Lot Carlier, Executive Director at V-Ventures, the investment arm of the Netherlands-based Veronica Foundation, emphasises the critical importance of fostering financial independence for media outlets to maintain editorial freedom. V-Ventures supports investigative journalism, engages younger audiences, and backs regional media. Their strategy is twofold: providing funding and practical consultancy to help media companies strengthen their business model and establish sustainable revenue streams, and invest in companies that create technology, tools and channels for these media companies.
Why is it important for the Veronica Foundation to fund journalism, and what led to the establishment of V-Ventures?
Carlier: We created V-Ventures as our investment arm to focus on strategic investments, while keeping donations under the Foundation’s purview. Although part of the same organisation, V-Ventures specialises in the investment side of supporting journalism. Our roots lie in media—we were once a rebellious media company broadcasting from a ship in extraterritorial waters when we weren’t allowed to broadcast in the Netherlands. This unconventional start has defined our innovative approach and commitment to independent journalism.
Over recent years, we’ve witnessed a decline in media independence across Europe, marked by increased concentration and political influence over media outlets. Supporting innovative, independent voices, especially in regions where media freedom is under pressure, is more important than ever. We have been dedicated to supporting independent media since selling off our own media assets, and we have recently broadened our focus to also include smaller and mid-sized independent media companies that ensure pluriformity of the press and innovation in the sector.
What is V-Ventures’ approach to supporting media companies?
We have a dual approach. First, we support media companies on the business side to help them become less reliant on grants and donations and develop new revenue streams tailored to their specific markets. This support is essential because donor dependency can lead to a shift in focus away from building a strong audience and sustainable revenue generation. We support these companies to establish revenue models that fit their context, whether through syndication, subscriptions, or other methods.
Second, we also invest in media tech companies that support content creators, such as those developing innovative tools to enhance efficiency. Additionally, we have initiatives like SV-Docs, a documentary fund to support journalistic storytelling. This holistic approach allows us to create a blended return on our investments while fostering growth across the media ecosystem.
In which regions does V-Ventures focus its investments?
Our focus is on Europe, and we target three main topics. First, we support news and investigative journalism in countries where media freedom is at risk or where there’s a significant concentration of media ownership, which reduces pluralism. Second, we focus on media companies that are engaging younger generations (Gen XYZ) who are not as connected to traditional media; reaching them with independent news is crucial. Third, we prioritise regional and local journalism as trust in national media declines. We are exploring sustainable business models for all media to replicate. Additionally, as already mentioned, we invest in tools that make the sector more efficient and effective and in channels, like podcast companies. Lastly, we invest in funds to broaden our reach, such as Mercuri and NBM.
Do you provide only capital, or do you also offer guidance or training?
For media companies, we offer more than just capital. We often provide a three-day consultancy programme where we work closely with the entire team to identify the best ways to generate revenue. We may fund specific business roles, like a publisher, for one or two years to help build the business side until it becomes self-sustaining. This approach is different for media tech companies, which operate with their own market strategies.
What is the most important lesson you’ve learned through investing in media companies?
The most critical lesson is that financial independence is key to maintaining editorial independence in the longer term. Media companies must generate revenue beyond donor support to remain free from external influences. In the early start-up phase, donor funding may be necessary to build an audience and establish a critical mass of content. However, as the organisation matures, it must develop diversified revenue streams to become truly financially independent.
What challenges have you faced in funding journalism in Europe?
One major challenge is that many smaller independent media organisations haven’t developed a business strategy yet. Journalists often focus on creating impactful content driven by their convictions, and shifting attention to revenue generation can be challenging. This is where editors sometimes step in to handle subscriptions or other business tasks, but it’s tough to balance this with their focus on high-quality journalism. Dedicated staff to take care of the business side allows journalists to focus on what they do best—creating valuable content.
What has been your biggest success story so far?
While we’ve completed successful exits on the business side, our blended investment approach combining business and content-focused support is still relatively new. We have seen promising indications of a solid blended return over the past five years, although it’s too early to present final financial results. We aim to demonstrate this model’s viability to other impact investors in the coming years by showing that media investment yields reasonable returns while having a huge impact on democracies.
Do you have advice for organisations considering funding journalism for the first time?
It’s crucial to raise more awareness about the need for support in this sector. The current state of media in Europe, and globally, is challenging, and more help is needed to preserve independent voices. Impact investors can create immense change. The message should be clear: funding journalism isn’t just valuable—it’s essential for sustaining democracy and informed societies.
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.”
Autocrats in Central and Eastern Europe are obsessed with independent journalism. They badmouth the press and label them as ‘opposition’ every chance they get. They create Foreign Agent Laws to starve independent outlets of their funding. They resort to legal intimidation, physical threats and murder to silence the truth. They understand and fear the power of information and will spare no expense to control it. On the flipside, our Philea membership survey points to journalism as the least chosen topic of interest two years in a row. Are philanthropists missing a trick? Are we not valuing journalism as much as the likes of Orban? Or are we unconvinced that our support could make a difference?
Last week at KoneKtor, I brought together a panel of journalists and journalism funders in the CEE region to help foundations understand why supporting journalism has become more indispensable and meaningful than ever before.
A politicised market model
In 2011, Tamas Bodoky founded atlatszo.hu – “atlatszo” means transparent in Hungarian – as the first Hungarian investigative journalism non-profit. While Tamas left his former publisher and established Atlatszo to be free from political influence, the challenge to retain editorial independence remains. In Hungary, where mainstream media is captured by the state and critical voices are labelled as opposition, advertising revenue doesn’t follow the market model, but political logic. With businesses afraid of being associated with critical reporting, sustaining an investigative outlet solely on ad revenue is simply infeasible.
To finance their work, some outlets experiment with forms of paywalls. For journalism non-profits established to promote transparency, accountability, and freedom of information, using paywalls feels contradictory to their goal. It would also mean losing even more readers to propaganda news, which is freely available. Instead, many critical outlets turn to crowdfunding. Yet the pressure to choose a side remains. Whilst the situation in the Czech Republic is not as alarming as that in Hungary, polarisation creates a highly volatile readership… to quote Pavla Holcová, “We are not publishing stories about local kittens”.
