In a research article in Journalism Practice, Simone Benazzo, Florence Le Cam, David Domingo, and Marie Fierens look at Germany, Croatia, and North Macedonia and analyse Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as instruments for media capture. SLAPPs undermine not only individual journalists but the sustainability, independence, and impact of the media ecosystems journalism funders seek to strengthen.
SLAPPs are legal actions used to harass or intimidate people who speak on matters of public interest. Because they rely on legal tools rather than open threats or violence, they are often hard for journalists to fight. While countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia have had laws against SLAPPs for years, Europe has only recently taken steps in this direction following pressure from civil society and media groups.
Most academic work has focused on the legal structures that enable SLAPPs and on legal reforms that could stop them. Fewer studies have looked at their wider effects. The authors’ research seeks to understand the complexity of SLAPPs in Europe and the range of reactions to them. They view SLAPPs as a form of media capture, where governments or political and business interests try to control the media. In this sense, SLAPPs can contribute to autocratisation, a process in which countries become more autocratic even if they are still considered democracies.
They examined Germany, Croatia, and North Macedonia, three democracies with different recent trends in autocratisation and different levels of SLAPP activity. Through interviews and focus groups with journalists, lawyers, and activists, the authors explored the actors involved and the strategies they use. Their analysis shows five key dimensions of this struggle: juridical, political, professional, financial, and social.
Looking at the juridical dimension, focus group participants saw SLAPPs as an abuse of the court system that restricts freedom of expression. The independence of the judiciary influenced how often SLAPPs occurred. In Croatia, where trust in judicial independence is low, SLAPPs are frequent, and some judges even file cases against journalists. In Germany, the courts generally defend press freedom, but participants warned that this could create complacency and allow cases to go unnoticed. In North Macedonia, past SLAPPs were marked by arbitrary decisions before defamation was decriminalised. Today, judges tend to protect journalists, partly due to training and pressure from professional associations. Across countries, participants debated whether training judges is enough, noting that the main issue is sometimes not knowledge but attitudes towards journalism.
Political actors also play a central role in shaping SLAPPs. In Croatia, both national and local politicians often initiate lawsuits, supported by close ties with judges. In North Macedonia, the fall of the autocratic government in 2017 reduced SLAPPs, though other political pressures remain. Regulatory bodies and major broadcasters still reflect older power structures. In Germany, SLAPPs by politicians are less common, but the rise of the AfD party has increased hostility towards the press, leading to long and costly disputes. Some focus group participants argued that these pressures shape the wider public sphere. In North Macedonia, joint declarations between political and media actors have been used as a tool to prevent legal action against journalists.
Professional bodies play an important role in resisting SLAPPs. Journalists’ associations in all three countries collect data, offer support, and advocate for better protection. Croatian associations run rapid-response systems and annual surveys. North Macedonia’s association works to secure free legal aid and contributes to national and international monitoring tools. In Germany, focus group participants stressed self-regulation and the need for the profession to defend itself. Press councils, however, were seen as limited in their ability to help, except in North Macedonia where their opinions influence court cases. External actors, such as European media organisations, also support journalists through training, advocacy, and insurance schemes.
SLAPPs also have severe financial consequences. In Croatia, high damages and “serial plaintiffs” place heavy burdens on journalists and media outlets. Some lawsuits appear motivated by profit rather than reputation. Law firms also benefit by specialising in these cases. In North Macedonia, legal reforms have reduced fines, easing some pressure. Participants described how SLAPPs can drain resources, force media into crowdfunding, or even bankrupt people. This financial fear can lead to self-censorship, as editors may stop investigations to avoid costly cases. In Germany, some in the focus group suggested joint funds as a way to help journalists face legal costs.
Public awareness of SLAPPs is low in all three countries. Many people distrust journalists, which weakens sympathy for those targeted. Focus group participants in Croatia and North Macedonia described widespread suspicion of the media, while German participants stressed the need to report on SLAPPs openly to build understanding. Awareness campaigns were seen as essential, led by civil society or journalists’ associations. Croatian participants felt that public knowledge had improved thanks to their efforts, though others in Germany and North Macedonia were less optimistic.
The authors created a multi-dimensional model to show the links among all five dimensions. Journalists and media sit at the centre, while political actors, business figures, and legal actors use SLAPPs to pressure or silence them. The model also highlights how different forms of media capture connect to the wider processes of autocratisation.
