lose some limbs”, or to navigate cautiously and make compromises. The issue of reclaiming public media without controversy is a significant one. “How else could public media have been taken back? No idea,” Gadziński said, emphasising the importance of leadership by individuals of integrity for the implementation of long-term solutions. “My advice for other countries in similar situations is to put such people in [those] positions.”

The Polish media landscape remains highly fragmented, reflecting a broader cultural and trust deficit. Głowacki highlights that the absence of a “common space for deliberation” intensifies polarisation, which legislation is unable to resolve on its own. The path to media reform needs more than just new regulations; it requires a significant cultural transformation to rebuild trust and foster an environment conducive to pluralism.

Nevertheless, these developments offer international journalism funders valuable insights. As Gadziński points out, providing support to independent media may be proving to be a sound investment. “Poland survived eight years because of the power of independent media,” which was the most robust in the region, as some international media groups are still active in the country. He adds that “a strong independent media is a battle worth fighting.”

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.

Despite an abundance of narratives pushing for green and just transitions, many fail to engage those capable of instigating real change. Laudes Foundation aims to disrupt this status quo by determining and disseminating compelling narratives grounded in solutions, tailored to spark meaningful action among key decision-makers across business, finance and government. Megan McGill, Senior Programme Manager explains how supporting journalism contributes to these goals, and what the most important lessons they have learned so far are.

Why did the Laudes Foundation start supporting media?

McGill: The Laudes Foundation is focused on inspiring and challenging industry to deliver a green, fair and inclusive transition. We apply system change principles in how we work, which means we also work at the level of mindset shift. In other words, if the stakeholders we are trying to influence don’t hold the right mindsets about what needs to change, why and how, then there is an intrinsic motivation entirely missing to move on the solutions we have at hand.

With this in mind, we designed a grant programme called “Narrative” of which journalism plays an important role. Journalism is a field with the reach to hold decision-makers accountable and highlight through evidence-based arguments where industry needs to and can move with more urgency and more ambition on a green, fair and inclusive transition. What this looks like in practice in our grant-making is helping newsrooms and staff (either directly or indirectly via capacity-building programmes) increase coverage of climate reporting across all beats of the newsroom – more evidence-based stories highlighting greenwashing or green-delay to hold laggards accountable, more solutions-driven stories to inspire other decision-makers to act, and more stories from workers and communities illustrating the intersection of climate and labour to show why industry action on climate must be just and how it can be. And media is an industry itself with investors and business leaders making decisions about media companies. So, in that respect, journalism is certainly an actor, not just a channel.

It was in early 2023 where we intentionally decided to increase our focus on this aspect of our Narrative grant programme. This was in some part due to what we saw as an increase in polarised reporting on climate, where progress is being undermined through mis- and disinformation, and also through headlines climate-related creating a sense of paralysis on what to do about the crisis. This means fact-based journalism is losing out, making it harder for progressive players to see that momentum is on their side or getting the laggards to feel like they need to start moving.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from this programme?

McGill: It is difficult to know if the news media grants are getting cut through with a broad swath of decision-makers. I think that the field of narrative shift relies significantly on metrics related to reach or even sometimes just a belief that the more a story is told, the more people who read it, it’s just going to change someone’s way of thinking. We can definitely agree that if something is not being talked about, then for sure it won’t be acted upon. But we are taking for granted that when something is talked about that it will get acted on.

I think my biggest learning is we’ve got a lot more work to do as a field, both the funders and the organisations that we fund to show the impact of narrative work. For sure with journalism, you can find cases where a reporting project has led to a policy change. That kind of pathway of impact is easy to explain, but I think the mindset shift, where you really start to get people to internalise a problem and to feel responsible for acting on it, which is what we need for wide scale action on the climate crisis, we haven’t started yet to systematically measure that kind of mindset shift. To get more effective at funding this kind of work, we have got to get better at measuring impact.

What kind of other challenges did you encounter?