The kind of stories published at Investigace.cz are bound to create strong opinions and spark emotions. As investigative outlets naturally report more often on those in power, especially the ones spending taxpayer money, they attract more readers and donors that align with the opposition or are unwillingly identified or branded as against the reigning party. When they inevitably produce an article that criticises someone in the opposition, the result can be a devastating loss of donors and readership, and accusations of having been bought up by ‘the other side’.
Polarisation doesn’t only endanger the editorial independence of investigative journalism. Politicised and contentious reporting gets more traction and is actively promoted by Big Tech platforms. In contrast, general interest media focused on keeping the public informed and engaged in their local and national environments have a hard time ‘selling’ their non-politicised content to the public, and also attract less funders. David Klimeš understands foundations favouring specific outlets, especially when they align with their personal or organisational values. With the Endowment Fund for Independent Journalism however, David is on a mission to help local donors (e.g. business owners) understand that a model of concentrated ownership where public opinion is swayed by the highest bidder can easily backfire when in the ‘wrong’ hands. In other words, a stable and independent media is good for business. While project funding or targeted funding for a specific outlet can serve as a great entry point for funders new to journalism, the NFNZ brings local funding together and invests in media pluralism, balancing support for a specific issue or outlet versus support for the sector as a whole. Additionally, it is now also looking to redirect more support to local media outside major cities where the only access to information is through outlets owned by local majors.
Scare tactics
My main takeaway from the conversation at KoneKtor is that in times of state sponsored polarisation, philanthropic support is a more crucial source of income than it ever was. It alleviates the pressure on independent media outlets to conform to a polarised readership or a market logic that serves the political agenda. It promotes nuanced reporting, critical yet party-neutral investigations and it safeguards the access to general interest information.
This last lifeline is exactly what Orban and other autocratic regimes in the CEE are now trying to cut. With a recent surge in ‘Foreign Agent’-style laws, European autocrats have added a dangerous instrument to their playbook. Despite the official communication that Hungary’s new Sovereignty Protection Office was established to stop domestic political actors from accepting foreign funds, one of the first targets they cracked down on was the independent media outlet Atlatszo. Not only do these laws impose crippling monitoring and reporting requirements, they are an obvious attempt at delegitimising their target’s work in the eyes of the public and scare off funders.
We at Philea will continue to voice our concerns over the rise of Foreign Agent Laws; their detrimental effects on targeted grantees should be taken seriously. Fortunately, the message from journalism funders at KoneKtor was resoundingly clear: these laws will not stop international funding from reaching independent media in Central and Eastern Europe. They will not deter foundations already active in the region and some have even ramped up their support. Yet much more funding is needed if we want independent journalism in Europe to endure. If you are not supporting journalism yet, let Orban’s obsession be all the proof you need of the power and value of a free press.
By offering financial aid, mentoring, and training, journalism-funding programmes can significantly enhance media sustainability, despite ongoing challenges such as government pressure and revenue limitations. Lessons learned from a four-year programme highlight the need for long-term support for independent journalism in authoritarian environments.
In 2021, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) launched a four-year programme designed to support independent news media in heavily controlled environments, where market conditions are so distorted that independent journalism struggles to survive. For safety reasons, MJRC does not disclose the names and locations of the media outlets in the programme.
MJRC worked closely with local experts to combat this phenomenon, also known as media capture, by financially supporting independent online media organisations in rural areas. The programme aimed to enhance their sustainability, focusing on three critical areas: financial stability, organisational resilience, and audience growth.
The programme was funded with nearly US$1 million. In addition to financial support, it incorporated a mentoring component. At the outset, each participating media outlet set specific goals aimed at achieving sustainability. It quickly became apparent that outlets with solid business management were more successful in reaching these objectives, while those led purely by journalists faced more significant challenges, particularly in the programme’s early years.
Key Successes
One of the most apparent successes of the programme was the significant improvement in the operations of participating media outlets. As one editor remarked, the programme was instrumental in maintaining and enhancing their business. A distinguishing feature of the MJRC programme when compared to similar initiatives was the provision of core funding (defined as financial resources to cover all operational costs). Many other support programmes focus exclusively on training journalists in specific skills or reporting on particular topics, which, while beneficial, do not address the critical need for stable core funding. Such financial support is essential for small media outlets, especially those striving for sustainability.
The MJRC programme integrated training and counselling as a complementary element. The training was designed to be non-intrusive, allowing participants to balance these activities with their daily responsibilities. Webinars on topics like fundraising and managing internship programmes were particularly valuable, with one editor describing the experience as “eye-opening.”
The programme also significantly boosted the reach of participating media outlets. Almost all participants reported increases in social media followers and readership. The financial stability provided by the programme allowed these outlets to publish impactful stories on topics often neglected by mainstream media. In regions where local media is controlled mainly by government-aligned owners, these outlets usually serve as the sole sources of critical local news coverage.
Challenges
Nevertheless, the programme also highlighted significant challenges. The media landscape in captured environments, where the media are controlled by the government, owners with vested interests rather than the public good, or a combination of both, remains a formidable barrier to supporting independent journalism. Independent outlets often struggle to gain access to government officials, are labelled as opposition media, and are subjected to continuous smear campaigns. These difficulties are compounded locally, where news organisations frequently encounter resistance from municipalities.
Securing advertising revenue is another major challenge. In markets dominated by the government, advertising funds are typically directed only to aligned outlets. Even in towns governed by opposition parties, municipal funds are rarely allocated to independent media. Additionally, many private companies are reluctant to advertise in independent media, due to fear of government retaliation. Editors in the programme shared instances where potential advertisers were explicitly warned against buying ads with them.
Challenges related to human resources are also significant, with many outlets struggling to attract and retain staff for essential roles like sales managers or community coordinators. This is often due to salary constraints and the stigma attached to working for independent media in authoritarian environments, where such affiliations could have negative repercussions for employees and their families.
Moreover, the heavy reliance on Facebook as a primary platform for reaching audiences poses a significant risk. Changes in Facebook’s algorithm in 2023, which reduced the reach of news media, led to a noticeable drop in daily traffic for many outlets. In response, some began exploring alternative outreach methods, such as launching newsletters or expanding to other social media platforms like Instagram or YouTube. However, these efforts require additional funding to hire skilled social media managers.