The three countries studied show important differences. In all of them, politicians have filed SLAPPs, but only in Croatia and North Macedonia did these cases come from politicians close to the ruling parties. In these contexts, SLAPPs act as tools of autocratisation, used by those in power to weaken dissent. In Germany, the rise of the AfD suggests that similar pressures may appear in the future. Another striking finding concerns Croatia, where some judges themselves use SLAPPs. This shows how legal actors can sometimes reinforce autocratising trends instead of blocking them. The findings also confirm that financial actors, including law firms that specialise in SLAPPs, now play a major role.
The study also highlights that SLAPPs can be resisted. Journalists, professional groups, civil society, and some judges use different strategies, such as public awareness, legal support, and political pressure. These efforts differ from country to country and depend on local power relations, resources, and traditions of cooperation.
Benazzo, S., Le Cam, F., Domingo, D., & Fierens, M. (2025). Journalism Facing Autocratization: Analyzing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as Instruments for Media Capture. Journalism Practice, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2025.2598376
In a research article published in Digital Journalism, Bernadette Uth shows that audiences in Germany are rather reserved when it comes to using participatory features in journalism, despite believing that they are an important element in building trust. These findings show that even modest investments in audience engagement can strengthen trust and loyalty, key foundations for the long-term sustainability and public value of independent media.
Journalism has long relied on sales and advertising. In recent years, this model has become harder to sustain, therefore, many newsrooms now look for new ways to earn money and keep their audiences. One growing approach is to focus on a smaller group of loyal readers rather than the general public.
Digital media have changed what audiences expect from news. People can now respond to stories, share their views, or take part in discussions. Researchers have begun to study how users engage with these options, but most work has focused on simple actions such as liking or sharing articles. We still know little about deeper forms of engagement, such as taking part in the reporting process or offering ideas and feedback. This paper, however, introduces a way to classify digital engagement based on how much involvement it requires. It uses survey data from Germany to explore which engagement options people use and how important they find them, and examines how these perceptions relate to trust in journalism.
Trust is vital for journalism in democratic societies. Without it, audiences may avoid the news or question its purpose. Studies show that trust is shaped by personal experiences, emotions, and whether people feel represented. Many groups say they do not feel heard by the media, which has led to calls for closer and more open relationships between journalists and the public. Yet levels of trust vary, and some groups remain deeply sceptical. Local journalism often enjoys higher trust than national outlets, partly due to closer contact with communities.
Audience engagement is often seen as a promising way to strengthen trust, but actual participation remains low. This paper therefore explores how often people use various options, how important they find them, and whether seeing journalism as open and audience-focused is linked to greater trust.
As a first step, the author looked at how people use different ways to take part in digital journalism. Overall, all options are used, but to very different degrees. Simple actions, including user comments, liking or sharing articles, or joining quick polls, are the most common. Options that demand more effort, such as sending photos or videos or producing material for journalists, are used far less. Many read comments weekly or monthly, but only a small number write comments themselves. Even for the most popular option, a significant number of people rarely or never engage.
When the author compared the actual use of these options with their perceived importance, an interesting gap appeared. Many respondents do not use participatory features, yet they still say these features matter. People tend to value tools that help them express their views or follow others’ opinions, even if they do not use them themselves. Surveys and polls are rated as most important, followed by sharing articles and reading comments. High-involvement options such as sending topic suggestions or writing e-mails are also seen as fairly important, even though few people use them. The least important option is writing one’s own articles. Overall, people seem to value the idea of engagement more than the act itself.
Next, the author asked how people judge journalism’s efforts to engage its audience. Many respondents hold a neutral view, and a significant number say they cannot judge these aspects at all. People are more likely to agree that journalists allow the public to express opinions or discuss current topics with them. They are less convinced that journalists moderate discussions or build a sense of community with the public.
Finally, the author examined whether the perception of journalism as audience-oriented shapes trust. The results show a clear link: trust is higher among people who feel that journalism listens and engages. Age and political views also matter: older respondents tend to show lower trust, and supporters of some political parties express far more distrust. Media habits play a role too: those who follow traditional news show higher trust, while heavy users of social or alternative media tend to trust less. Showing an interest in dialogue and community-building can support trust. At the same time, outlets face the challenge of creating engagement opportunities that audiences will actually use.
Uth, B. (2025). Hardly Used, But Highly Appreciated? Use, Importance and Effects of Engagement-Oriented Journalism. Digital Journalism, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2605489
Based on interviews with journalists, content producers, and former journalists in Austria, Uta Russmann, Sabine Einwiller, Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Lina Stürmer, and Gisela Reiter produced an article in Journalism which found that the use of social media and the lack of financial and human resources in journalism are the main reasons for these blurring lines. This undermines journalistic independence, ethics, and public trust: areas where targeted funding and capacity-building can make a difference.