McGill: The main challenge is that stories catalysed by Laudes-funded grants on just transition most often are not specific to the industries Laudes is trying to shift: built environment, finance, fashion and food. There are some, but not that many, and often they are not explaining what to do about just transitions. I think to motivate the private sector to move on just transition, we need more solutions-driven storytelling, because, in the absence of strong legislation to bring up the laggards, we will rely heavily on inspiration and a sense of a race to the top to move more progressive actors.

So, it has been a challenge to show that an increase in reporting on just transition more broadly will support the transition of industries Laudes is focused on.

What was the biggest success story? In general, how do you assess the success of your programs?

McGill: One of the things we can highlight as progress is that our partners have contributed to just transition entering mainstream news coverage. Evidence we are using is still focused on reach, but it’s certainly acting as a strong complement to the advocacy of other organisations on just transition.

Three years ago, when Laudes made its first grants in the space, just transition did not feature in mainstream news. I think it’s great progress to build, but again, there is still a push needed on measuring the real influence of this reporting on the mindsets of people with influence to act on the political, finance and business solutions to a just transition.

In which regions are you supporting media, and what kind of media do you work with?

McGill: We haven’t had a specific geographical scope in our grant making. We share with our partners the geographies of importance to Laudes Foundation, but it’s not a requirement to focus on these regions.

The media organisations that we work with and want to continue working with are nonprofit media organisations. Those who write and publish themselves, but we also work with organisations that are trying to enable the news industry to increase reporting on climate and just transitions like the Oxford Climate Journalism Network, Arena for Journalism in Europe and most recently, Solutions Journalism Network.

Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so? How should they prepare for such a programme?

McGill: What we quickly learned is that it was smart to focus on news media rather than any media. Given we are trying to reach decision-makers more directly with compelling narratives on just transitions, news is a good place to start rather than trying to also work on, for example, social media, film and entertainment. Where we could create more clarity is whether we as a funder should also start to address the more structural issues of the news industry rather than simply building the capacity of the industry to report more on climate and just transition. Can we do the latter without doing the former?

So my advice would be to create a clear scope boundary for working in journalism, to learn, and then grow from there.

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

Robert Brestan, Editor-in-Chief of HlidaciPes.org explains why independent news organisations need donor funding, and shares insights about how grantees think about such projects.

Let’s not kid ourselves. Quality, responsible and independent journalism cannot be done without money. The fact that a journalist is well (i.e. adequately) paid also determines the degree of his or her self-confidence, assertiveness and control vis-à-vis the powerful and often the rich.

This is just to begin with, to clarify our positions. Money is simply crucial, and it is impossible not to see that the crisis of media funding is being addressed practically all over the world. Advertising is declining, readers have gotten used to not paying for content, they often make do with just “information” from social media, or they don’t really want to bother with news anymore. 

But what to do about it then? In our project HlidaciPes.org, a Czech independent analytical-investigative website, we decided that we don’t want to go the way of the paywall. Although for some media it is a legitimate and functional way, we feel that writing for a narrow circle of subscribers only, persuading the already convinced and addressing only like-minded people is not the right journalistic approach.

Nevertheless, internet advertising generates only a small income for a medium of our size, just like direct support, such as voluntary donations, from readers, however much we appreciate it. That leaves only two relevant sources of income: the first is a generous and enlightened donor and philanthropist who ideally supports the medium selflessly and asks for nothing in return, let alone has any say in its content. Fortunately, such an endangered species still exists, even if it is on the verge of extinction. I am pleased to say that our project has one such supporter, covering about a third of our annual budget.

And then there are various grants. I dare to say that their importance is growing, and without them many media would have disappeared. I am therefore pleased to be able to describe and explain one thought here: many grants to support journalism actually make practical life in newsrooms quite complicated. It may sound strange, but it is true. Topics just for grants are invented, editorial offices guess whether the evaluator will be interested in this or that story, they try to fit within the boundaries of the grant, and often end up spending time on something they didn’t really want to write about.