The Path Forward
One of the most important lessons learned from the programme is that long-term sustainability for media outlets in captured environments hinges on diversifying revenue streams. However, this is particularly challenging for outlets in rural areas, where access to ad revenue is severely limited. As a result, these outlets often rely on philanthropic funding or direct audience support. While philanthropic funding is vital, it is not a long-term solution in authoritarian environments. Therefore, the most viable path forward is to focus on building a strong, engaged audience base.
Still, due to the limited purchasing power of potential audiences in many of these rural areas, it is unrealistic to expect audience revenues to sustain these organisations in the short or mid-term. Media outlets should, however, be encouraged to continuously seek feedback from their audience, refine their content strategies to align with audience interests, and explore ways to generate financial support directly from their readers.
For journalism funders, this also calls for a change in strategy. Rather than continuing to fund outlets hoping they will quickly become self-sustaining, funders should consider long-term commitments of at least five to eight years. This would provide outlets the stability needed to build strong relationships with local audiences and develop sustainable business models.
Ultimately, the MJRC programme, which concludes soon, has demonstrated that while supporting independent media in captured environments is fraught with challenges, it can result in significant strides. As one editor in the programme noted, the funding provided a lifeline that helped their outlet survive and transformed it into a legitimate news organisation. Without such support, the very existence of these independent outlets would be at risk, underscoring the critical importance of long-term investment in the future of independent journalism.
For more information, please contact the Center at mjrc@journalismresearch.org.
George Leech, Director of Outreach and Communications at the Prague Civil Society Centre, emphasises the importance of providing institutional funding for independent journalism. By offering flexible support, the Centre helps media outlets continue their vital work, even in exile or under authoritarian pressure across Central Europe and the former Soviet Union.
Why is it important for PCSC to support journalism? How did you come to the decision to include media in your programme?
Leech: We’re approaching our 10 year anniversary next year, and we’ve been supporting the media since 2016-2017. So really, as soon as we started, we kind of realised that the media had to be part of the strategy and can’t really be taken apart from civil society. It’s so important for amplifying the voice of civil society, exposing the failures of authoritarianism, promoting reform, accountability, it’s a key component. If you don’t have robust, strong, independent media, then all these groups doing all this amazing work, in a way, are losing a point of access to the population.
We also recognised the gap in donor funding, that a lot of media support was technical support, or it was very project-driven, whereas our approach since the very start has been to try and provide institutional support for media, funding to pay journalists’ salaries, pay for rent, and cover the costs of doing journalism. We don’t have a kind of editorial approach or thematic priority approach. We are not a donor that is interested in X, Y, Z and would like to see articles on those topics. We really want to fund the media to achieve what they want to do, reach their audiences, and be journalists. Our approach has been to decouple it from thematic priorities and really have it as a core media support programme.
It has also taken a lot of convincing at certain points within the donor sector, and convincing large institutional government donors that actually providing this institutional support is necessary and valid, because it also takes a lot of trust from people giving the money, right? It’s very easy to form a project where you say, at the end of this, we’re going to have had 30 articles on this topic, and we’ll have had five training sessions on these various topics. Whereas if you’re just giving institutional support, you’re saying that the media is going to continue to work, it might grow its audience. It’s very hard to package that into a very nice, clean project. But working with the big donors and convincing them of our approach has been part of our work and has been successful. We have grown our media support programme substantially over the years and really had a lot of buy-in from large donors, such as the European Union, on the necessity and validity of this kind of support.
In addition to providing grants for institutional funding, is anything else included in your support programme?
Leech: It’s a combination. Most of our support goes through grants, as we are a re-granting organisation. The Prague Centre exists to take large, predominantly government, donor money, and repackage that into smaller grants and try to remove a lot of the burden that comes with, say, being a USAID grantee, or a Foreign Office grantee, or a European Commission grantee. We’re like the middle man in making that money accessible.
But we do also have a full capacity building programme, and that ranges from many different kinds of support. In general, we don’t have media technical expertise in house. Rather, we have a wide network of trusted providers, and we talk with the media. When we’re in the process of making a grant, or we’re discussing their projects with them, then they self-identify that it would be really good to have training on security, or some kind of audience research. And we know people, we can put them in touch.
So we really try to empower the media we support to get the best support that’s tailored to their exact needs, rather than saying, here’s the Prague Centre’s media capacity building, this is our prescription. We listen to the needs and suggestions of our media partners and have a network of proven and trusted providers that we can recommend to circulate, and if someone is necessary and relevant, that’s perfect.
What kind of media are eligible for your support?
Leech: A huge range of media. From traditional newsroom media focused on Eastern Europe and Central Asia, to investigative media, various niche media, all the way down to various social media channels. We also include in our media support programme NGOs that have kind of advanced media arms. We also support them in similar ways, to do campaigning and communication. So our grantees range from traditional large newsroom-style media to people with a YouTube channel across the whole region where we work.
Which region do you work in?
Leech: We have a mandate to work in all the countries of the former Soviet Union, apart from the Baltic States. Two years ago, we started a media support programme for Central Europe. So Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovenia were added onto that.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from the programme?
Leech: I will reiterate the necessity that we must provide institutional support. There’s not enough of it in the sector. There is a cost of being the kind of flexible donor that we are. We pride ourselves in making this funding as adaptable, as flexible, as useful as possible for the grantees that we work with. But that requires, of course, a lot of talking with them, adaptation of proposals, changing proposals mid-project, which really puts a lot of extra work on our grants team, and I really wouldn’t underestimate the work it takes to stay true to the commitment to be flexible, adaptive, and responsive.
For example, when the full-scale invasion happened in Ukraine, we were making grants immediately as part of our emergency response to civil society and the media. There was one media [outlet] to whom we gave a grant to relocate from Kyiv, as the Russian army was advancing. When it became clear that Kyiv wasn’t going to be overrun and actually they’d be able to remain in Kyiv, we were then able to basically change the grant and say, OK, hang on, you don’t need to relocate, but you still have all this money, let’s see what we can do, and use the money in the way that you need it most. That’s a sensible and obvious thing to do, but you still have to change the project and work out how to manage it, what the new objective is. This is constant change, especially when you’re working in an area as volatile as those we work in. This just requires constant communication, adaptation, and tailoring.
In addition to the war in Ukraine, what are the biggest challenges you have had to face?