Since the rise of the Internet, journalism in Europe has faced a deep crisis. Long-held lines between journalism, PR, and advertising have become blurred, and at times seem to disappear. Traditional media business models have weakened, forcing news outlets to change how they work. Many now rely on advertorials, sponsored content, and other paid forms of communication. This has made news outlets less dependent on one source of income, but it has also pushed many journalists to move into PR or marketing. Austria reflects this wider trend. The number of full-time journalists fell sharply between 2007 and 2019, and many former journalists are now working entirely in PR or advertising.
This study explores how people in the profession view these blurred boundaries. In semi-structured interviews, the authors asked how journalists, hybrid journalists/content producers, and former journalists now working in PR or advertising understand journalism today. They also looked at the challenges they see in their daily work.
The paper places these views within the wider changes caused by digitalisation. New platforms, new formats, and economic pressures have transformed how media content is produced and shared. The overlap in skills demanded in journalism, PR, and marketing has grown. As a result, journalism is under pressure to protect its identity, values, and independence, while also adapting to fast-moving technological and market shifts.
The interviews showed that most respondents agree that the boundaries between journalism, PR, and advertising have become blurred. Many said these boundaries have almost disappeared and continue to fade, especially because of social media. Journalists and some former journalists viewed this trend very critically. They feel that economic pressure and limited resources have weakened the profession and also pointed to stronger influence from advertisers and the rise of media cooperations, where coverage forms part of a paid package. Some spoke of surreptitious advertising and the routine use of press releases. Former journalists now working in PR admitted that it is easy to place polished material in the media, but they also described this as ethically troubling. Several interviewees warned that trust in journalism may decline if these problems continue.
Others, especially journalists/content producers and some former journalists, had a more neutral or positive view. They argued that the blurred boundaries are simply a reality and cannot be reversed. They also noted that PR and advertising can offer well-prepared information with more time and resources, although this content lacks journalistic independence.
Social media plays a major role in these changes. Interviewees said it has increased the overlap between professions and created new pressures. Journalists now have to promote their own work online and master skills once associated with PR and marketing. As a result, the definition of journalism has become less clear. Many struggle to describe their own role, especially when working across different fields. The question of what journalism is, and who counts as a journalist, remains open.
The interviews showed that blurred boundaries between journalism, PR, and advertising are now normal. Digital change and media convergence have caused these fields to overlap, and interviewees believe this trend will continue. Journalism has lost much of its old identity. Although journalists stress the importance of keeping clear boundaries, in practice, the lines are becoming harder to protect. PR, advertisers, and influencers all play a growing role in shaping information, and journalists struggle to keep their work separate. At the same time, journalists now use tools and skills once linked to PR and marketing, such as SEO and audience tracking. They also produce content for platforms like TikTok to reach younger audiences. This helps them adapt, but it also reduces their autonomy.
These changes raise ethical concerns. When journalism, PR, and advertising look alike, audiences may not recognise content that serves commercial or political interests. This can weaken trust and limit the depth of information available. It can also create conflicts of interest when media rely on commercial revenue. Clear labelling of paid content and strong ethical standards are essential to protect trust.
Although journalism has never been fixed, the current shifts have wide consequences. The profession must define proper practices and protect independence, as trust in journalism is vital for public debate and democratic life.
Russmann, U., Einwiller, S., Seiffert-Brockmann, J., Stürmer, L., & Reiter, G. (2025). Journalism in times of blurring boundaries between journalism, PR and advertising. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251406152
Media freedom in 2026 is once again set to face pressure from various political, financial, technological, and regulatory sources. Elections in the EU’s increasingly fraught democratic landscape, high-stakes debates over the shape and enforcement of digital regulation, and the use of AI will all profoundly influence the state of media freedom. As journalism funders play a crucial role in sustaining independent media, these developments may also directly or indirectly impact their work.
Digital Regulation: Debates Around the Digital Services Act (DSA)
The Digital Services Act (DSA), introduced to create a safer and more transparent online ecosystem, will remain a central point of debate both for its enforcement and its implications for freedom of expression. As the EU pushes forward with stringent platform obligations, the United States is pushing back, arguing that some elements could undermine free speech and impose extraterritorial burdens on US companies.
The DSA mandates algorithmic transparency, content moderation, and risk-mitigation measures. The US government argues, however, that these run counter to the American constitutional tradition, which generally prioritises minimal state involvement in speech regulation. As the European Commission ramps up enforcement, Big Tech companies such as Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and Google argue that the DSA’s risk-mitigation obligations will force them to make judgments that may appear political, especially during sensitive elections.