And then there are all those beautiful, and certainly well-intentioned, ideas of grant providers that the best thing about journalism is sharing experiences, organising various conferences, talks, and cross-border cooperation – it sounds quite nice, but believe me, it has little to do with real journalism. It takes away human, mental, and financial capacities and time from real work. It may be fine, but it’s just something extra – after the basic needs have been met.

What journalists of independent media really and acutely need is simply money to operate. In our case, for example, that means only one thing – money dedicated to a regular income for our writers and contributors to do what they do best: come up with original topics and write about important issues.

So if the grants are really to be precisely targeted and to support journalists and journalism, they should be grants for the day-to-day journalistic work: researching topics, verifying information, meeting the actors of important events, investigating and then writing articles, interviews, reports, analyses, etc. 

If you want to support journalism – and if you do, we appreciate it immensely – you can help it most by simplifying things along the lines of the following:

  1. We (the donors) see/we know/we’ve verified that you’re doing honest and responsible journalistic work, and you meet the other conditions.
  2. Tell us which topics you cover/want to cover, maybe even through international cooperation.
  3. If you meet our criteria, we will send you money – not for sandwiches and coffee, not for conferences, not for sharing experiences, but for work.

If all grants looked like this, life would be much better. But not just for journalists. Everyone who understands the importance of independent media in a democratic and free society would be better off.

The platform Journalift, the first to offer media development support in local languages in the Western Balkans, was launched as part of a three-year program. Despite the conclusion of the project, it continues to thrive independently. Offering free courses and a wealth of information to fortify the impact of media development in the region, Journalift has taken on a life of its own.

In the ever-evolving landscape of media development, projects often conclude with the end of their funding and implementation period. However, some elements of these initiatives take on a life of their own, continuing to thrive and make a lasting impact. One of the most prominent examples is Journalift, a digital platform born out of the ‘Media for All’ programme, jointly implemented by the British Council, the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN), Intrac, and Thomson Foundation, and funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO).

The primary goal of the ‘Media for All’ programme was to bolster smaller media organisations in the Western Balkans, supporting them in developing feasible and innovative business plans. Thomson Foundation played a key role by providing grants, capacity building, business support, and dedicated mentoring, recognising that mentorship is key to achieving successful results.

One tangible outcome of this programme was the creation of Journalift, a multilingual platform launched in May 2021. While the ‘Media for All’ programme concluded last year, Journalift has continued to flourish. “It has a life of its own now,” says Sanja Lazic, the platform’s Managing Editor, and Thomson Foundation’s Communications and Outreach Coordinator for programs in Central and South East Europe.

What sets Journalift apart is its commitment to breaking language barriers. Many media workers in news outlets in the Western Balkans face challenges accessing training and upgrading their skills due to language constraints, as these trainings are often offered only in English. Journalift addressed this by providing up-to-date news and valuable content in all local languages, making it the first platform of its kind in the region.

Even though new content on the platform is mostly available in English only, the target audience is wider after the end of the ‘Media for All’ programme. Now, Journalift is not exclusive to former programme grantees; it serves as a free resource platform for anyone interested in media development. The resources are tailor-made particularly for the Western Balkans and Central Europe; however, audiences from other regions also find it useful.

The platform offers a variety of written content collected through various types of activities related to media development. For example, a small media organisation in rural Serbia can share its experience and the most important lessons learned in a capacity-building programme in which it worked with the help of a mentor on business ideas. This makes it useful not only for other outlets in a similar situation but also for funders who may gain ideas about which approaches work best in the region.

“The idea is to have tailor-made content, but also to give tips, tricks and advice to all media that can implement it,” Lazic says.

The platform also offers free training, including e-learning courses covering a wide range of topics from safety to podcasting. Some courses are available in local languages as well. Additionally, webinars are organised through the platform.

With a monthly visitor count of around 8,000, Journalift has become a vital hub for media professionals. It stands out as a unique and indispensable resource, demonstrating that even after the conclusion of a project, certain elements can transcend their initial purpose and continue to shape the landscape they were created to serve.