Leech: I think the war has dominated this region since 2022. Pre-2022, we were working with some exiled media, but now that has increased substantially. There’s a lot of media now located in the EU that present opportunities, but also challenges […]. Also, as a donor, you have media in exile that are still targeting audiences inside the country where they’ve come from, facing attempts to block them. So from investing in technology to circumvent censorship, there are different kinds of needs for the media to be able to continue doing the work. There’s obviously also the increased costs of being located in the EU rather than in your country of origin.
We’re leading a project called Free Media Hub East, which is a consortium of media support organisations funded by the European Union. We provide the re-granting component, but there are also organisations like People in Need (Czechia), Warsaw Helsinki Committee (Poland), Media in Cooperation and Transition (Germany), Sustainability Foundation in Latvia, and Baltic Centre for Media Excellence, also in Latvia, and together we’ve created a body of established practitioners that are providing the full scope of support for media in exile. So from the Prague Centre there’s funding available; from other organisations, there’s visa support, relocation support, psychological support, registration support, language classes, people that will help navigate the bureaucracies of Berlin, Warsaw, Latvia, wherever it may be, help advocate the case for exile media. So the move to exile and the needs that have come with that have also required slightly different solutions that we’ve also had to adapt to as an organisation.
What was the biggest success story?
Leech: The fact that a lot of the media that we support are still running, still managing to engage their audiences, and in some cases, managing to increase their audiences, despite efforts to liquidate the space for freedom of expression, to shut down any kind of independent voices. I think the continuation and ability to still reach audiences is, if not a glamorous success story, a really important one.
But also the ability to respond so quickly. I gave that example of finding the media to relocate during the full-scale invasion. We’ve been able to mobilise a substantial amount of support for Ukrainian media, large, small, regional. Exactly with this institutional support logic that I was talking about before, which has been kind of outsized in its help for the sector, because there has been so much donor funding that’s gone to Ukraine, which is fantastic, but also so much of it is tied up in certain requirements, certain topics, certain training, you know, it comes with a lot of strings attached. The fact we’ve been able to mobilise millions in unrestricted institutional support is something that I’m really proud of.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Leech: First of all, it is great to do it, 100%. If you’re thinking about doing it, keep thinking along those directions, but also question yourself about why you want to do it, and what the results are that you want to achieve through your media support programme.
There are lots of different entry points to supporting media, or lots of different reasons to support media. Know yourself what you’re trying to achieve. If that is to shed more light on the area that you’re focused on, that’s great, but know that this is what you want to do it for. If you believe that independent media is vitally important, it’s underfunded, and needs more support, then do that, and really I’d encourage anyone to go down the core support and institutional funding route.
And partner up! There are a lot of established media support organisations in Europe that have been doing it for a long time. I don’t think people need to always think they need to go alone, or try to do everything themselves. Share, talk to people about their experiences, and identify your niche. There’s always power in the aggregate, right? So maybe, if you can join something that’s existing or amplify something that’s already going on, maybe that’s the way to go about it.
Also, if you’re getting involved in the geographies that we are involved in, then security risk is a really important thing to consider. Understand the operating context of the media, where you’ll be working. You know, we work in Central Europe, in Eastern Europe, in Central Asia, all of those carry very different risk profiles, very different processes, very different approaches to grant-making and supporting media. It’s not a one-size hat that fits all.
Pierrick Judeaux, Director of Portfolio and EU representative at the International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM), explains the critical role of funding independent journalism in low and middle-income countries, and shares his insights into the Fund’s commitment to providing flexible, long-term financial support.
Why is it important for IFPIM to fund journalism? Which outlets are eligible for funding?
Judeaux: The Fund was created as a new multilateral and independent vehicle to fund journalism in low and middle income countries. We created this new vehicle because independent media globally are facing a major economic and financial crisis. The business models that have underpinned independent journalism in past decades have been under massive pressure. And the current level of support that is dedicated to independent media is not of the scale required to meet the challenge.
What we’re seeing globally, with even more acuteness in low and middle income countries, is a lot of outlets shutting down, or being captured by private or political interests. Perhaps more frequent and less visible, but extremely important, is a slow degradation of the capacity of media organisations working in the public interest to maintain their coverage and to hold power to account. That slow degradation is deeply worrying for the future of our information ecosystems and for democracy.
All of this is happening in the context of growing threats to information ecosystems and information integrity, including disinformation, misinformation, and various campaigns and operations led by a number of authoritarian actors. For all of these reasons, we created the Fund as a way to drastically scale up the amount of funding that is being made available to support public interest media in low and middle income countries.
How do you provide support? Are you cooperating with other donors?
Judeaux: Yes, we work very closely with other media funders. We’re very conscious that there are a number of other actors that have been doing really important work in terms of supporting journalists and media organisations for a long time. So we work extremely closely with other actors that fund journalism, and local market actors, journalists, researchers, and civil society actors that follow the information space closely. It’s a very important principle for us to fully acknowledge that we don’t operate in a vacuum, and we want to make sure we use the funds and financial capabilities to be complementary to the support that already exists.
In terms of how we provide support, we’re trying to be as driven as we can by both the local context and the needs of our partners, our grantees. So the types of grants we provide will be slightly different from one grantee to the next. There are, however, a couple of principles.
The first is that we strive to provide institutional support and mid- to long-term support. We’ve realised that the need for core funding or institutional funding is really acute. There is a lot of project funding, there is a lot of short-term funding. This kind of support is very important, of course, but it most often doesn’t allow organisations to cover their core costs and to invest in the future and future-proof their organisations at a time where markets are deeply changing. So we endeavour to provide relatively long term support that gives media outlets visibility. These are two- or three-year grants that can be renewed. In the vast majority of cases, it is core institutional funding rather than project-based.
The size of our grant varies, but because of the core funding and the long-term funding, they tend to be relatively large compared to other funders. We do pay a lot of attention, however, to the risk of being too large a source of revenue for a given outlet, and so we ensure that in almost all cases, with a few exceptions, we fund no more than 30 percent of the operating costs of an organisation.
Finally, how do we identify the organisations we support? We source future grantees through four complimentary channels. We run open calls for proposals. We do a lot of proactive engagements, within countries where we work, with a lot of market actors to identify potential partners. We have a system for referrals from trusted partners, such as other funders and development organisations, to suggest partners we should support. And finally, any media organisation that is interested in collaborating and working with us can submit an expression of interest on our website. So we have these four channels to identify potential partners and then all relevant independent media that meet our eligibility criteria (which are described on our website) go through the same assessment and due diligence process.