The outcome of this standoff will not only shape future platform governance but also the information environment surrounding upcoming elections.
Hungary’s 2026 Election
One of the most consequential events for media freedom in Europe this year will be the Hungarian parliamentary election on April 12, 2026, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s illiberal regime faces its most serious challenge in over a decade. Orbán has been criticised for over a decade for controlling much of Hungary’s media landscape, characterised by pro-government propaganda networks and economic pressure on independent outlets, but his system remains a blueprint for other authoritarian leaders around the world.
The election will not only determine Hungary’s domestic media environment but may also have an influence on democratic resilience in other EU Member States where populist and illiberal actors are gaining ground. The result and the agenda of the next government will also influence the EU’s infringement procedures against Hungary for, among others, failing to comply with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), meaning a test for EU legal mechanisms to uphold democratic standards.
The Use of AI and Deepfakes in Election Campaigns
Artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI capable of producing deepfakes, has moved from sci-fi speculation into becoming a serious factor in electoral politics. In 2026, this trend will be inseparable from broader debates about media freedom, electoral integrity, and digital regulation, including the EU’s forthcoming AI Act.
Deepfakes are AI-generated or AI-altered videos, images, or audio that mimic reality. They have already proliferated and influenced global elections. A study published last summer found that 38 countries have experienced election-related deepfake incidents in recent years.
The impact of deepfakes is not only important because of their reach, but because they damage public trust. By lowering the cost of producing convincing fake media, AI enhances what researchers call the “liar’s dividend,” where real footage can be dismissed as fake and real media loses credibility. For example, the upcoming Hungarian election is already being shaped by AI-generated political content, and the European Parliament voiced its concern over unlabelled AI-generated political videos published on social media channels tied to political parties.
While some governments are attempting to mitigate these risks by employing tools to detect deepfakes, technology alone cannot solve the problem: legal mechanisms and their enforcement are needed.
Harassment of Journalists and Self-Censorship
One of the most worrying recent global trends is the increase in physical and digital threats to journalists, which goes hand in hand with rising self-censorship and negatively affects media freedom.
According to the latest UNESCO World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development report, freedom of expression has declined significantly worldwide, accompanied by a steep rise in attacks on journalists. Governments and powerful actors have tightened control over traditional and digital media channels. Reporters are not only facing physical violence, but also surveillance, legal intimidation, and online harassment that undermines independent reporting and forces many to avoid sensitive topics altogether.
Economic Fragility
Another structural challenge that will undoubtedly shape media ecosystems in 2026 is the economic fragility of independent journalism. The 2025 World Press Freedom Index shows that the financial environment for journalism is at a historic low point: in 160 out of 180 countries, with media outlets struggling to sustain basic operations. Advertising revenue has shifted dramatically toward large tech platforms, leaving news organisations starved for funds. Newsrooms are shutting down worldwide, especially where political pressure compounds economic vulnerabilities, leading to news deserts where access to reliable news is severely limited.
The domination of global digital advertising by tech giants has not only diverted revenue but also amplified disinformation and manipulated online information environments, further destabilising independent media. In 2026, economic viability will be a defining battlefield for media freedom.
Journalism is the “oxygen of the political system,” says Riccardo Ramacci, Head of the Media Programme at the Mercator Foundation Switzerland. In this interview, he reflects on why a healthy and pluralistic information ecosystem is essential for democracy and discusses the foundation’s approach to supporting journalism.
Why does Mercator Switzerland support journalism? How does this align with your broader organisational mission?
Journalism, and the broader information ecosystem, are vital cornerstones of democracy. We consider the two to be strongly dependent on one another. This is especially true in a country such as Switzerland, where there are a lot of elements of direct democracy and political rights give citizens a lot of power to make important decisions. Democratic decision-making requires trustworthy and reliable information. Journalism is the oxygen of a democratically organized political system. In our philanthropic work, the topic of journalism aligns with all the other fields we are involved in, such as climate change and education. A healthy and critical information system, as well as strong and pluralistic media, are important to have constructive discussions about an equitable and ecologically sustainable future.
Has the focus of your journalism programme changed since it began?
Yes. We started pretty organically through two of our thematic funding areas, democracy and digital transformation. In a democracy, the transformational crisis of media is a really important issue and a challenge for democracy itself. That’s why we’ve launched several media related projects and also some studies to look at the challenges of, for example, local journalism.