Over the course of three decades, USAID has distributed funds in more than 40 countries. It spent US $130 million in 2022 to strengthen independent media. Olesia Gardner, USAID’s Civil Society and Media Advisor discusses challenges and partnerships, and highlights success stories, emphasising the need for dedication and local engagement in media development, as well as the vital role of media pluralism in upholding democratic values.

Why is it important for USAID to support the media?

Gardner: Media pluralism serves as a crucial tool for maintaining a robust media landscape and upholding democratic values. For over three decades, USAID has helped to fuel the growth of an independent media ecosystem across Europe and Eurasia. However, today the sector is facing unprecedented challenges to both a free press and to broader democratic progress: financial insecurity, technological change, eroding public trust, and threats from powerful political and business interests.

USAID support strengthens the competitiveness, credibility, capacity, and innovation of content creators, and equips journalists and media outlets, including investigative journalists, with the tools they need to confront these challenges. USAID programmes also foster demand for high-quality news and information and improve critical thinking skills among news consumers.

What kind of news organisations are eligible for support? In which countries does USAID fund media?

Gardner: USAID has been one of the world’s leading supporters of independent media for over three decades in over 40 countries. In the 2022 financial year alone, USAID spent approximately US$130 million to support media and the free flow of information. USAID’s comprehensive approach to supporting media systems globally focuses on supporting both the supply side, so content producers and distributors, and the demand side, audiences and the legal enabling environment.

Our programmes help support journalists to develop and grow their audiences, establish more sustainable sources of revenue, leverage digital tools and technology to broaden their audiences and strengthen engagement with them, and protect themselves from increasing digital, legal, psycho-social, and physical threats to their lives and livelihoods. USAID’s support seeks to strengthen journalistic professionalism, establish media management skills, and promote free and independent media. Among our partners are news publishers, investigative journalists, and media organisations.

Do you implement the programmes yourself, or do you involve other organisations? What is the advantage of your approach?

Gardner: At USAID, we achieve our mission by partnering with individuals and organisations around the world. Working together, we find innovative and cost-effective solutions to pressing global challenges. We have been experimenting and encouraging partnerships as these bring together various expertise, personalities, and resources to achieve the most impact. For example, the Central Europe Media programme is a partnership between Zinc Network and IREX. The Media Trends conference in Budapest [in December 2023] was a success due to partnership with the Center for Sustainable Media. In Bulgaria, we have organised two workshops for journalists in partnership with the Association of European Journalists (AEJ).

Thinking of media support programmes in Europe, what are the biggest challenges you have to face?

Gardner: The economic sustainability of media outlets continues to be a major challenge. The question arises how traditional and emerging media can maintain relevance and financial viability in this ever-evolving landscape where entertainment and information consumption patterns are rapidly changing. We operate in an environment where holding the powerful to account is increasingly difficult, and where state actors routinely interfere with the advertising market, starving independent media to favour those willing to toe the government line.

Through our media support programmes we aim to create space and opportunities for news organisations to access different experiences, tools and thinking. In Central Europe, for example, we conducted an audience research, which was presented broadly to independent media in five countries. The feedback we received showed that the research helped better understand the audiences and also the importance of data-driven technologies in reaching outside the audience bubble. The overwhelming response to the research also showed a big appetite among the journalism community to introduce surveys in their work.

What was the biggest success story among your projects?

Gardner: USAID has lots of success stories to share, but I will focus on the ones achieved by the Balkan Media Assistance programme (BMAP). USAID launched the first iteration of BMAP in September 2017 with the objective of enhancing the professionalism and sustainability of media in the Balkan region by working with renowned and promising news media outlets to improve their digital content quality, business processes, and collaboration. The success of BMAP, which closed in July 2022, led to the launch of a second iteration of the programme, entitled Balkan Media Assistance Programme to Foster Organisation Readiness While Advancing Resilient Development (BMAP Forward), which unfolded in February 2022.