I’ll end with a very important point. When we created the Fund as a multilateral financing mechanism, we were extremely careful to strike the right balance between creating a partnership that would mobilise many government funders while ensuring the Fund would make funding decisions independently. None of our funders can direct or influence which media organisations the Fund supports. All funding decisions are made under the control of an independent board made of independent experts who don’t serve any specific organisation or government. This was always absolutely central and non-negotiable. It allows [us] to shield donors from allegations of interference. But most importantly, that’s the only way to guarantee the editorial integrity and independence of the media organisations we support.
You have just announced a new round of support in Latin America. Are you planning to expand your programme in Europe as well?
Judeaux: The mandate of the Fund is to work in low and middle income countries. We don’t work in high income countries. In Europe we currently operate in four countries, in the Eastern Partnership: Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. We’re currently finalising a number of additional grants and we’ll be supporting a new cohort of partners in those countries.
We will also be looking at potentially expanding the set of countries in which we work in the near future. The fund is currently in its first phase of operations, but later this month, we’re going to be launching a campaign for fundraising and replenishment of our financial resources for the next phase of our development. As we raise additional funds, we’ll be able to expand geographically as well.
Now, coming back to the four countries where we work, we’re currently finalising the selection of a new cohort of grantees based on the global open call that we’ve launched on World Press Freedom Day [3 May]. And so, relatively soon, within a month or two, we’ll be announcing a new set of grants across those countries.
What is the most important lesson you have learned since the launch of the Fund?
Judeaux: The one thing we are hearing constantly from almost all our partners is how important unrestricted institutional funding is and how critical it is for them to adapt to the future and survive in contexts where they are facing a lot of pressure. That’s true in all of the Eastern European countries that I just mentioned, and it’s true globally as well. It’s the single most frequent piece of feedback that we get from the partners we work with. The acknowledgement that there is really a market gap when it comes to providing that kind of unrestricted, flexible, long-term funding, is the most important lesson to date.
What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
Judeaux: We need to make difficult choices all the time. We have raised a significant amount of money for the first phase of operations, close to EUR 60 million, but this is a drop in the ocean compared to the needs. Independent journalism outlets that do really important work for society need funding, and hard decisions have to be made, because there are a lot more needs than actual funding available.
Yet the unmet need remains vast. Following the launch of two calls for proposals, the Fund received expressions of interest from over 600 organisations, requesting grant funding worth a total of US$ 120-130 million. These calls were limited in scope and applied to only a small subset of countries. Globally, the level of demand is many times higher. Scaling up the capital available for public interest media remains of paramount importance.
A second challenge, I think, has been that a lot of media organisations are now asking themselves questions around how to adjust their editorial practices to meet the audience where it’s going to consume content. That’s particularly true in case of younger audiences. We’ve tried to identify those actors that pay particular attention to trying to find ways to cater to the needs of younger audiences. This is part of a broader approach of the fund, to ensure that audience needs are at the core of how media organisations think about their work. We are trying to ensure we identify media organisations that do the best job possible to address the needs of younger and underserved audiences.
We’ve learned a lot of lessons as a community, but it’s still very complex for many organisations, especially those that have existed for some time, to design and execute a strategy by which you not only think about your distribution and your marketing, but also about the types of formats, the topics you cover, also the composition of your newsroom, and make sure you have more diversity and representation within your newsroom.
The shift that’s required to make sure you talk to everyone and address all audiences is far bigger than just thinking about meeting people on social media. Identifying and supporting those organisations which try to go through that transformation has been a challenge, but it’s a very promising area of work.
Finally, in many markets it’s hard to see a future for sustainable independent media without deeper, more structural changes. That’s why we also invest in supporting initiatives that look to create new ways to finance journalism and change the rules of the games that shape the environment independent media operate in. For instance, we’re supporting the creation of several new National Journalism Funds, such as in Sierra Leone and Brazil. We’re also working closely with actors that design models and advocate for fairer value sharing between big tech and the media.
What was the biggest success story in your programme?
Judeaux: There have been a number of media organisations we’ve supported that have highlighted that we’ve allowed them to survive and continue to play a really important role for the community in difficult times, whether it is one of the oldest community radio stations in South Africa, called Bush Radio, or whether it is independent media in Georgia, Netgazeti, or Mtisambebi. We have a number of cases where our partners have highlighted how critical core flexible funding has been to maintaining the ability of these outlets to continue their work.
However, it is not only survival that the grants provide. We also have a number of, I would say, early success stories where we see media organisations that are able to pilot innovation and roll them out in a way that’s proven very successful. Let me share a few examples.
One area relates to the point I was making earlier around transforming newsrooms. For instance, Himalmedia in Nepal has improved its reach and coverage of underreported issues affecting marginalised communities, facilitated by a fellowship programme for young journalists from underrepresented backgrounds.
Experimentation with new revenue streams has been another area of transformation to support growth and independence. For example, in Colombia, Mutante launched its production arm, Mutante Estudio, which within a year has already generated about 10% of its revenue in 2023.
Finally, we’ve also seen several of the media we support experiment very successfully with new formats and distribution strategies and grow their audiences rapidly. In Eastern Ukraine, News of Donbas’ new tailored content for social media has quickly generated a significant increase in traffic. Videos on its YouTube channels were seen over 40 million times in the first three months of the year and their newly created TikTok channel has also rapidly accrued millions of views.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Judeaux: I have three pieces of advice. First: do it! Do it because the integrity of our information ecosystem and the existence of independent trusted voices in the countries where your foundation or your institution is working is critical for almost anything else you want to achieve, whether you’re working on issues like social justice or climate change, you name it. It’s certain that having a healthy information ecosystem is central to achieving your goals, so investing in stronger independent media is actually instrumental in advancing your objective as a foundation or an institution.
Second, there are lots of ways to do this. Maybe you don’t feel like you have the bandwidth or the desire to create an entire programme and to build the capacity to do this, because media funding is quite complex, in the sense that you need to understand not only media, but also the politics in a given country. You need to be very careful about media capture. So if you either want to protect yourself, or don’t want to build the entire infrastructure to do this, then there is an existing structure called the International Fund, a pooled global funding mechanism that allows for organisations that care about information integrity, but might not want to develop an entire programme on media funding to be able to do that very efficiently and quickly.
