On the fifth birthday of the Limelight Foundation, its Director, Alinda Vermeer reflects on this critical moment for journalism in Europe, discusses the foundation’s focus on public interest journalism and the broader ecosystem, shares insights into its ambitious €150 million funding goal, and explains why a systemic, long-term approach is essential to sustaining independent journalism.

The foundation is relatively young, why was it important to establish it? What gap in the journalism funding landscape did it intend to fill?

This is a very timely interview, because we have just celebrated our five-year anniversary. The foundation was set up in 2021 to protect and strengthen independent journalism in Europe and its watchdog role in society, with the idea that democracy only works if you know what is going on and what those in power are doing, because then you can make informed decisions. Basically, it was inspired by the hard-hitting journalism of some of the organisations that are now grantee partners and the role that this work fulfils in society.

It happened to coincide with the moment where a number of funders were reconsidering their priorities and shifting focus away from, for instance, working in Europe or supporting European journalism. But that growing gap in the European funding landscape wasn’t necessarily the reason to set up Limelight, it was more inspired by the importance of this work and our founders’ sense of responsibility to protect it.

Even before that shift in focus by a number of foundations, there wasn’t enough funding. I remember, back then I was still working in the NGO sector and was so thrilled that a new funder was willing to support this work.

The foundation describes its mission as strengthening Europe’s information infrastructure. What does that mean in practical terms?

On one hand, we support public interest journalism. We support cross-border investigative networks and public interest newsrooms that focus on specific European countries, but also organisations that support journalists and newsrooms, for instance when they are in legal trouble or under digital attack. Then we also support targeted work to strengthen the enabling environment, for instance, countering SLAPPs.

But we focus on the information infrastructure more broadly, because we feel that you cannot focus exclusively on journalism if you want to support it properly.

The revenue model was broken by the loss of advertising revenue and audiences shifting to reading news on social media.

From the outset, we have looked at the wider ecosystem in which journalism functions. Producing honest, reliable information is one thing, but it must also reach people. This has become increasingly difficult through big tech platforms, which have at the same time become instrumental in rising authoritarianism around the world.

In practice, it means that we look also at the role of tech, for instance supporting the enforcement of EU laws against big tech companies to ensure that they respect fundamental rights, including our right to information, or bringing accountability and transparency to the tech sector in other ways.

So our program has two pillars. On the one hand, the public interest journalism pillar, which is by far the biggest part of our work. On the other hand, there is what we call the tech and information ecosystem pillar, which focuses on the role of tech platforms through the public interest journalism lens: what the whole infrastructure should look like for public interest journalism to flourish.

Why Journalism Funding Needs a Scale Change

Limelight has ambitious plans to build a €150 million fund for journalism. How did you arrive at that number and how do you plan to raise it?

 I’ll take you back to a year and a half ago, when we started thinking about what the strategy for the next couple of years should be. We realised that we had become the leading journalism fund in Europe, but also that we had a very modest budget of less than EUR 7 million per year. That made no sense, or at least not to us.

We also thought about the context in which we operate, and we know that our societies are confronted with so many crises: rising authoritarianism, climate crisis, geopolitical instability, technological disruption. A healthy information infrastructure plays a key role in confronting these issues.

At the same time, we saw so much funding for journalism disappear from Europe. The revenue that the sector itself can generate can never close that gap. And then think about the amount big tech companies invest, for instance, in AI. The Guardian reported that last year alone they jointly invested 155 billion.

This is the context in which we operate.

To secure journalism’s future, the whole scale must change. We have to stop thinking short term and look at much longer term, at least the next 10 years.

What do we want to be able to support? What should we be supporting to help this sector survive and thrive? This is how we started thinking, and then we looked at our portfolio and thought that the way we have structured works, and the organisations we fund do fantastic work and we can see the impact of that. So what else can we do? How much can we grow?

It is not to say that 150 million invested over 10 years is all that is needed. Philanthropic funding should be a catalyst. In that sense, we also hope that it will unlock larger funding pools from public and private sectors that recognise the fundamental importance of this work.

To answer the question of how we plan to raise it, let me first say what we plan not to do. We don’t want to coordinate existing funding or take it away from others. We regularly encounter a “scarcity mindset.” I don’t think that this mindset serves this work at all, especially not at this critical time for the sector. It focuses too much on the short term rather than more systemic changes, and it holds back long-term impact.

Instead, it is about encouraging funders who are new to this field to join this mission by making them see the fundamental importance of public interest journalism and healthy information infrastructure to all the things they care about, be it climate, health, or whatever mission they have.

It is our hope that we can look beyond the usual suspects, funders who are already on board with supporting democracy, and look to funders who do not yet have that as part of their portfolio. If you look at the climate sector, it can be done, but it is indeed very ambitious.

Flexible Funding and a Targeted Approach

In what forms do you support journalism?

 We mainly give financial support, typically for three years. Our preferred way of working is giving unrestricted funding, and we provide this where we can. We don’t work with open calls, but when we scope new partners, we speak with a lot of people in the sector, whether they are grantee partners or experts in the field. We call them referees. On the basis of their inputs, we make a decision on what to prioritise next.

We don’t accept unsolicited applications, simply because our team is too small and we don’t want organisations to waste time drafting fantastic proposals that we cannot support, even though we want to, because our budget is already allocated for the year. Potential grantee partners can fill out a form on our website giving information about their organisation and how they align with our strategy, and we do respond to all these requests. We don’t want to be a fully closed organisation that is impossible to approach, and I don’t exclude the possibility that we will do open calls at some point.

This is our preferred way of working. With the traditional business models collapsing, you just can’t do your best work as a journalist if you constantly have to fundraise, report, or work in a big jigsaw puzzle, figuring out what funding goes where. You just need to be able to pay rent, retain talent, and strengthen your team or your digital security. You need to be able to innovate, if necessary. Core funding enables you to do that. We also feel that it’s the best way to guarantee editorial independence.

Do you provide any other assistance beyond funding?

Where it is helpful to our grantee partners, we are happy to act as sparring partners. We really enjoy doing that, connecting with them on the organisational challenges they face. We also connect them to others in our network, for instance, journalism support organisations.

Building a successful revenue model is very important with the amount of funding that has left the field, and we don’t want to pretend that we are the ones with that expertise. It requires hyper-local expertise, and we don’t have that in-house. There are better ways to approach it, for instance through peer learning or having a dedicated consultant who knows the specific local context.

We are one of the donors behind the Revenue Axis run by OCCRP, which helps investigative journalism outlets navigate the changing funding landscape and achieve long-term financial sustainability by figuring out new ways to monetise the work, not with a one-size-fits-all approach, but with a view to what works in that specific local context.

We try to be realistic about what we can provide in-house and keep our team quite small so the overhead remains low and as much funding as possible goes into the field.

Which organisations are eligible for your support?

 When we look at our public interest journalism portfolio, geographically it is focused on Council of Europe countries. We try to support organisations in countries where press freedom is under pressure or where there is hardly any funding available for journalism. That is, of course, a very long list of countries.

We fund a mix of smaller and larger organisations.

We look at the financial dependence that organisations would have on us, and we try to spread the risk there.

So we support, for instance, some larger, cross-border investigative networks, or newsrooms that have very diversified income and are in a relatively strong position, or small newsrooms that may just be starting out or may only have one other funder. So we balance that. We don’t want to say that we don’t support organisations at all if they have a certain level of dependence on us, because we think that you have to be realistic. It’s very difficult to find funding in certain countries.

Some of the organisations that we support have a global focus, for instance, cross-border investigative networks or support organisations like Media Defence, which gives legal support to journalists around the world. But when it comes to newsrooms, they often have a focus on their specific country.

Why an Ecosystem Approach Matters More Than Ever

What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?