BMAP was designed and implemented by 10 media outlets spanning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. The successes of the BMAP programmes have been multi-faceted and far-reaching. All of its key partners have seen marked increases in their programmatic advertising revenue, significantly boosting their financial sustainability. For example, Bosnia-based media outlet Oslobođenje saw an increase in monthly programmatic advertising revenue of 206 percent, going from $2,770 at the start of the programme to $5,680 by the end of the programme. Meanwhile, Vijesti, an outlet based in Montenegro, increased its advertising revenue by 1,300 percent going from US$1,100 in revenue per month to US$10,200. Media partners participating in BMAP also emerged with a more robust network and stronger relations with other media outlets.

Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?

Gardner: Media development is a fascinating area, but it also requires dedication, patience and financial commitment. Sound analysis of the media and its environment in a country is needed before planning a new media development intervention to map the media outlets and the operational environment, donors and what type of assistance they provide, to identify the gaps in technical assistance and funding.

Our experience has proven that local consultants are in most demand […] as they already understand the local context, speak the language, and most importantly because of trust. Finally, the media development programmes tend to be the most successful when guided by the principles of locally-led development where partners are involved in defining their own vision for success; whereas the donors remain flexible and attentive to the needs for the partners.

Miguel Castro, head of Global Media Partnerships at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, shares his thoughts about partnering with large, mainstream media organisations, what the foundation looks for in their partners, the biggest challenges when working with such outlets, and how they measure the success of their projects.

The Gates Foundation is one of the largest spenders on media partnerships among philanthropies. Why is this field so important for the Foundation?

Castro: I’m not really sure whether the foundation is among the largest philanthropic investors in media anymore, the data is always very difficult to crack. We are definitely a large funder, no question about it, but in the last few years there has been an increased investment by philanthropic organisations that have not been traditionally investing in the media space, and there is very little tracking about all of that. But we do have a significant portfolio.

Ever since 2011, when the Foundation decided to centralise its work with media organisations through grantmaking in this unit called the Global Media Partnerships, there have been a couple of elements that substantiate this strategy. One of them has to do with helping media organisations who care about global health, development, and gender equality.

We feel that, in a sense, there has been a market failure of really high quality journalism on these issues. It is assumed that it does not bring in large audiences, although these assumptions have been challenged over the years, and we felt, and we still feel that the overall share of journalism that touches the social issues that are important for underserved populations is very small. So we have always wanted to address that market failure, by subsidising good quality journalism with organisations that share the same values and objectives.

While many donors focus on supporting outlets in financial need, the Gates Foundation forged partnerships also with mainstream media organisations, such as The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Financial Times, or Al Jazeera, among others. What is the idea behind these partnerships?

Castro: Whether the organisations we work with are for profit, or not for profit – that’s not the key question. The media organisations we work with should be mission driven. Their mission cannot only be financial return. Of course, that is a legitimate quest by any media organisation, and we want them to succeed and be sustainable, but it is not our priority.

We work with organisations that are driven by a mission that has to do with the role that we believe journalism plays in societies in being a service to society by informing its citizens. How is this impacting the development of communities across the world? That’s what matters to us. And we work with the most effective partners that we find, and often they are commercial organisations that have larger audiences. They’re more sophisticated in their approaches, have a greater understanding of engagement strategies, care about impact in the same way as we do. We have done a significant amount of partnerships with mission driven commercial organisations and in many cases, the very first relationship that they ever had with philanthropy organisations was with us.

Philanthropy is not the solution for the sustainability problems of media organisations. The media sector continues to struggle financially. We, philanthropies, at our best are at the forefront of the quests for social justice, even if it is just defining conversations, informing political debates. It doesn’t matter too much what type of organisation it is, for profit, or not for profit, if there is a mission alignment on what the role of journalism is.

What is the scope of these grants for mainstream media: do they focus on certain projects, reporting about certain topics, skill-building, maybe organisational development?