Then third, invest in local capacity. The field of media development and media support has evolved a lot over the past couple of decades, and the funders that are doing the best work are those which invest in local resources and local capacity, because media is so complex and so embedded in the fabric of society and politics. Being able to work and to be driven by people that live in these environments is extremely important.
In the summer of 2023, amidst ongoing debates on artificial intelligence’s cultural and economic impact, the American Journalism Project (AJP) announced a partnership with OpenAI. This collaboration aimed to provide funding for the innovative use of AI in local newsrooms. Although OpenAI’s donation of US$10 million was smaller than recent contributions from Meta and Google, it marked a significant moment where a leading technology company sought to support the news industry through philanthropy.
Sarabeth Berman, CEO of the American Journalism Project, emphasised the opportunity to involve local news organisations in shaping the implications of generative AI. She highlighted the dual role of venture philanthropists in both fostering innovation and mitigating the financial decline of local news. AJP is part of a broader movement of venture philanthropy programmes, including the Google News Initiative and Meta Journalism Project, which are increasingly influential in journalism. These organisations position themselves as key players in revitalising local journalism through entrepreneurial ideologies and market-oriented solutions.
Venture philanthropists frame the crisis in local news as an opportunity for innovation, portraying themselves as essential in matching financial resources with deserving organisations. They argue that their investments can achieve sustainability and growth in local news where market forces have failed. John Thornton, a co-founder of AJP, compared venture philanthropy to venture capital, suggesting that these funds are necessary to support mission-driven news organisations.
This approach links financial growth directly to the success of local journalism, positioning revenue generation as a critical measure of success. AJP’s impact report claims that their grantees generally grow significantly in revenue, suggesting that venture philanthropy can address market failures in local journalism. However, critics note that much of this funding tends to benefit already affluent communities, raising questions about the equitable distribution of resources.
Venture philanthropists also play a crucial role in disseminating practical knowledge and technical capabilities in journalism. They offer training, best practice guides, and case studies to help news organisations integrate new technologies and business strategies. For example, the Google News Initiative supports projects like the Post and Courier’s use of Google Analytics to develop paid newsletters, demonstrating how local newsrooms can adopt innovative practices to drive revenue growth.
The influence of venture philanthropy also extends beyond financial support, to shaping the discourse around journalism’s future. These organisations produce significant discussion about journalism, promoting their own role as arbiters of change and innovation. They position themselves as knowledgeable experts who understand how to best use available philanthropic capital to achieve sustainability in journalism.
The discourse of venture philanthropy often merges financial and public missions, suggesting that market-oriented strategies can serve the public interest. For instance, Elizabeth Green, co-founder of AJP, stressed the need for expert teams to raise diverse revenue and develop strategic leadership within local news organisations. This framing implies that financial sustainability and public mission are intertwined and that successful organisations must navigate market realities to fulfil their public roles.
Venture philanthropy organisations also respond to journalism critiques, such as the need for diversity and equity, by framing these issues as mission and business goals. They highlight successful examples of integrating diversity into their product and audience development strategies, suggesting that these efforts can attract philanthropic funding.
According to this study, venture philanthropy’s blending of financial concerns with public mission creates a powerful discourse that shapes how resources are directed in journalism. While some critics argue for increased public and government support for local journalism, venture philanthropists present a compelling alternative by leveraging market-driven innovation and philanthropic capital to address the ongoing crises that the industry has been facing for more than a decade.
Creech, B. (2024). Venture Philanthropy, Local News, and the Murky Promise of Innovation. Media and Communication, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7496
Mia Vukojević, Program Director for the Western Balkans at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, emphasises the crucial role of supporting independent media in fostering democracy. The Fund aims to strengthen democratic governance, accountability, and transparency in a region marked by political fragility, in part through investigative journalism.
Why is it important for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to support media in Europe?
Vukojević: The Rockefeller Brothers Fund identified the Western Balkans as one of the regions we consider a pivotal place for our focus areas: democracy, peace and climate. We believe that there cannot be true democracy without strong independent media. In situations where democracy is as weak or fragile as it is in the Balkans, supporting independent media, investigative journalists, and other media organisations is absolutely critical to strengthening democracy.
What kind of news organisations do you support?
Vukojević: We mostly support investigative media organisations and independent media that cover the topics we focus on, such as democracy, governance, accountability, transparency, peace, and climate, […] around 15 organisations in four countries in the Balkans. They are all reasonably small organisations. In addition to that, we support two of their networks: Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).
Are you in touch directly with your grantees or do you work with implementers? What do you think are the advantages of these approaches?
Vukojević: We’re not that big of a funder; our budget for the Balkans is USD 4.15 million a year. Given that, we see the value in direct relationships with the organisations. We mostly support them directly, give them very flexible general support grants over a longer period of time and build direct relationships. We rarely fund projects and we don’t ask for project proposals—we support organisations for all of their work.
This is partly a question of capacity. If we had a lot more money, we would likely also contribute to some of the pooled funds. In addition to direct grants to organisations, we do provide a grant to Slaviko Curuvija Foundation, a national foundation in Serbia that funds super-small local media and individual journalists, which we would not be able to fund directly. I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. I think the biggest advantage of working directly is that, as a funder, you get to know the people at the media organisations you fund, you build relationships, you trust each other. Then it’s much easier to give general support grants, which are much more flexible than it would be through the intermediaries. I think the advantage of working through intermediaries would be that you can process much more funding and give more grants. You can reach organisations that would normally be too small for you.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from this program?
Vukojević: I think it’s the importance of long-term support. Not expecting that things will change overnight, not expecting that investigative journalism will yield results in changing the system and making it more accountable immediately. The need for funders to stay for the longer term and be flexible is very important. Journalists need to be able to work on stories, however long it takes. They need to be able to own the stories and be responsive. If we are truly good practice funders, we should fund them that way: flexible, long-term. This brings the best results.
What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far? How do you respond to these challenges?
Vukojević: One of the challenges is that the funding is generally quite scarce for independent investigative journalism work, so there is always far more need than available funding. This makes choosing who you fund, and why and how, more difficult.
There is also [the issue of] dealing with the consequences of this work for grantees. Investigative and independent journalism often puts journalists in danger. Some of them work in extremely difficult environments. They get exposed to SLAPPs [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation]. Their reputation is slandered. Some get physically attacked. Sometimes even being connected to us may expose them to challenges because we are an American foundation, and foreign funding is increasingly villainised.