Before I started working at Limelight three years ago, I had worked for nearly a decade in legal representation of journalists. I think the most important lesson now is still the same: journalism is under threat from every angle, and I have only seen it increase over the past 10 years.

There is a financial threat, with the advertising revenue being absorbed by big tech companies and the change in news consumption, but also a legal threat, especially SLAPPs. When I started representing journalists as a lawyer, it was typically articles with a mistake that would get you into legal trouble. Now it is often the really good journalism that gets you into trouble, especially because it is so effective.

Digital threats have also increased, blocking of websites, spyware infections, you name it. Online violence has also become a massive threat, and it can also spill offline. And then an insight that comes more from my days at Limelight: reaching audiences is increasingly difficult because of the big tech platforms.

Journalists have an incredibly challenging job, and their resilience has amazed me again and again. It also makes me hopeful, because they keep going even if their work comes at a high personal cost. But the sector can’t thrive under so much threat, and I think the main lesson for me is that the philanthropic sector has a role to play, giving them the backing that they deserve. Yeah, this is a slightly depressing lesson.

What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?

 Over the past couple of years, it has been a very big challenge: how to allocate a limited budget when there are so many organisations that deserve support. Even if we grow, I think it will continue to be the case. Making these decisions is difficult.

But I think that an even bigger challenge is the fundraising target. We do think that it is critical to have a flourishing media sector to keep our democracy strong and our society stable, and we urgently need that support at a much bigger scale.

After the USAID funding cuts last year, when so much funding for journalism disappeared overnight, and US democracy is being dismantled bit by bit, you would think it would be very easy to make a case for new allies and new funders. That has not yet been the case. I don’t know whether it is complacency, or a feeling that we are immune from this level of democratic backsliding, or a sense of this problem being too big for us to take on.

Our biggest challenge now is driving home the message that we do need to act now and at a much bigger scale, and the response needs to come from a much bigger group of people and donors than just existing journalism funders.

How do you assess the success of your programs? Can you share a particular success story?

 We have an impact framework that helps us keep track of our grant-making and our own organisational development. The main goal of this framework, and of our own monitoring and reporting, is to make sure that we work in line with our strategy.

When it comes to journalism, it is quite hard, because you can have all these KPIs about supporting this many newsrooms that published this many investigations and this many people have read those, but this tells only a very small part of the story. When it comes to measuring the impact of journalism, we work with change stories. We zoom in on a newsroom to see what our multi-year support has enabled them to do, whether it is on the organisational side, strengthening their team, bringing new skills on board, improving their financial sustainability, or on the journalism side, what it meant in terms of accountability, or connecting a global crisis to a local context, or amplifying voices that might otherwise not have been heard. We try to look at all the various forms of impact over the course of years.

In terms of one single success story, it is really hard, because we come across so many fantastic success stories on a daily basis. On the other hand, we have only been around for five years, and some of this impact materialises over the course of, say, a decade.

What is interesting to see, though, is the reporting from some of our grantee partners on the impact of important investigations that have happened even before we were set up. This also informs our own way of looking at the impact of the journalism we support now.

The Panama Papers investigation is a good example. It is coming up to its 10 year anniversary and we see the impact from recovered public funds to resignations or convictions of political figures, to legal reforms, to the impact on journalism itself in normalising large-scale, cross-border collaboration or secure data sharing. It really helps you understand what to look for and how much patience to have.

But it is also a success that the newsrooms that we support help 500 million Europeans to access independent news, or that some newsrooms are still going, but without our support they may have had to close doors. This is great to see.

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

Consider an ecosystem approach. It is important to fund the cross-border network that you know from the headlines, but which is made up of local journalists and local newsrooms. You also need to look at each of these newsrooms individually, and they often struggle to get funding. Maybe there is no government funding available in their country, or private funding potentially comes with strings attached. So consider looking beyond those networks to the smaller players as well.

Then, as the next step, look at the support that will be needed when journalism is published because it may get people into legal trouble, or it may result in a digital attack. What happens then? How do you ensure that you set your partners up for success in the long term? How can they keep going beyond that investigation and survive these attacks?

Finally, look at the role of tech. Producing information is one thing, but it has to reach people. What do you need to support to make sure that information reaches the audiences?

I get that, as a first piece of advice, it is a bit daunting, because budgets are typically far too small to do all of that in a way that makes sense from a strategic point of view. So the second piece of advice is: don’t hesitate to team up with others. Together, you can work at a larger scale and achieve meaningful impact.

So these are the two things: take an ecosystem approach and team up with others.

The Journalism Funders Forum has published “Journalism and Media Funding in Europe”, a new report offering a snapshot of how philanthropic organisations are funding journalism and media in Europe.

The field of journalism and media is widely recognised by funders as essential for democracy, accountability and countering misinformation, but it still receives only a tiny slice of philanthropic budgets. Despite this, there is growing urgency, a slow but visible increase in investment, and a shift toward more flexible, long‑term funding, as the field grapples with a rapidly changing media landscape, unstable business models, and rising threats to independent journalism. The data from this study underlines this context, showing a field that is crucial yet under‑resourced.

Bringing together key findings on funding patterns, priorities and emerging challenges, the report helps build a clearer picture of how philanthropy is supporting journalism and media in a fast-changing environment.

Based on a sample of 36 philanthropic organisations from 12 countries, the report shows that while funding for the field remains relatively limited, it is diverse, evolving and increasingly shaped by concerns around democracy, misinformation and the long-term sustainability of independent journalism. The report highlights a journalism and media field that is varied across different types of actors, content and geographies but accounts for just 3.2% of the total budget of the funders surveyed.

Key takeaways:

• Funding for journalism and media is relatively limited but highly diverse.
• Support is spread widely across different types of actors, content and geographies.
• Protecting democracy and countering misinformation are core motivations for funding.
• The sector is undergoing major changes, creating new challenges for funders and grantees

Read here: “Journalism and Media Funding in Europe”

Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director of the Public Interest News Foundation, explains how the organisation is tackling the current crisis in public interest journalism and its focus on regenerating local news in the UK. He outlines their three pillars, shares insights into how they support news media, and reflects on the balance between vision and reality in supporting journalism.

Why was it important to establish the Public Interest News Foundation? What is your mission?

 It was important to establish the foundation back in 2019-2020, for the simple reason that there was a crisis in public interest journalism. In the UK, there had been a government-backed review of public interest journalism, which simply said there is a huge market failure, applied both at national and local levels, and in relation to investigative journalism. We established the foundation to address that whole crisis in all its forms.

But the mission has evolved over the five years. Now we are much more tightly focused on the crisis in local news, because we feel like that’s where the crisis is sharpest, and also there are the most exciting opportunities to build something new. Our mission is now to regenerate local news in the UK and we have set ourselves a deadline: we want to do that by 2035.

How do you define “public interest news”? Who is eligible for your support?

 We actually have a definition in our constitution. It really boils down to ethical, accurate, impartial news that informs and empowers people on matters that are relevant to us as citizens or as members of our community. That is the broad definition.

The one part of this which is sometimes controversial is where we stay impartial. Certainly in the UK there is a tradition of quite vigorous partisan journalism, some of which I think is undeniably in the public interest. But for our purposes as a charity, we had to narrow the definition slightly so we can only legally support outlets which are impartial.

And now, do you focus only on local media?

In practice. That’s a shift and we have been around for five years doing a range of activities, and we have a little bit of carryover, so some of our activities still apply to non-local media, but the vast majority is now local in practice.

In what forms do you support journalism?

 The simplest element is the financial, but actually it is a quite small part of what we do. We are technically an intermediary foundation, so we do not have an endowment or a living donor providing us with unrestricted funding. We have to fundraise in order to fund. So, what we can then do with the money depends a little bit on the motivation of the people funding us.