Similarly, we realised that the evolution of the digital public sphere was one of the most important aspects of the digital transformation society. That’s why we’ve launched some media literacy projects. We realised that through these two approaches, we could achieve a lot more impact if we combined them under one journalism program. As such, all the media related projects are now coherently bundled up together within one portfolio.
What kind of support do you provide within this portfolio?
It really depends on the needs of the grantees. We provide financial support: everything from bigger tickets, like long-term core funding and organisational development, through smaller project-related financing. In addition, we offer tailored capacity-building through our “coaching pool”. External experts provide advice or consultation on issues that concern our grantees. This can range from questions around the organisational structures, leadership, and strategy development to financial planning, fundraising, and communication concepts, et cetera. We also provide a professional analysis of the organisations themselves to identify the next steps they should take to develop further and strengthen themselves for the future.
Who is eligible for your support?
Our primary focus is within Switzerland, but we have an increasing European perspective with some projects and networks. This stems from the conviction that we cannot solve the societal challenges we currently face within national borders.
The focus of our support for the media and journalism funding is on what we call “information ecosystem organisations”. We focus on projects which typically serve more than one news outlet and strengthen the entire sector itself. This can mean legal aid or capacity-building with physical or technical infrastructure, but also networks, knowledge transfer, et cetera.
We also promote certain forms of new collaboration, because we believe that interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration is a key approach to the development of the media sector, which is currently in the midst of a transformation crisis. We pool different resources while still maintaining, of course, the plurality of the system.
But we do not provide direct media support. We only contribute through pooled funds, such as the Media Forward Fund or Civitates, to maintain arm’s length, which is a really important aspect for us when it comes to journalism funding.
We also support media literacy projects in order to improve the perception of news and journalism and stimulate the demand for information. So organisations which complement the education system, are also eligible for our funding.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?
When we entered the field, we didn’t realise how complex and unique it is. Journalism is a commercial product which can be monetised, but it is also a common good which serves the higher purpose of informing society within a democratic system. Maintaining the balance between these two logics is not an easy task. For a philanthropic organisation it can be challenging to assess where it should and can be active, in collaboration with which actors. It is important to determine where philanthropy has a role within the media sector.
Another lesson was that you need patience and a long-term perspective for the funding and capacity-building, because it takes time to reach the public or build up a wider audience.
How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story you can share?
In the journalism program, we work with a theory of change. In addition, we develop an impact framework with specific goals for each project, in close collaboration with the grantees. One of the crucial aspects for success is the key impact on one target group. This could be an audience or other journalists. Although to record a measurable change is sometimes tricky in this field.
The other aspect is the financial stability and health of the organisations, which is probably one of the most crucial and important questions in the field of media and journalism. You can measure this quickly and easily when you look at the budgets, the financial planning, the resources, and also potential new revenue streams.
Both aspects are vital to assess success. There needs to be a clear value for the target groups, but it is also crucial to maintain financial stability.
As far as success stories go: The first grantees of the Media Forward Fund, which received funding in the beginning of 2025, already show promising signs of growth thanks to philanthropic investment. One grantee could more than double its newsletter subscribers and gain more than 30% paying members within a couple of months.
What were the biggest challenges that you have had to face within the journalism programme?
The dynamic and constant change of the field and the sector. Many of the premises we originally had were quickly overhauled by technological or political developments. There is far more demand for funding than there is supply. Consequently, a lot of great and fundable ideas remain unfinanced. Resources and knowledge are leaving the ecosystem a lot quicker than new funding comes in. In this situation, prioritising what to fund remains a constant challenge for us.
And I already touched upon this earlier, but it also remains a challenge to precisely define what constitutes public interest journalism, what is the public value of journalism, and what this definition means for our work.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
One piece of advice might be obvious, but I would really recommend it: seek the advice of actors and organisations which already work in the field, such as the JFF. There are also other great organisations which provide a lot of insights. This was immensely helpful when we started the programme. Reach out to all these actors but also listen to the grantees and the field itself. Be courageous and start somewhere. It does not have to be perfect right away. To have an actionable approach and not to get lost within theoretical frameworks is also very important.
Collaboration is not only key for the grantees, but also for funders. My advice would be to collaborate with them as much as possible to strengthen impact, but also to navigate the complex question of what public interest journalism really means.
The Journalism Science Alliance pairs journalists with scientists and backs their work with grants, mentoring, training, and cross-border collaboration to support public interest investigations. In its first cycle, it supported 24 teams from 15 countries, awarding nearly 1 million euros in funding.