It is very hard to do much about that as a funder. Our grantees are independent organisations. They realise what they’re getting themselves into and take these risks consciously. Sometimes, they need help beyond what we can provide. It is especially difficult when our grantees and their partners are personally attacked. In many of these organisations, the majority of journalists are women, and the attacks they suffer are unconscionable.
On a more positive note, what was the biggest success story? In general, how do you assess the success or impact of your programs?
Vukojević: The Balkans region is full of irresponsible, corrupt politicians. The people working in investigative media have, over the last 10 years, exposed the actions of many of those people. These journalists have worked so hard that now every citizen in the Western Balkans region has easily accessible information about properties their politicians own, buy, and hold; the big corruptive deals they’ve made on public procurement and infrastructure; their connections to organised crime. These politicians would deny it, but it is now well-evidenced and indisputable.
There are many examples of public officials, including ministers, having to resign or being prosecuted after being exposed for doing something that they should not have done.
This is a really big success in terms of the big picture and long-term thinking. The change is slow. It often takes a long time, and there are difficulties with the institutions that don’t always act or prosecute quickly, but it is happening. I’m very proud of our grantees for everything they have achieved so far. And there is still, of course, so much more to do. I am looking forward to seeing where they take it.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not yet funded journalism but are considering doing so?
Vukojević: I usually start by saying “you can’t be serious about working for democracy if you are not supporting independent journalism.” That’s number one. Number two, if you do fund journalism, please do not do projects, log frames, six-month funding. These journalists are experts and they need general support to their organisations so that they can make decisions, take action, and pivot as they see necessary. Trust them. You will be amazed to see what they can achieve.
In a world where the pillars of democracy face unprecedented challenges, the relationship between philanthropy and journalism is mutually beneficial. While independent media grapples with daunting challenges and crises, the decision to fund journalism emerges not merely as an act of altruism but as an indispensable strategic imperative, wielding profound influence in shaping societal narratives and driving transformative change.
The significance of journalism often gets overshadowed by the buzz of social media, flashy headlines, and the discussions on misinformation. Yet, on 15 March, at the annual conference of the Journalism Funders Forum, where funders can engage in an interactive and proactive manner, representatives from the philanthropic world gathered in Amsterdam to discuss why independent media and philanthropies mutually need each other, how journalism strengthens the impact of philanthropies, and the importance of new players entering the journalism funding field.
Journalism as a Tool for Societal Objectives
Quality journalism and media organisations face numerous substantial challenges. Media capture, where media are controlled by governments and/or non-state groups with vested interests, the general decline in trust in the media, and the rise of social media platforms are just a few examples. Additionally, the media industry has struggled to recover from the 2008/09 financial crisis as its traditional business model crumbled. While there is a continuous rise in global advertising expenditure, a significant portion of it is monopolised by tech behemoths, therefore, the biggest challenge lies in financial sustainability – maintaining operations without relying excessively on external funding sources – highlighting the need for journalism grants. As Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director, the Public Interest News Foundation argued, “80 percent of the headspace of brilliant journalists is taken away by worrying about bills.”
This stark reality underscores the critical need for more funders, especially new players in the field, to step forward and support journalism. However, convincing potential funders has proven to be a daunting task, as many of them carry a prevailing reluctance to invest in media, often perceived as a failing enterprise. Moreover, journalists themselves may not always be the most effective advocates for their own cause. Compounding these challenges is the general erosion of trust in traditional media, fuelled by the proliferation of mis- and disinformation. Despite these hurdles, the imperative to fund journalism remains clear.
For philanthropy seeking to champion press freedom, the rationale for funding journalism is self-evident. However, even for those with different philanthropic goals, investing in journalism can serve as a powerful means to achieve broader societal objectives. This might prompt potential funders to consider thematic funding, involving grants for reporting on specific topics such as social justice, healthcare, or environmental concerns.
As Jonathan Heawood argued, while this approach may lead to some immediate or medium-term improvements, achieving long-term impact necessitates considering the sustainability of journalism. He urged a deeper understanding of the underlying ecosystem. Just as biological ecosystems require productivity, resilience, and organisation, the information ecosystem must also be nurtured to yield the desired outcome: democracy. Adrian Arena, Director of International Human Rights, the Oak Foundation, echoed this sentiment, emphasising that at its core, the endeavour to fund journalism is fundamentally about safeguarding democracy.
Harnessing the Power of Journalism
However, selling the concept of democracy as a noble cause has become increasingly challenging. Democratic rights are under attack by populist movements and authoritarian governments across various regions. Programs promoting such rights often result in backlash, leading to the stigmatisation of involved organisations. For instance, many countries employ narratives that label such organisations as foreign agents meddling in sovereignty, with civil society organisations and independent media being vilified as adversaries and frequently subjected to smear campaigns. Consequently, for some philanthropies, the perceived risks associated with supporting democracy, human rights, or journalism in certain regions may deter their involvement.
Still, regardless their focus, it is imperative for every philanthropy to engage the public, creating critical pressure and fostering long-term results. Public outreach and storytelling are indispensable elements of every successful program, which underscores the critical role of journalists in defining narratives. As a conference participant argued, to achieve systemic changes, decision-makers need to feel responsible and inspired to act, and a powerful driving force behind this is evidence-based, balanced and solutions-driven narratives driven by independent journalism.
The power of influencing hearts and minds cannot be overstated, and media serves as a very potent avenue for achieving this goal. Failure to harness the potential of journalism means missing out on a significant opportunity for outreach and impact. Furthermore, even a relatively modest investment in journalism funding can yield substantial results, making a meaningful impact on society.
Speaking of impact, Miguel Castro, Head of Global Media Partnerships, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, emphasised the critical importance of demonstrating impact to convince potential funders, highlighting its dual role as also a tool for media outlets to attract subscribers by showcasing the value of their journalistic product.
However, measuring the impact of journalism funding projects presents challenges due to the difficulty in establishing causal relationships between positive impact and journalists’ publications, given journalism’s multifaceted nature which encompasses informing the public, shaping opinion, fostering accountability, and influencing policy, with these effects often being indirect and hard to quantify. Fortunately, various metrics, such as public revelations, can be utilised, with journalism funding projects proving relatively easy to monitor due to their daily publication cycle, facilitating continuous monitoring.