In the UK there is only a small number of funders who have given us money. In order for us to make grants directly to news organisations, we are still working at that. It is growing, and we are aiming to build a much more significant, multimillion pound fund to invest in capacity building for local journalism.

That’s still the dream. But in practice, quite a large part of what we do is not financial. It is more about advocacy. We work to try to change the law or with big stakeholders like the BBC or Google, Facebook, et cetera, to try to create a more enabling environment for public interest, local journalism. That’s working with news providers to understand their needs and challenges and aims, but it is not directly providing them with money. It is trying to use other tools at our disposal to create an environment in which they can thrive.

Then we also have our Local News Futures programme, which is more about bringing local news providers and other people together to really imagine what the future might look like and to celebrate innovation, to explore completely different ways of doing journalism, to think about in-person journalism and live journalism: anything which seems to put the needs of the local community first and foremost. So essentially, we have three pillars of activity. One is financial support, one is advocacy, and one is what we call futures, which is mainly about convening, networking, and imagining.

When it comes to financial support, what do you fund? Can organisations come to you directly for grants, or do you have calls?

Again, it varies, because in each case it depends on our relationship with whoever is providing us with the funding. One example is that we now run an annual programme, the Tenacious Journalist Award, where there is an open call every year and we invite news providers to come to us with a vision for a really impactful piece of journalism that they otherwise can’t afford to produce. We select up to 10 people to win the financial award. That’s very tight project funding that we then give them, and we work quite closely with them to provide non-financial support, to keep them focused on how to achieve the greatest impact.

But we also have a very different type of support where we can act as a fiscal host or a fiscal sponsor to a news provider. In this case, we can provide much more unrestricted operating support. We play a much more hands-off role. We have taken an administration fee like any other fiscal host and then let the news organisation do what they want to do. So we can really operate in very different ways, depending on the relationship.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?

 I think it’s the constant negotiation between the ideal and the real, between what you want to do and what’s actually possible right now. That applies in so many different ways. We can go to conferences, and we are inspired by amazing visions of the future of journalism. People want to turn journalism on its head and do it in new, amazing ways. We come away thinking that this is fantastic. And then we meet some actual journalists, who are actually doing it day by day, and they do not have time or head space to think about these big, amazing new visions.

It is not how they were trained or how they have worked, if they have been in the industry for 10, 20, or 30 years or more. So you have to negotiate. You don’t want go to them and say, throw out everything you know, and explore this new, innovative, exciting model of journalism. You need to work with them where they are now and just try to create capacity for them to start to lift their heads up and look around, be inspired, and think about what’s possible.

But it is the same with the funders. As I said, we are an intermediary. We have relationships on one side with newsrooms, on the other side with funders. In the UK, very few funders have ever funded journalism. It is still a very small and very new field. We think that any funder who cares about democracy, community justice, the environment should fund journalism as part of their portfolios. We think they should be funding it with large, unrestricted capacity building grants. We absolutely believe that is the right thing for them to do, but they are not there yet. So we have to work with them slowly.

If they are curious but would rather work with a small project-based initiative, then we will do that to try to build trust and familiarity, and then over time we try to move towards something bigger and bolder. This is the constant negotiation between what we want to do, what we think is ideal, and what is actually possible in the real world.

What were the main challenges you have had to face so far?

Fundraising. For us as an intermediary foundation, simply the fact that journalism is a new, embryonic field in the UK. Intermediary foundations sit in a strange place in the ecosystem, in some ways a really wonderful place. We get the best of both worlds, but sometimes it can also be slightly awkward. Are we a funder or aren’t we? Are we in the room with other funders sharing our experience as a funder or are we in the room as a fundraiser, in which case the funders feel more cautious about being open with us?

Again, just navigating some of those tensions and trying to build the trust that we are here primarily to support funders, to support journalism, and that we think we can add value to that. But it takes time to change a culture.

How do you assess the success of your programmes? Can you share a particular success story?

We don’t have a single overarching impact framework. We would like to manage a multimillion-pound capacity building fund, and then we would have much clearer success measures. But at present, because we work in so many different ways, it does not feel right to try to create a unified theory of change.

But, as an example, there is the Tenacious Journalist Award, where we have given ten grants to ten different newsrooms to pursue ten different investigations. It has led to some really great journalism. I was talking to one of the journalists the other day who has been investigating the use of synthetic opioids in East London, where a particularly toxic type of synthetic opioid has hit the streets. It seems from her investigation that it has led to a very large number of deaths. But also, as a result of her investigation – and because she was talking to the local authority, local charities, and the local medical providers – there is an increase in the availability of the antidote, which could actually save people’s lives. The antidote was not widely available because the problem was not well known. This has changed. So I genuinely think that the journalist saved lives. It is an amazing impact.

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

 The advice is really simple. It is the advice you would give to funders in any context: Go and find an organisation that you really like, that you think is well led, that has a good, clear vision and is making a difference, and give them as much money as you can afford with as much freedom as you can allow, and sit back and see what happens. I guarantee that it will at least be interesting.

Can small, local independent media thrive in an authoritarian environment? A multiple-year-long funding programme revealed that upscaling small outlets can deliver results, but only when paired with strong internal capacity, business-minded leadership, and continued donor engagement.

Supporting Independent Media Under Pressure

Since 2021, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) has supported independent local media in highly authoritarian environments through a sub-granting programme. For safety reasons, MJRC does not disclose the names and locations of the media outlets in the programme.

Funded by a philanthropic partner, the programme provided core funding to help outlets achieve financial and organisational sustainability, grow audiences, and strengthen resilience. It also fostered collaboration among grantees and evaluated their progress through regular monitoring and comparative analysis, measuring impact across audience reach, revenue, and staffing.

The programme consisted of two phases. In the first phase, MJRC awarded grants to seven local organisations. According to the programme evaluation, it filled a critical gap in local media, offering vital funding, mentoring, and capacity-building. Grantees appreciated the tailored support and local-language administration. Challenges included limited capacities, inexperience running donation campaigns, economic instability in the country, and political pressure.

What Upscaling Looks Like

In the second phase, three of the grantees were selected and received a much larger grant. This phase focused on two core goals: scaling up the infrastructure and impact of the selected outlets and exploring how innovative strategies work in captured media environments. The aim was to help grantees take meaningful steps toward long-term sustainability.

The selection process emphasised operational growth and capacity-building rather than content production, with the jury assessing how applicants could realistically expand their infrastructure, outreach, and impact, based on past performance and readiness for organisational change.

Two grantees received grants almost three times larger than their previous annual budgets, but even the largest outlet experienced a 40% budget increase. In addition to funding, the programme provided ongoing training sessions, peer learning, and mentoring in capacity-building. The organisational development training supported internal improvements, while a needs-based approach ensured tailored support aligned with each outlet’s goals and capacities. The programme aimed to build more sustainable, resilient, and independent media organisations capable of withstanding pressure in challenging environments.

Without this grant, the two smaller grantees would likely have continued to struggle with day-to-day operations, facing little opportunity for meaningful development and little hope of achieving visible impact. In a heavily captured media environment where prospects for press freedom and media sustainability remain bleak, the survival of independent local outlets is largely dependent on donor support. The market simply does not offer the necessary conditions for a small news organisation to become sustainable, let alone to grow or innovate.

The Role of Management and Capacities in Sustainability

One of the key lessons of the project was that smaller outlets often lack the skills and internal capacity required to carry out the kind of strategic and structural transformation that sustainability demands. This became apparent as both smaller grantees faced significant delays in implementing their plans and struggled to use the funds in a timely manner due to insufficient capacities and lack of expertise.