The idea for the Journalism Science Alliance (JSA) emerged during early conversations between the European Journalism Centre (EJC) and NOVA University in Lisbon. As Vera Penêda, Director of Programmes & Impact at the EJC, recalls, “we realised that it was a good moment in time to create a joint programme, at a time when journalism and science are both under pressure from rising authoritarianism and mis- and disinformation.” This shared urgency laid the groundwork for a pan-European initiative designed to bridge two fields that rarely collaborate in a structured way.
JSA is built around a simple premise: meaningful investigative journalism can be strengthened when it draws on scientific methods, and research can reach deeper into public life when communicated through strong, evidence-based reporting. The programme supports this idea through grant funding, training, mentoring, and networking opportunities that bring journalists and researchers together. With these resources, participating teams are expected to uncover stories of public interest, experiment with new approaches, and produce investigations capable of engaging audiences across Europe.
The concept is not entirely new. Over the past few decades, several initiatives have shown what can happen when academics and media professionals combine their skills. A collaborative study of the 1967 Detroit riots, carried out by the Detroit Free Press and Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, became an early demonstration of how joint inquiry can shape public understanding. “Reading the Riots,” a landmark project following the 2011 unrest in the UK, revealed how much impact such partnerships can have when journalists and scholars examine social crises together. More recently, the Center for Media, Data and Society at the Central European University ran the Black Waters project with Atlatszo and BIRN, assembling an interdisciplinary team to investigate environmental corruption along the Danube in Hungary and Romania.
What sets JSA apart is its scale and ambition. Co-funded by the European Union’s Creative Europe programme, it will run across Europe for two years, distributing €2 million in grants to support science-based investigative journalism projects, and will provide additional assistance in the form of mentoring and training. As Penêda explains, it will help participants strengthen skills such as visibility and dissemination: “Journalists learn how to apply elements of the scientific method, such as hypothesis-driven inquiry and data scrutiny. Scientists, in turn, learn how to share their work in ways that resonate with wider audiences.”
The scope of the calls has been intentionally kept broad to encourage a wide range of ideas and partnerships. The aim is to empower journalists and researchers to explore stories that matter to their communities and to the wider public sphere.
To support this ambition, the programme awards three types of grants: €10,000, €20,000, and €50,000. Eligibility criteria mirror the programme’s commitment to collaboration and cross-border exchange. Participating organisations must be based in countries that take part in the full cross-sectoral strand of the Creative Europe programme. This includes all 27 EU member states as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, and Ukraine. Partners from outside these countries can also participate, provided the core team includes one eligible media outlet and one eligible research institution.
The first call, closed this summer, revealed how strongly the sector has been waiting for such a structure. JSA received 162 proposals, more than double the total number of grants it will award across its two-year run. Applicants came from 54 countries, and most teams applied for the largest Tier 3 grants of €50,000. For Penêda, this level of interest sends a clear signal: “This shows that there is enormous demand for a space where journalists and scientists can work together.”
From this pool, the independent jury selected 24 teams from 15 countries, awarding €1 million in total. The successful applicants come from a wide geographic spread and will now have eight months to complete their investigations. While many of the chosen projects focus on environmental questions, topics also range across health, justice, inequality, disinformation, and more. Penêda notes that some of the partnerships themselves are pioneering, bringing together experts who would rarely collaborate otherwise, “for example with psychologists.”
One of the recurring questions during this process was how to balance the very different working cultures and interests of science and journalism. Penêda explains that the JSA “is not about translating research into journalism, it’s about co-creating the investigation from the start, with both disciplines shaping the story.” Teams receive tailored mentoring for both sectors, and evaluators prioritised projects promising equal impact and mutual benefit for both.
Balance does not come without challenges. Penêda identifies time and alignment as the first hurdle: “They operate on a different schedule and vocabulary.” The second was ensuring that applicants clearly understood the scope, as “it is not a science journalism programme. We support any topic as long as scientific experience improves the story.” A third difficulty lies in funding: as a co-funded EU programme, the remaining financing is hard to secure. “While some foundations have stepped back from investigative journalism, others simply don’t have the schemes in place to co-fund ongoing initiatives,” Penêda notes, adding that, “we need a funding ecosystem that supports shared ownership.”
Looking ahead, Penêda is clear about the ambition: “We’d love to renew it.” The next call is set for early 2026, and the long-term vision is expansive: “it could be a template for a collaborative truth-telling model that could grow into a global alliance”, provided the right partners come on board. “It’s not just a grant scheme. It’s a way of testing how journalism and science can work together, as two truth-based fields, by building a shared structure of support.”
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.
In a research article published in Digital Journalism, Liisa Ovaska (Tampere University) investigates Finnish news users’ understandings of the role of audience data in journalism by employing folk theories as an analytical approach.