Castro: We call these relationships partnerships for a reason. They are never one thing only. There is this debate about core funding versus project based support, but I think it’s never one thing or the other. You can do core support and be project led, by providing a great deal of support for the necessary infrastructure. It is more about the design of the grants and how the funding is utilized.

So even though we do have grants and relationships that focus on sustainable development goals, or global health security, or gender equality, within that, there is always support for organizational development, there is always capacity building. Many grants pay for improving the capacity of an organization to understand their impact and their engagement and their audience, sometimes even developing products. On a few occasions we have actually provided catalytic start-up funding for the creation of an organisation.

It is always a result of smart design, and it is an important factor that we have long term commitments to our partners. Since 2018. all our grants are for three years or longer. In three years, even if it is project based funding, there is a lot of organizational development that happens.

What was the biggest success story among these partnerships with mainstream media, and in general, how do you deem a project successful?

Castro: There are a lot of success stories, I could go in many directions. In terms of impact, we have a pretty high ratio of satisfaction and success, because we invest a lot of time in due diligence at the beginning of the conversation to get to know our partners and for our partners to get to know us. Then the grantees have the capacity to do what they do best: journalism.

We track impact jointly with our grantees. We have done a lot of work with a lot of people and a lot of grantees, and have piloted a lot of things to get to a pretty solid framework to understand the performance of our partners and for the partners to understand how their journalism is achieving what they want to or not. Among other tools, we work with the American Press Institute, which has a tool called Metrics for News, which we subsidise for grantees for their media analytics.

We have regular conversations about how their journalism is doing, and its impact. And we learn from them how it is impacting their editorial approaches. I think impact should be an important question for every journalism organisation: understanding how your audiences consume your content, what they do with the knowledge that they acquire seems to me quite a fundamental question. So we have helped media organisations to do that in the most sophisticated way possible for quite a long time. And at the same time, it helped us to understand if we were using our resources in the most effective way.

If you had to mention one project as a flagship one, what would it be?

Castro: I was very happy with an unusual cooperation. In 2019, The Guardian, Spiegel, El Pais and Le Monde got together for a year-long series to examine the lives of refugees arriving to Western Europe. Migration was a really hard topic, and they came together with a project that included longform, multimedia, in-depth, amazing journalism from all four of them called The New Arrivals.

They shared resources, ideas, each of them produced a different output to their audiences in their own language. That was amazing to see. We facilitated it by providing funding, because at that time there was a lot of very domestically focused, highly political coverage and very little storytelling about what is happening to the individuals.

It was amazing for two reasons: for the quality of the journalism, for the storytelling, but also because these organizations demonstrated that they could work together. I think there should be a lot more like this, and it’s a shame that it’s 2024 and we do not see tens of projects like that.

What was the biggest challenge you encountered when working with these large organizations?

Castro: These organizations never had philanthropies on their radar. In Western Europe, and in the US. philanthropies are highly regulated. You are accountable to a strong regulatory environment for your tax status, etc. You develop these partnerships with editorial teams. But then it comes to a point when someone should develop  a proposal, and it stops being an editorial question. Someone in the building has to do that, to develop the administrative and accounting infrastructure. It is a struggle for media organizations because they are not used to it. So the first grant is always very hard. It is a bit of a cultural shift.

Also, if you are a journalist, you want to be fully, absolutely independent. There is always a healthy skepticism about funders. But as these partnerships evolve, you build trust, and then it becomes a normal and actually enriching relationship for everyone involved.

Do you have any advice for other funders?

Castro: One of the reasons why Journalism Funders Forum exists is to help foundations that are interested in working with journalism to do it in the most effective way. It can be incredibly effective. Stories are a commodity for both journalism and social organisations. Trust is a common currency. We want audiences and everyone to trust what we do, and we want to earn that trust by doing the right thing.