In contrast, the largest grantee was able to deliver on its project goals within the expected timeframe. As a more established organisation with experienced management and a stable internal structure, it was well positioned to absorb the grant and make full use of it.

The size of the organisation and its internal capacity are critical factors in determining how effectively a grantee can handle a grant that dramatically expands its operating budget. While the smaller grantees also experienced a temporary increase in income, primarily through supplementary grants from USAID’s Central Europe programme, the sudden termination of that programme in early 2025 posed a serious threat to their financial stability.

However, the two smaller grantees are not in the same position. One of the most important insights from the project’s earlier phase was confirmed again: outlets led by a business-minded management are significantly better equipped to sustain and grow their operations. This difference became even more apparent after the USAID funding ended. While both smaller grantees lost key financial support, one of them is now in a much stronger position due to its more robust operational staff which has proactively secured new sources of revenue. The other organisation, which lacks a strong business-minded management, has returned to a precarious financial state with potential staff cuts on the horizon and little clarity about the future.

The Limits of Market-Based Models

Long-term sustainability for independent media depends on diversifying revenue streams. Yet in such a hostile and distorted media environment, this is exceedingly difficult. Advertising remains one of the biggest challenges. In captured environments, state advertising often is an important source of media ad revenue but is reserved exclusively for outlets that support the ruling parties. Moreover, in such environments, private businesses are reluctant to advertise in independent outlets, fearing political or economic retaliation.

This makes it all the more important for media organisations to experiment with alternative ways of engaging their audiences. Encouraging regular feedback from readers can help shape editorial strategies that better respond to audience needs. Data on content performance can also reveal which formats or topics are most effective in building loyalty and trust.

Financial sustainability could also benefit from more targeted efforts to understand the audience’s willingness and capacity to pay, whether via donations, subscriptions, or paywalls. Still, in many countries only a small portion of the population is willing to pay for news, therefore audience-based funding, while desirable, cannot yet provide a stable foundation, especially for local outlets with smaller audiences.

Independent local journalism remains indispensable for informing communities and holding power to account. However, without external financial support there is a growing risk of entire regions turning into news deserts where propaganda and misinformation go unchallenged.

Therefore continued donor support is essential. Core funding is the only realistic way to keep small local media running, as the current market offers no viable path to full financial independence. While relying on grants is not ideal, it remains the only available lifeline for independent journalism in countries with declining media freedom.

For more information, contact the Media and Journalism Research Center.

Independent journalism in Europe faces mounting financial and political threats, but a new wave of mission-driven outlets is fighting back. The Journalism Value Project explored how independent media can survive and thrive, offering practical solutions and a vision for a healthy ecosystem.

The Journalism Value Project, run by and for non-profit independent media organisations, including members of Reference – the European Independent Media Circle, and Netzwerk Recherche, aimed to highlight the need to support independent public interest media in Europe and strengthen their financial sustainability. According to Peter Matjašič, former Executive Director of Investigate Europe, a consortium member, the project responded to the “rapid emergence of small, independent media outlets,” which are “countering the decline of traditional media and the rise of misinformation,” yet face serious financial and political pressures.

Through research, podcasts, stakeholder dialogues, and study visits, the project mapped the field, shared best practices, and engaged key stakeholders. It identified significant challenges which public interest journalism has to face in Europe. Journalists encounter violence, harassment, and surveillance, while restrictive laws and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) silence critical voices. Economic pressure, precarious working conditions, and unsustainable business models further weaken independent outlets, especially at a local level. Media capture and political interference threaten editorial independence, while misinformation, amplified by generative AI, clickbait content, and attacks on journalistic integrity undermine public trust.

Despite some EU efforts, institutional support remains inadequate, and recent shifts in the funding landscape – the USAID funding freeze, changing priorities of some foundations, corporate funders abandoning fact-checking – have created a significant gap that threatens the sector’s sustainability.

What Independent Media Leaders Shared

As Matjašič stressed, the main lesson of the project was that independent journalism is “essential infrastructure for democracy,”; still it remains severely underfunded and exposed to both financial and physical risks. Many independent newsrooms operate with minimal resources and precarious business models, but a new wave of mission-driven, digital-native outlets is stepping in. These organisations demonstrate innovation, community engagement, and resilience, helping to fill the gaps left by declining legacy media.

Matjašič also highlighted that the project’s podcast series produced some of the most surprising insights through interviews with over 20 independent media leaders. These conversations revealed that partnerships with influencers opened new avenues for audience engagement and funding, often from non-traditional sectors such as science and innovation. “Reluctance among donors to support journalism often stems from its role in holding power to account,” he noted, adding that independent outlets have shown creativity in securing alternative support.

Peer learning during study visits was also a very important element of the project. Newsroom leaders shared experiences on membership models and newsletters, among other topics. As Matjašič said, this showed that there is a strong solidarity among independent outlets, and they are eager to share their experiences.

During the consultations and in the podcasts, media professionals from the Reference Circle stressed that sustaining independent journalism requires investment beyond editorial work, such as in subscription systems, CRM (Customer Relationship Management) tools, and community engagement. They highlighted the urgent need to improve journalists’ working conditions and financial security to maintain a skilled workforce and attract new talent. They also saw it essential to grow new audiences and reach underserved communities to expand both impact and revenue.

Stakeholder consultations echoed these concerns. Funders recognised journalism’s social value in combating misinformation, fostering transparency, and promoting social cohesion, but pointed out serious challenges such as distrust in media, misinformation, the lack of charitable status for journalism, and funding gaps.

Impact investors noted that public value and financial sustainability can complement each other, though public value is harder to quantify. Some investors prioritise journalism’s mission over profit, using patient capital to help outlets build resilience. At the same time, think tanks value independent media as partners who help translate complex research into accessible stories, though they recognise capacity limitations.

How to Build Resilient Newsrooms

The project outlined a series of recommendations to strengthen independent public interest media in Europe, focusing on financial sustainability, collaboration, advocacy, capacity building, and public engagement.

A key priority should be the shift from project-based to core funding, which, as Peter Matjašič explained, enables outlets “to focus on their mission, innovate, and build resilience,” whereas project funding restricts long-term planning and flexibility. He added that while some funders recognise the value of core, multi-year support, others are constrained by internal structures or legal restrictions.

Diversifying funding sources is also essential for financial resilience. According to Matjašič, relying on a single income stream leaves media outlets vulnerable. “Business models should be open, with a moral compass about where to accept money from,” he argued, adding that investing in business skills is vital for developing sustainable organisations. “This is where many outlets fail,” as journalists often don’t see these business skills as important and sometimes are even afraid of the word “management,” although they should not be. Without these skills, many journalist-founded outlets struggle to monetise their work or navigate legal and organisational necessities. Coaching in the handling of complex funding structures and managing sensitive information is equally important to help media outlets professionalise and become more resilient against financial and political pressure.

The project also highlighted the need to simplify application processes and refine impact measurement to ease the administrative burden on newsrooms. Collaboration across media outlets and sectors is another cornerstone of the recommendations, which encourage peer learning, resource-sharing networks, and partnerships with think tanks, whistleblowers, and civil society to amplify impact. The project advocates for better legal protections against SLAPPs and the recognition of journalism as a charitable cause across Europe, alongside the allocation of tax revenue to support journalism-focused NGOs.

Finally, fostering public trust and engagement is essential. Transparent editorial and business practices, alongside innovative audience engagement strategies such as live journalism and impactful storytelling, can build trust and increase audience revenue. Nevertheless, robust philanthropic support and thoughtful policy reforms are still essential to securing the future of independent journalism in Europe.