The rise of datafication, the process of turning human actions on digital platforms into data, has transformed journalism. Newsrooms now rely on audience analytics to understand readers’ habits, adjust headlines, and choose topics that attract more attention. This data-driven approach aims to stabilise finances through subscriptions and engagement rather than advertising. However, it also shifts journalism from serving citizens’ needs to catering to consumer interests, often mixing news with entertainment.
Journalism research has long focused on how news is produced, paying less attention to how audiences understand and evaluate journalism. However, what people expect from journalism reveals much about how they perceive its purpose. Studies show that audiences in different countries want journalists to inform, fact-check, and hold those in power to account. Some also wish for more positive and solution-oriented reporting that makes them “feel good.” Yet, audiences often think commercial pressures shape journalism too much, leading to lower-quality content.
The concept of “folk theories of journalism” helps explain these audience views. Folk theories are people’s everyday beliefs about what journalism is, what it should do, and how it operates. They are shaped by personal experiences, social discussions, and public debates about the media. People use these informal theories to decide how much they trust and engage with news. For example, some audiences believe journalists are biased or too influenced by commercial interests, while others still value their ethical role.
In today’s data-driven media environment, these folk theories extend to ideas about algorithms and data use in journalism. Since people constantly encounter datafied systems online, their understanding of how data and algorithms work, often seen as opaque and profit-driven, shapes how they interpret digital journalism. Studying these beliefs helps reveal how audiences make sense of datafied journalism and how this affects their trust and engagement with the news.
News plays an important role in the daily lives of all participants in the focus groups, helping them stay informed and take part in conversations or political decisions. However, when discussing audience data, participants did not see journalism as a special or different kind of data collector compared to other companies. Their understanding of how news outlets use user data originated from several sources: personal experience with data use online, conversations with others, public debate about data collection, media messages such as cookie notices, and their participation in this study. Through these research activities, they reflected more deeply on these issues, shaping what can be called “sensitised” folk theories: views formed and clarified through guided discussion.
Across all groups, participants agreed that news organisations collect and use user data mainly for commercial reasons. They saw little journalistic or societal purpose behind these practices. Data use was understood as a way to attract advertisers, generate profit, and increase traffic on news sites. Some even described readers as “products” sold to advertisers, accepting this as part of getting free online news.
Participants also linked data practices to a decline in content quality. They felt that algorithms and analytics encourage more click-driven, superficial, and entertainment-based reporting. Headline testing and personalised news were seen as tools to boost clicks rather than inform readers. While some accepted background data use for advertising, many worried that commercial pressures were shaping journalism too strongly, weakening its role in serving the public interest.
The limited knowledge of participants of how news organisations use data suggests these practices are not clearly explained to the public. While participants remained active news readers, their critical attitudes raise questions about whether such scepticism could eventually weaken trust or engagement. The findings highlight the need for greater transparency around data use in journalism.
Ovaska, L. (2025). ‘It’s All About Money’ – News Users’ Folk Theory of Audience Data Utilisation in Journalism. Digital Journalism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2567342
Artificial intelligence offers powerful tools while also putting new pressures on already fragile business models in journalism. While newsrooms can turn to AI to boost efficiency and reach audiences in new ways, they also have to face a significant decrease in traffic – and complex questions about who should pay for the journalism that fuels AI systems.
AI tools are reshaping journalism in many ways, and their impact on business models is becoming increasingly visible. Experts usually articulate both optimism and uncertainty surrounding these changes.
For example, Niamh Burns, Senior Research Analyst in Tech and Media at Enders Analysis, describes the current situation as “a mixed bag.” Veronika Munk, Director of Innovation and New Markets at Denník N, notes that every newsroom she knows already uses AI in some form. There is even a sense of fear of missing out, she says, as newsrooms rush to try new tools, but “only a few look at success metrics,” and follow whether these tools deliver the results they expect.
The Benefits of AI in Newsrooms
Despite this lack of clarity, certain benefits of AI are evident. AI tools can help news outlets respond more quickly to their audiences, operate more efficiently, and personalise their products. They also give news organisations new ways to tell stories, reach audiences through different formats, and create products that have the potential to bring in more revenue. One clear example is the use of AI tools for tagging, which Munk describes as particularly helpful for search engine optimisation and direct email campaigns, both of which are essential for maintaining and growing readership. Other examples include automated social media posting, translation, and transcription tools, both from audio to text and vice versa.