The ultimate impact of journalism funding, however, extends beyond mere metrics, encompassing discourse shifts and policy changes. The unique ability of journalism to elevate issues onto the agenda creates fertile ground for tangible policy transformations.
Navigating Challenges and Strategies for Effective Funding
Navigating the landscape of journalism funding requires a strategic approach, but, as a participant emphasised, it is not as daunting as it may seem, and it works similarly to other fields. Prospective funders must clarify their objectives from the outset. It is paramount to collaborate with local consultants and partners possessing in-depth knowledge of the media landscape and organisations, whether they are trustworthy and produce quality journalism. Due diligence is also important, particularly in regions with high levels of media capture and limited press freedom.
Engaging with other funders fosters mutual learning and advocacy efforts. Coordination among funders is essential not only to prevent unnecessary overlaps but also to share experiences and insights. Additionally, coordination can extend beyond information sharing: pooled funds offer an alternative entry point, facilitating more significant capital involvement and expertise aggregation. Adrian Arena highlighted their benefits, including expanded geographic reach and collective peer strength in managing potentially sensitive programming.
Journalists’ sensitivity to editorial independence is paramount, necessitating programs built on mutual trust and respect for the autonomy of news organisations. While financial support is crucial, capacity building can be equally vital for sustainability, encompassing legal counselling and assistance with SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), brought by individuals and entities to deter their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity. In certain cases, even psychological support can be valuable. In conclusion, while funding journalism might seem daunting, it presents an opportunity also for new players and thematic funders to make a significant impact. The Journalism Funders Forum stands as an entry point for funders new to the field, providing a space for European philanthropies to engage proactively in supporting independent, quality journalism and its role in democracy, harnessing its power to shape narratives, drive systemic change, and foster accountability.
Recognising the challenges faced by news media, Civitates offers core funding with flexibility for two years in an attempt to address the funding gap that many media outlets in Europe are grappling with. Prioritising organisational development and sustainability, Civitates’ support has been thus far deployed to media outlets across eight European countries.
Democracy is under attack in various European countries as the space for civil society diminishes, with governments imposing barriers, vilifying groups, and impeding access to crucial funding. The digital public sphere, essential for democracy, is threatened by disinformation and a decline in media trust, fuelled by technological changes.
Enter Civitates, a pooled fund comprising 18 foundations, aimed at beefing up the civil society sector. Initially concentrating on countries witnessing democratic erosion, the initiative swiftly recognised the main role of media capture in this phenomenon, which included frequent attacks against civic space, democracy and the rule of law.
Independent journalism faces a triple threat of diminishing public trust, receding media freedom, and financial instability due to disrupted business models. “Our overarching objective is a healthy, pluralistic, and democratic Europe,” says Eszter Szűcs, Senior Programme Manager at Civitates, adding that they focus on supporting independent public interest media, predominantly non-profit organisations.
Civitates does not solely focus on the state of democracy but considers an array of factors in its selection process. Among them, the availability and quality of funding in a country play an important role. Questions about the presence of local funding sources or reliance on international donors become key considerations in how Civitates shapes its support strategy.
Currently, Civitates supports 11 organisations across eight countries: Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain. Szűcs explains their approach as “thinking in cohorts,” emphasising their goal to strengthen connections between grantees, which allows organisations to learn from each other’s experiences, fostering a collaborative environment. Szűcs cites successful implementations of paywalls as an example of shared knowledge among grantees.
It is crucial, she added, that Civitates provides core funding, typically spanning two years, with a notable degree of flexibility. This addresses a significant gap in the funding landscape, as long-term core funding is rarely provided by donors, even though strong, sustainable independent public interest media need stability to flourish.
“It is very important to pay attention to fund the organisational development of the grantees,” Szűcs argues. While it may be easier for media outlets to fundraise for specific projects, this can divert their focus towards initiatives they may not necessarily want to pursue but that they will in any case undertake due to financial necessity.
News organisations require a robust structure and functional operations, elements often overlooked in the chase for project-specific funds. Civitates has identified this gap and tries to address it, a rather uphill battle as many journalists may lack expertise in organisational development.
“The core funding provided by Civitates (…) means that the organisations are not pressed to deliver certain stories within a predetermined time window or to follow predetermined financial strategies,” said Diogo Cardoso, journalist and member of the governing body at Divergente, a Civitates-funded organisation from Portugal. “This creates the base for both a truly free independent media and the room for experimenting in the field of alternative sources of revenue, with the financial sustainability in mind.”
Furthermore, funding from Civitates is not just financial aid; it comes bundled with capacity-building support and a focus on networking. This includes facilitating conference participation and exchanges among organisations funded as part of the programme. “We share a lot of the same challenges and doubts while consolidating our projects, so being able to benefit from others’ experience while analysing our own challenges helped us to make wiser decisions,” Cardoso said. “We benefited from visiting and hosting different organisations, and thus acquiring knowledge in specific areas that helped to cover gaps that we had in our organisation.”
Supporting business model development, editorial growth, audience engagement and outreach, and capacity to achieve impact on the public debates is expected, and hoped, to contribute to the long-term sustainability of news organisations, Szűcs argued.
“Before we won the grant from Civitates, Átlátszó Erdély was a small investigative journalism outlet run by journalists, with me, the editor-in-chief constantly juggling, and often overwhelmed by, editorial, admin, fundraising and outreach tasks,” explains Zoltán Sipos, chief editor and manager of Átlátszó Erdély, an investigative journalism project focusing on the Hungarian community in Romania. He adds: “The Civitates grant allowed us to hire an administrative assistant, and later to add a marketing person to the team. This freed up my schedule so I could focus more on the content, and also on the longer-term projects that are essential for our growth of Átlátszó Erdély. Thanks to the Civitates grant, Átlátszó Erdély became a bigger, and considerably more resilient organisation.”
“The Civitates core grant was a game-changer as it allowed to put in motion a long term plan that transformed our organisation from a small journalism project into one of the most awarded independent newsrooms in Europe, with presence at international journalism networks and multiple cross-border cooperation with other organisations,” Cardoso argued.
By providing funding to cover the needs of media outlets in those areas, Civitates hopes that it contributes to the sustainability of independent media, and thus, to the fabric of a thriving democratic Europe.