The Essentials for a Sustainable Media Sector

Matjašič emphasised that independent media organisations should balance financial sustainability with editorial independence, and they should seek funding that aligns with their mission rather than chasing money that influences editorial priorities. Transparency about funding sources is critical, as is maintaining clear boundaries with funders. Based on the lessons learned from the project, the Reference Circle – a network focused on non-editorial issues – will continue to advocate for more effective funding and provide opportunities for peer learning and knowledge exchange, he added.

As he argued, although “there is no silver bullet” for a healthy ecosystem, it would combine core funding, diversified revenue streams, and strong business skills among newsroom leaders, alongside collaboration across borders and sectors. Such an environment should be underpinned by legal protections for press freedom, charitable support for journalism, and high public trust built through transparency, engagement, and demonstrated social impact.

Maribel Königer, Director of Journalism and Media at ERSTE Foundation, highlights the importance of supporting independent journalism to protect democracies in Europe. From fellowships to pooled funds, the Foundation’s evolving approach aims to strengthen media resilience, for which it is essential to develop sustainable business models.

Why is it important for the ERSTE Foundation to support journalism? How does it fit into your broader mission?

The Journalism and Media programme is embedded in our Europe and Democracy programme. We define the problem here: liberal democracy is under threat. Europe’s democracies remain fragile and unprepared to withstand internal and external socio-economic, technological, and geopolitical disruptions. One of our answers to this problem is that we want to support high-quality independent media and journalism in CEE. We have been doing this since the very beginning, only a bit differently; now we do it with a wider focus.

Together with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, who left some years later), we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence. At that time, in 2007, we were focused on the Balkans because we thought that countries in Central Europe who just became members of the European Union – Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, et cetera – were good, so we should focus on South Eastern Europe, on countries which are not yet there. As a fellowship it was meant as an investment in people, in investigative journalists, and for many years this was our only project in the field of journalism.

Then in 2018, we were shocked about what happened in our surroundings. Jan Kuciak and his fiancé were killed. Hungary and Poland changed their laws and their attitudes towards independent media. Also in the Czech Republic, politics became hostile towards independent media. Suddenly we became aware that focusing on the Balkans to support independent journalists and good journalism in CEE is not enough.

First, we enlarged the scope of the fellowship to the – back then – so-called Visegrad countries. Then we saw a decline in the media scene: the well-trained journalists that came out of this fellowship had no platforms anymore on which to publish. A lot of media were gone. What could we do now, if they cannot tell their stories to their audience anymore? The geographically enlarged fellowship was embedded in a platform called “Reporting Democracy” where articles could also be published.

It was clear from the very beginning that we don’t want to invest directly in media. Actually, we cannot. As an Austrian savings bank foundation, the core shareholder of Austria’s biggest bank, Erste Group, we are only allowed by our statutes to invest in nonprofits. There are a lot of nonprofit media around, but we also saw a risk of conflicts of interest in both directions, as well as reputation risks. Then we discovered the wonderful tool of pooled funds.

What are the advantages of these pooled funds?

We very much like the idea of joining forces. The leverage is bigger. If you put money in a pile, you can support media with higher amounts, or longer, or more of them, and have more impact. Also, you can delegate the delicate task of selecting the media you support. You have a qualified jury to do that. It’s much more efficient if several foundations join into a fund.

Civitates was the beginning. Its sub-fund for public interest media has a focus on Southern and Eastern Europe. That is important for us because we have a strict geographic focus on Central and Eastern Europe. Our revenues are the dividends of our share in Erste Group, one of the biggest financial service providers in Austria and Eastern European countries.

In 2021, we were approached by the Media Development Investment Fund. They presented us with the idea of Pluralis. An impact investment fund was something new for us. Pluralis guarantees editorial independence for legacy media by investing in publishing houses in Eastern Europe; a smart concept. By now, Pluralis has a portfolio of three important media in Poland, Slovakia and Croatia and it plans to grow further.

Finally, we became one of the initiators of the Media Forward Fund, focusing on Austria, Germany, and Switzerland.

So, your journey as a funder of journalism started in the Balkans and ended in Austria?

Indeed! If you had told us 18 years ago, when we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, that we would one day be supporting innovation in Austrian media, we would have laughed in disbelief. But the media ecosystem in Austria is in danger, like in many other countries. The market is in an extremely precarious situation, public interest media struggle to survive although (some even say: because) there is a lot of public funding.

The Media Forward Fund supports – with much money for a short and limited period – media organisations that apply with a convincing business idea. Good journalism is the precondition, but it’s not what is funded. You should apply with a smart idea to scale up your business or to secure more stable resources.

How would you explain this substantial growth in the Foundation’s engagement for journalism?

ERSTE Foundation reacted in a timely manner to what was happening to the media scene and in journalism. We all see the threats everywhere: Autocratic regimes attacking independent media, media capture, disinformation campaigns, decreasing societal trust, and increasing technological and economic disruptions put public interest media and critical journalism in CEE at high risk.

After the quasi organic growth of the portfolio, we now have a clear strategy. The foundation worked on its overall strategy and one of our goals for the next few years is a healthy media ecosystem in CEE that upholds democratic values, combats misinformation, and empowers communities with reliable information. We therefore invest in and support sustainable and independent free media and fact-based critical journalism. This is how a single project topic developed into a consistent programme portfolio. The consequence was that I changed my position. As of July 2025, I am the Director of Journalism and Media. After 18 years as Director of Communications with the journalism projects as my second task, I switched focus.  

In what other ways do you support journalism?

 In Vienna, together with Presseclub Concordia and the Forum für Journalismus und Medien (fjum), we organise in-person and hybrid press briefings with researchers and experts from our other programmes. Journalists get firsthand information on the political, economic or societal situation in other countries, often just before elections in a given country.

Through the funds we support, we also offer capacity building. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is not only funding the development of business ideas in media but is also coaching to develop business skills.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from these programmes?

I have two lessons in mind. Firstly: Most journalists are passionate about and very good at their job, but many of them have no idea about the business side of media. New media outlets with a great mission will die very quickly when no one looks at target groups, funnels, revenue plans, and the like. Even proper accounting or having a business plan is not a given. This lack of basic business skills or appropriate competent personnel in young media is so obvious that, today, many foundations or intermediaries offer tools known from the start-up world: media accelerators and incubators. Media viability became also a very important topic in conferences.

This brings me to the second lesson: Why is it so important to build a sustainable business model? Because relying on a single resource – be it a donor, be it public funds of your community, be it, well, USAID – can have fatal consequences. In January it became clear that a full focus on a single source, as generous as it might have been in the past, causes real problems. Sustainable business models (meaning also diversification of revenue streams) are crucial for media viability but also for media pluralism.

What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?

One big challenge is to explain to people why the media are in such a problematic situation at all. Just 10 or 15 years ago, people founded newspapers to make money, and not to be funded. Today, classical public interest media have lost their business model. But there are still big, powerful media groups, for some it is still big business. So explaining why some media need funding is a challenge.

Fortunately, we haven’t had challenges such as smear campaigns yet. But everyone knows that independent media and their funders are under constant threat of authoritarian attacks. It has become a risky business to be a foundation supporting what should be the most natural thing in the world in a liberal democracy: free media.

How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story related to supporting journalism?

Usually, our projects include process assessment and impact measurement. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is constantly assessing its brand new processes and results. It just started one year ago, and one term is two years. If the grants have had a real impact on the businesses of the grantees, we will soon see, with the first cohort ending the programme in one year. The application process was also assessed and some selection criteria have been changed in the second round. For example, we wanted the business part and editorial part to be clearly separated. That works for the New York Times, sure, but if you are a three-person, brand new, young organisation, then it is not possible. So we changed this criterion. Now you must agree that these entities will be separated once the medium has grown…

These seem banal things, but it is important to realise when something does not work and change it. The real success will be, in two years, to have businesses that double their subscription base, or make money on theatre stages with their concept, whatever they applied with.