There are rules of the game, there are approaches that work, and approaches that work less. Journalism organizations that are new to philanthropy have to make an effort to understand what is at stake. And at the same time, philanthropic organisations that have been doing funding in other spaces for decades need to understand what is unique and what is different, and what are the rules of the game when working with media organizations. Ours are creative and editorial independence, the integrity of the journalism produced, and transparency from all parts involved.

And when that happens, it is beautiful. When journalism and philanthropies or civil society organisations with advocacy mandates come together, respecting the rules of the game of advocacy and philanthropy and policy and journalism, this is when everyone is most impactful and ultimately societies will benefit. So it is an invitation to organisations and the philanthropy space to consider journalism funding in the most mature and sophisticated way possible.

Philanthropic support for media and journalism has been growing in recent years and is seen as a way to strengthen democracy and civic engagement. However, there are still many challenges and opportunities for both funders and recipients of this support.

On 28 April Philea, in collaboration with GFMD, organised the 13th edition of “Philanthropy for Ukraine” sessions with a focus on journalism in the context of the war. During the session, four Ukrainian media experts shared their insights on the challenges and opportunities for international donors to support the media.

Ievgeniia Oliinyk, Program Director of the Media Development Foundation, shared about the MDF’s experience of collaborating with local media outlets by presenting the main findings of their new annual research on the state of local news outlets in Ukraine. The report shows that regional media have survived and resisted the war, despite the massive staff turnover, the constant threat of violence, the propaganda and misinformation, and the lack of resources. The MDF report also praises the role of regional journalists in documenting war crimes, debunking fake news, telling human stories, and helping Ukrainians stay sane and informed. It calls for more support and solidarity from the international community, the government, and civil society to protect and empower regional media as a vital pillar of democracy and peace. Ievgeniia also highlighted the importance of avoiding news deserts in Ukraine and providing additional support to the regions with such a tendency.

Discussing the state of the media at a national scale, Andrey Boborykin, Executive Director of Ukrainska Pravda, shared the newspaper’s experience. He noted that advertising spending across Ukraine has declined due to the economic crisis and the war, and this has forced Ukrainska Pravda to fundraise with the international donor community, which was not something that they were actively involved in before the war.

The media viability concept has to be rethought in the context of Ukraine, where media outlets face economic hardships and need to adapt to a changing and challenging environment, noted Olga Myrovych, the CEO of Lviv Media Forum. She argued that supporting the Ukrainian media is vital for the country’s recovery and justice and that the international community should recognize and amplify the voice of Ukrainian journalists and editors. Olga also addresses the issue of mental health among journalists in Ukraine, who have been exposed to trauma due to the ongoing war. In particular, Lviv Media Forum has offered psychological support to more than 150 media professionals to help them cope and restore their psychological resilience.

Continuing the discussion on the main issues that affect the media industry in Ukraine, Jakub Parusinski, Co-founder and Editor of The Fix Media, and CFO of The Kyiv Independent, highlighted that one of the main problems that media organizations in Ukraine encounter is the lack of qualified journalists, editors, project managers, sales managers and other media professionals. The current generation of journalists has suffered a significant attrition rate due to psychological breakdown, volunteering causes, frontline work, and the inability to work in the sector. This problem is exacerbated by a demographic problem in Ukraine, with only a quarter of a million graduates a year, down by half from over half a million in 2010. How can media organizations overcome this shortage? Jakub suggests that shared service centres could be a solution. He also argues that the media themselves should invest in training programs, work with universities, and create career development opportunities for their staff.

Another challenge that media organizations face is how to reintegrate veterans as content creators, audiences, and workers. Jakub Parusinski believes that media can play a vital role in helping veterans reintegrate into society. A third issue that media organisations have to deal with is how to connect with the millions of Ukrainians who had to flee abroad. Parusinski argues that the media has a significant responsibility to preserve Ukrainian culture and ties within Ukrainian communities and fight against Russia’s attempt to destroy it.

Based on their experience of being a recipient of media support, speakers shared their ideas and advice on how philanthropic or foundation support for media and journalism could be improved:

Get in touch