Whether our funding has societal impact is, of course, very difficult to measure. I would take Pluralis as an example which pooled philanthropic investment in media matters. Gremi Media, the publisher of Rzeczpospolita in Poland, is part of Pluralis’ portfolio. Having kept one of the biggest Polish newspapers as a free, independent one is very important. It is a centre-conservative paper with fact-based reporting. This also shows that our goal is not to support a certain agenda. It is about the quality of journalism and media pluralism. In Slovakia, Petit Press, publishing the daily SME, has in Pluralis an owner that is backing the editors in a very hostile public environment.

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

 First of all, I would ask them to imagine that there is no more media where they can talk about their main topics, be it climate, culture, environment, equality, or whatever. People would get their information only from social media, from influencers, from AI bots. If you think that this might be a really bad situation, then start supporting media and journalism.

My advice for newbies would be to start with a pooled fund. You don’t have to fund media directly, trust in experts. My other advice is that, if you are unsure what kind of pooled fund you should turn to, then come to the Journalism Funders Forum. This is a peer group of foundations which are happy to give anyone advice about the risks, realistic goals, about what you can gain, et cetera, by funding journalism. Or look for foundations that already support journalism, everybody is happy to share their knowledge. The main thing is: do it.

Martin Kotynek, Founding Director of the Media Forward Fund, stresses the need for sustainable business models in journalism to strengthen democracy, shares insights to their funding model focusing on user-centric independent media in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and highlights the growing role of pooled funds.

Why is it important for the Media Forward Fund to support journalism?

 We want to contribute to more quality journalism with strong business models. Right now, there is a big transformation crisis happening in the media, and we want to support the development of new business models that make journalism more sustainable in the long term. Through that, we want to strengthen democracies in our societies, which are also right now in a crisis.

Which outlets are eligible for funding, what are your criteria?

We have 24 selection criteria in five pillars. Number one is “transformation”: We fund media organisations that serve the common good and can both sustainably strengthen media’s role in society and create transformative benefits for the media sector. Other news organisations can learn from the experience of our grantees, to help the whole industry.

The second pillar is “user focus.” News products, which sound like a fantastic idea to the journalists who make it, but don’t really serve the needs of users, often fail. We want to make sure that there is a real user need, and that the information is trustworthy to the audience – also a necessity for commercial success.

We have “diversity” as our third pillar because there are underserved communities which have been widely neglected by journalism so far. We especially want to support media organisations that report for these communities. At best, these target groups are represented in the staff of the organisations.

Then we have “independence” as our fourth pillar. We do not see philanthropy as a business model for journalism. Media organisations need to be commercially independent from a single source of revenue to guarantee editorial independence. They will also be independent of us, we will never interfere in reporting.

And there is the fifth pillar, journalistic quality. We fund media organisations that base their work on recognised journalistic standards. At the heart of quality journalism are principles such as truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, transparency, and independence. This is why we look at the organisation’s commitment to the principles of the press codex in its country of registration, the existence of established editorial standards, and institutionalised mechanisms to monitor compliance with those standards.

And there are geographical criteria, you have to have your headquarters in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland, and the majority of your revenues have to come from these three countries as well.

What do you think about the advantages of similar pooled funds?

 Pooled funds for journalism are becoming a global movement. There are MDIF’s Pluralis, IFPIM, and Civitates, with Press Forward in the US being the largest. More “cousins” of Press Forward are in the making right now; after Media Forward Fund began in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, there are now similar initiatives in the UK, Canada, Brazil, and Australia. 

These philanthropic collaborations have many advantages. If several donors with a shared vision combine their funding, they have greater leverage to make change. Secondly, a pooled fund minimises the reputational risk for a funder. If you fund one single media organisation and it makes an error in reporting, or there is a mission drift, it might backfire to you. In a pooled fund it’s the fund’s responsibility; there’s a buffer. This is one of the reasons why we have a firewall between the funders and our independent jurors, who make all the funding decisions.

How do you provide support? Do you provide core or thematic funding? Do you also support outlets with training?

Smaller non-profit news organisations with up to 30 full time equivalent employees can get core funding. Everyone else – both for-profits and non-profits – can get project funding if there is at least a proof-of-concept and if the product or market fit can be shown. We want to see revenues first. We fund in the growth phase, because we have realised that there are several options for funding in the initial idea phase, but then there is a kind of “valley of death.” We want to bridge the idea phase and the phase when the media organisation is ready for an impact investment. Between these two phases, there is almost no money in the media market.

We support our grantees to grow their business model to show that it is sustainable. We bring in impact investors like Karma Capital Group, which is also a donor to Media Forward Fund. They get to know the grantees from the beginning, they see how they develop, how the teams work, and then it is much easier to make investment decisions for both sides. Journalists need to know that a potential investor doesn’t want to interfere in their reporting.

Our grantees also have access to our capacity building programme. They can get coaching, which is very individual, and they can take part in “deep dives” where we bring media organisations from all three countries together to share their experiences, work on their specific problems as a group, and learn from each other.

What is the most important lesson you have learned since the launch of the Fund?

 We learned that there is a lack of skill in media management, especially on the business side. We got 136 applications from the three countries in our first call, and we saw that there is really a need for upskilling in public value news organisations, especially on business issues. We want to contribute to that.

We are only half a year old, but up to this point, we thought that our capacity building and upskilling programme would be available only for our grantees.  But after we went through the applications, we realised that we have to play a role in upskilling potential grantees, too. So, we are going to extend our invitation to take part in our upskilling programme and in our “deep dives” to everyone who is potentially fundable.

What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?

We started with 4.5 million Euros, and half a year later we are at nine, but fundraising for journalism is quite complicated. Up until a few years ago, media was very profitable in general, and at least in our region, there was no need to make a philanthropic contribution to media organisations. But now, as the old print models are really under pressure, the transformation crisis in the media has accelerated. So we learned that first we need to explain what is going on in the media market right now, and how this affects our democracy, in order to bring additional donors into the fund. We have 18 partners so far; many of them haven’t funded journalism before.

What was the biggest success story?

To quote Maribel Pérez Wadsworth, President and CEO of Knight Foundation, which is a funder of Media Forward Fund: “Foundations need to act at the speed of news.” We have been trying to do this from the very beginning. A year ago, there were five foundations which initially came together, now we are 18. It took us only half a year from the initial idea to the launch of the Fund and of our first call, and only one year to welcome our first grantees. Philanthropy can act “at the speed of news,” if foundations collaborate with a shared vision.

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

“Whatever your first funding topic is: Journalism should be your second” – that’s one of my favourite quotes from John Palfrey, President of John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which is an initiator of Media Forward Fund. Whatever you want to change in the world, you need journalism to explain it to the public, to criticise it if things go wrong, and to make sure there’s a common understanding of the facts, so that we can make informed decisions as a society.

The sudden freeze on USAID funding has sent shockwaves through independent newsrooms across Europe. With grants halted and uncertainty looming, many smaller outlets face closure, while larger ones brace for financial strain. As autocratic leaders may seize the moment to tighten control, experts are calling on European institutions and private donors to fill the sudden gap and prevent long-term damage to media pluralism.

On January 20, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring all federal agencies to halt foreign development aid for 90 days. The directive, which took effect on January 24, applies to foreign funding managed by the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The administration stated that the review aims to ensure alignment with the President’s foreign policy.

USAID’s Critical Role in Supporting Independent Media

The US has long been the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid. Through USAID, it has distributed billions of dollars in development assistance in more than 100 countries. The US government has also been the largest public donor to media development, supporting independent media as a core component of USAID’s mission since the 1980s.

“US public funding has played a crucial role in strengthening independent public interest journalism throughout the world. Particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, it has been one of the few key funders,” says Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager at Adessium Foundation and a Co-Chair of Journalism Funders Forum.

In the 2022 financial year, USAID invested approximately $130 million (EUR 123.9 million) to support media and the free flow of information. In 2023, the agency funded training and support for 6,200 journalists, 707 non-state news outlets, and 279 media-sector civil society organisations dedicated to strengthening independent media. For 2025, US Congress had allocated $268,376,000 (EUR 255.8 million) in foreign aid funding to support independent media and access to information.

USAID programmes have helped journalists expand their reach, secure sustainable revenue, and leverage digital tools to engage audiences. The agency has also worked to protect journalists from digital, legal, psychological, and physical threats while promoting professionalism and media management skills.

“USAID grants have allowed many independent media outlets to survive, especially in challenging environments,” says Marius Dragomir, Director of the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC). “For most independent media, grants are a major source of income. In many cases, they represent the largest part of their budget,” he continues.

Zselyke Csaky, a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Reform, does not believe that these funds will return. According to her sources, with the shutdown of USAID’s Central Europe programme, originally launched in 2022, only 10-30% of grant funding will remain available in the region compared to three years ago. 

The Financial Fallout

“This freeze means that some news outlets will be hit disproportionally, which will undermine the role of journalism in holding power to account. This will have consequences for all journalism funders, including funders like Adessium Foundation who do not fund news outlets directly in the region. The network of our grantee partners will be affected and thus the entire ecosystem we aim to support,” notes Akgün.

According to the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the freeze affects dozens of news organisations in more than 30 countries. The announcement came as a shock to many of them. “The general feeling is panic. Panic is the only way to describe the situation,” Karol Luczka, Eastern Europe Advocacy Lead at the International Press Institute (IPI), told Voice of America.

Local, national, and international journalist organisations have all been affected. For example, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) received $7 million (EUR 6.7 million) from US government programs, which constitutes about 38% of its budget. “We are operating as if the reduction in funding will be permanent. Almost all grants have ended to our member centres, and global training, security, cloud computing, and country level programs have been affected,” says Drew Sullivan, OCCRP’s Co-Founder and Publisher. “82 percent of our partner subgrants were cut and almost all funding by OCCRP has stopped to our media member centres. Some of them lost most – or even all – of their funding and are struggling to continue operating,” he adds.

“The best-case scenario is that many organisations will have to downsize operations. Many of our contacts have commented that the freeze is a major blow for them. Dozens have already lost their jobs. There are outlets that will face closure,” explains Dragomir, adding that larger organisations with more diverse funding sources will be less affected, but many smaller ones “will face extinction.” Csaky agrees: “The freeze will cause the most problems for smaller, rural news organisations, especially in countries where diverse funding sources are not yet available.”

According to Reuters, Hungary is one of the countries most affected by the freeze. One of the most important projects to support independent media has been suspended, which amounted to HUF 173 million (EUR 430 thousand), affecting dozens of projects aimed at strengthening and sustaining independent local and national public-interest media, or at supporting media literacy and journalism training.

Other USAID-funded media programmes in the country have also been suspended. Tamás Bodoky, Managing Editor of Átlátszó, an investigative outlet, told Reuters that USAID indirectly funded 10-15% of their budget in 2023-2024. They will now seek new donors and expand crowdfunding efforts. Others will have to postpone planned projects, such as the weekly Magyar Hang, where USAID grants constituted 5% of the budget. As its Editor-in-Chief Zsombor György told Balkan Insight, the outlet had planned to invest in a studio and equipment but will now postpone the project.

Ágnes Urbán of Mérték Media Monitor, an NGO, warns that while larger outlets may endure, smaller regional media could suffer serious consequences, as they lack the resources to invest in their future. According to MJRC sources, for some rural outlets, where these grants made up nearly half their funding, survival itself is now in jeopardy.

There are serious consequences in other countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. In Moldova, Anastasia Condruc, Editor-in-Chief of Moldova.org, described the situation as ‘dire’. “Around 75% of our budget comes from European and American grants. For now, we have the budget for salaries for the month of February and a bit of March,” she said to The Fix. SDK in North Macedonia is also under severe threat. “[USAID-funded] projects contribute 25% of the newsroom’s budget,” Editor-in-Chief Goran Mihajlovski said. The uncertainty is forcing newsrooms like SDK to reconsider their financial strategies to ensure their survival.

The situation is even more critical in war-torn Ukraine, where media outlets heavily depend on international funding. “Almost 90% of Ukrainian media receives foreign funding,” notes Csaky. Bohdan Lohvynenko, founder of the online news portal Ukraïner, revealed to The Guardian that more than 80% of their funding came from the US, leaving them in a precarious position. “There is no viable advertising market for war reporting, leaving us with community support or a paywall model,” he explained. Raising funds in a country at war, however, remains a major challenge.

Other Ukrainian outlets are similarly affected. As Anna Babinets, Editor-in-Chief of Slidstvo.Info, stated, “80% of our financing is from US government money.” The uncertainty is already causing job losses across the sector. “Some will survive, but many will not,” said Katerina Sergatskova, co-founder of the 2402 Foundation, which supports and trains journalists.

In Belarus, where the independent press already faces harsh repression, the freeze could be catastrophic. Natalia Belikova of Press Club Belarus noted that 70% of their funding comes from US federal sources. “They are at risk of fading away and gradually disappearing,” she warned, emphasising that without independent media, state propaganda would dominate public discourse.

The funding freeze has hit exiled media outlets even harder, and they may need drastic measures to stay afloat. Katerina Abramova, Communications Director for Meduza, a leading exiled Russian outlet, told Reporters Without Borders (RSF) that funding reviews could drag on indefinitely. “We can’t monetise our audience, and crowdfunding has limits—especially when donating to Meduza is a crime in Russia,” she said.

Csaky warns of another consequence of the freeze: many news organisations supported by USAID also received EU grants, which usually require co-financing. However, for some, these two were essentially the only sources of funding, meaning they could now lose both, as they will no longer be able to co-finance EU-supported projects.

The Dangerous Ripple Effect of the Freeze

The freeze on funding could have far-reaching consequences beyond financial constraints. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has reshaped the media landscape by capturing the regulatory body and the public service broadcaster and forcing private media outlets to close or fall into the hands of pro-government owners, has quickly stated his intention to eliminate “foreign networks” of NGOs and media critical of his regime. According to news reports, at a party meeting he specifically mentioned that those organisations that received funding from USAID should be “banned from Hungary.”

This has raised concerns that the freeze will encourage other illiberal governments to crack down on media deemed unfriendly, as autocratic leaders now feel empowered, says Csaky. Similar measures, such as imposing “foreign agent laws,” will make the financial situation of independent media even more difficult. “Even if new donors emerge, actually accessing their grants will be very difficult in such environments,” she argues.

Dragomir also warns that similar trends are likely to emerge elsewhere. In countries with a high level of media capture and limited space for independent journalism, the situation will worsen, leading to a “growing dominance of the government-funded media model” and further damaging the news ecosystem.

The decline in independent news outlets could also lead to an increase in misinformation, Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of RSF US argued to The Guardian. “When you pull reliable sources of information, that vacuum will be filled with less reliable sources [such as] state propagandists,” he said. Babinets added that, since the funding freeze, fake stories have already started to circulate on anonymous Telegram channels and websites, echoing Russian disinformation narratives.

What Donors, Governments, and the Public Can Do

According to Sullivan, affected news organisations “should explore any revenue generating option that they have not pursued yet, including donations from readership, fees for service programs, and advertisement. Donors are likely overwhelmed with requests for support, but they could look toward local philanthropy first for commitments. They should also consider changing their business models and starting to publish on some of the platforms that offer revenue from readership such as Substack.”

The funding freeze has indeed forced some news organisations to turn to their audience for financial support. For example, Moldova.org launched a crowdfunding campaign on Patreon and sought new revenue sources. SDK in North Macedonia also relies on donations, but the impact has been minimal, covering only 3–5% of the budget. Meanwhile, the Kyiv Independent, itself unaffected by the freeze, has fundraised to support struggling outlets. Slidstvo.Info has also launched an online campaign, hoping to secure additional funding. However, with the ongoing war, donation appeals are easily overlooked.

Dragomir offers a pessimistic view, emphasising that there is little to be done in the short term. “For many organisations, it took years to build their business model, and grants were a major source. This dependency is not ideal, of course, and some were aware of it, but nobody thought that something like this would happen,” he says. “New revenue takes time to develop and is not an instant solution. We are trying to help them as much as possible, and we have set up a regranting mechanism to assist them in their transition. Any donations are welcome,” Sullivan notes, adding that “realistically, the opportunity for local funding is minimal. Some local audiences have little or no disposable income. In some cases, some organisations will close.”

While media outlets must diversify their revenue streams, many have already been attempting to do so for years, with limited success. In the short term, “mobilisation across Europe is needed,” Dragomir argues.

Akgün highlights the responsibility of funders in ensuring the survival of independent media. “As funders, we need to collaborate to make sure that the infrastructure that has been built for decades can continue to do the crucial work that is needed to protect and foster democracy,” she notes. The European Federation of Journalists echoes this sentiment, with President Maja Sever calling on European institutions and foundations to coordinate efforts in safeguarding media pluralism and supporting independent journalism. “The European Union and other donors cannot abandon to their fate journalists who are the best bulwark for defending the rule of law and democracy in countries where they are under threat,” she wrote in a statement.

The Global Forum for Media Development has also issued an urgent call for action, urging governments, donors, and stakeholders to respond immediately. They advocate for unrestricting existing grants to allow greater flexibility in fund allocation, establishing emergency budget lines for public interest media, and increasing funding while streamlining administrative processes. They also stress the need for better donor coordination and the importance of addressing long-term structural challenges to build resilience within the sector.

A quick reaction is most important, says Csaky: “These outlets need the money now, within the next couple of months; otherwise, they may have to shut down.” She believes that now is the time for new donors to step up, as rebuilding the news ecosystem after a collapse would be much more difficult. “Governments that recognise the importance of independent media could introduce incentives to make supporting it worthwhile, which would add significant value,” she continues, adding that pooled funds could also offer a viable solution, as they ensure that grants do not depend on a single donor.

Nevertheless, Dragomir thinks that in the long term, “news organisations need to start to understand their public better. They need to try to start a dialogue with them, but also to engage more with the private sector beyond advertising.” As he argues, there are businesses that understand the importance of independent media, but “a more proactive approach is needed from media outlets to make them more aware of the situation,” and understand why supporting independent media would be mutually beneficial.

Local journalism faces significant challenges around the world, resulting in the decline of newspapers in various regions, often referred to as “news deserts.” These areas suffer from a lack of reliable news sources, resulting in diminished access to important information that citizens need to participate actively in their communities.

This trend is also alarming for journalism funders, as local journalism plays a critical role in maintaining a well-informed public. With fewer reporters covering city councils, school boards, and local events, citizens are left with limited information about issues affecting their lives. This lack of coverage can create a vacuum of knowledge, undermining democratic processes at the local level.

There are several factors contributing to the rise of news deserts. The digital age has brought about immense changes in how people consume news, with many turning to social media and online platforms for information. Traditional newspapers have struggled to adapt to this new environment, leading to declining subscriptions and advertising revenue. Furthermore, the consolidation of media ownership has resulted in fewer local voices and a focus on profit over community service. As large corporations buy up local papers, they often slash staff and resources, further weakening local journalism’s capacity to serve its community.

Depopulation is another significant factor. As younger generations move to urban centres seeking better opportunities, remaining populations often consist of older residents who may have different news consumption habits or limited access to digital media. This demographic shift creates a cycle where diminished local engagement leads to reduced journalistic coverage, which in turn accelerates depopulation, as residents feel less connected and informed about their communities.

The Castile-La Mancha region in Spain serves as an example of how depopulation can lead to news deserts, as it has seen significant population decline, and with it, the local media landscape has dramatically changed. Fewer people means less advertising revenue, which newspapers rely on, ultimately resulting in cuts to staff and resources. Like many areas suffering from similar trends, Castile-La Mancha faces a decline, not just in quantity, but also in the quality of news coverage.

Local media distribution mirrors the region’s polycentric demographic patterns, with outlets clustered in urban centres while rural zones remain underserved. Demographic indicators such as low population density, aging communities, and the absence of younger populations strongly correlate with the lack of media presence, while factors like business activity or income levels show limited influence.

Public services in depopulated areas, such as healthcare and education, remain relatively intact due to public efforts. However, media access heavily relies on private investment, as third-sector media remain underdeveloped. Future research should explore the potential of municipal broadcasters and public communication policies in these regions. Distance and territorial structure further exacerbate media absence, with logistical and administrative barriers isolating peripheral zones.

The complex relationship between depopulation and media absence suggests the need for further exploration, including how media might attract or retain populations. Local journalism’s ability to fulfil grassroots values is critical, alongside the role of civil society and social media in filling informational voids. Emphasising community resilience may offer new perspectives on addressing these challenges.

Saiz-Echezarreta, V., Galletero-Campos, B., & Arias Molinares, D. (2024). From news deserts to news resilience: Analysis of media in depopulated areas. Journalism, 25(12), 2641-2660. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231218818

In response to the changing media environment, journalism programmes are increasingly emphasising the importance of skills such as adaptability, critical thinking, and audience engagement. This reflects a shift from simply teaching traditional skills to preparing students for a future where they are expected to integrate new technologies and diverse perspectives into their work. A significant part of the discussion revolves around how journalism educational institutions must innovate their curricula to meet these challenges, fostering a culture of lifelong learning among journalists. This is particularly important for journalism funders, as their support plays a crucial role in equipping future journalists with the tools to navigate and adapt to the shifting landscape, ensuring the sustainability and impact of quality journalism.

Drawing from insights gained from fifty experts in journalism and education, a study conducted in the Netherlands employed scenario planning to explore various potential futures for journalism education. This method considered both certain trends, such as ongoing technological advancement and the necessity for journalists to engage with their audiences, and uncertain trends, which include the blurring of professional boundaries within journalism and the growing need for collaboration across disciplines.

The study found four plausible scenarios for the future of journalism education. The first scenario, “Back to Basics,” emphasises a return to foundational skills centred around traditional journalism standards, focusing on research, interviewing, and a critical understanding of political and social contexts. The second scenario, “Mix & Match,” allows for personalised learning paths, where aspiring journalists can curate their educational experiences based on individual needs and interests, often leveraging audience collaboration and advanced technology. In the third scenario, “Creators United,” students are trained not just as information providers but also as active participants in journalism, working closely with media organisations and engaging directly with their communities. The final scenario, “Learn for Life,” envisions a flexible, open-ended form of education where traditional structures like diplomas may disappear, allowing journalists to navigate their own paths and explore varied formats and subjects.

Journalism education needs to evolve continually, and educators should prioritise teaching new skills while reconsidering the fundamental journalistic values that should always underpin such training. These insights contribute to the broader discourse on how journalism programmes can stay relevant in the rapidly evolving media landscape, highlighting the importance of flexibility, innovation, and a commitment to understanding the journalist’s role in society. 

Severijnen, M., & de Haan, Y. (2024). Educating for a Changing Media Landscape: Four Scenarios for Journalism Education in 2030. Journalism Studies, 25(16), 1931–1948. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2406814