Burns highlights that AI tools can become especially valuable for data journalists. These tools make it possible to analyse large datasets far more quickly and with fewer resources, which means even small newsrooms can attempt investigations that would previously have been out of reach. She also points out that “AI can also help with the multiplatform distribution model,” making it easier to prepare audio, video, or social media versions of a single story. In many cases, these new formats lead to higher user engagement and, with that, a greater chance of converting casual readers into subscribers.
Some organisations are already using AI to write headlines that perform better in search engines or to translate stories into new languages. This allows them to reach audiences they have never served before. Burns, however, warns against taking personalisation too far. While AI can support more sophisticated recommendation systems, journalism has always been shaped by editorial judgement, and she argues that this cannot be fully delegated to algorithms. Editors must still decide which stories matter most.
Munk takes a practical view of these developments. If a newsroom can save time on routine tasks, she says, then there is more capacity for journalistic work, and this ultimately strengthens the product. She has also seen AI tools directly contribute to higher revenue. “We have a lot of campaigns, and this tool, Manychat, a social media client, is really useful,” she explains. Denník N integrated the tool into Instagram, where sharing links is not possible. However, when the outlet partnered with The New York Times and bundled subscriptions, users could comment “New York Times” on an Instagram post and they immediately received an automated direct message with the subscription link. Munk explains that they have been using this tool for half a year and “the conversion rate is quite high sometimes.”
Another important contribution of AI is its ability to analyse audience behaviour. By identifying trends in topics, formats, or publishing times that perform best, AI tools can guide editors as they shape content strategies. These insights help balance public interest journalism with the need to produce stories that draw enough attention to sustain the business.
Still, as Munk notes, while some outlets may think about monetising the tools they develop, most are building similar systems for internal use, such as summarisation tools or language checkers. This means the competitive advantage often lies not in creating unique tools, but in deploying them thoughtfully.
Risks to Traffic and Visibility
At the same time, concerns about the risks AI poses to journalism have been steadily growing. Many of these concerns arise from the simple fact that the business model for news media was already fragile long before AI tools became widespread. Burns explains that publishers originally put their content online for free because they expected to earn money from advertising. That model has been faltering for a decade, but, as she says, “with AI, we see a further challenge: news organisations not getting clickthrough traffic as before.”
This is indeed the main concern for news media. While tech companies have relied heavily on news content to train large language models, now search engines and chatbots answer many queries directly. This means that even when users seek reliable information, they may not reach the website that produced it. Studies already show that the clickthrough rate for Google’s AI-generated summaries is dramatically lower than for traditional search results – Tollbit, for example, found a 91% decrease. Furthermore, Cloudflare reported that OpenAI scraped a news site hundreds of times for every single referral page view it sent.
Publishers see a pattern in this: while their content helps power AI tools, their own visibility shrinks. According to a study by the Reuters Institute, 74% of respondents are worried about a decline in referral traffic for their news organisation.
The impact is not equal across newsrooms. Munk notes that Denník N feels the decline in clickthrough traffic less because of their hard paywall model. Still, it can be a serious problem for outlets that rely heavily on advertising, she adds.
This has serious consequences. As audience behaviour changes, more people turn to AI-powered search engines and chatbots. For many publishers, disintermediation, the loss of direct connection with audiences, is becoming the greatest fear. Younger audiences, who already have weaker ties to traditional news brands, are drifting even further away.
Therefore, Burns argues that newsrooms “need to build direct engagement with their audience,” also because nobody knows how these tools will evolve. They change constantly as tech companies adjust their products to improve user experience. The figures and patterns we see today may shift again in as little as a few months.
Legal Battles and Licensing
Against this backdrop, publishers are trying to rethink how they can adapt. Some believe that they may eventually need to distinguish between human readers and AI agents. As The Atlantic’s CEO, Nicholas Thompson, argued at a conference, they need to identify who is visiting the site so that the organisation can decide how to monetise that interaction. He imagines showing different products or even blocking access in some cases.
You could block AI crawlers, Burns says, but then you face the “problem of losing visibility, because users will still go to these tools to search for information.” Therefore, blocking may protect content, but it also deepens the risk of disappearing from public view.
There is also a broader ethical and economic issue. AI companies rely heavily on the quality of journalistic work, which depends on careful fact-checking, verification and editorial judgement. A white paper published last year by News Media Alliance confirmed that journalistic content is among the most frequently used sources for AI systems. Yet much of this use happens without permission or payment. Burns asks whether it is possible to create an incentive structure where AI companies pay for content. Her answer is cautious: “It’s very patchy at the moment.”
Some publishers have responded with legal action. The New York Times has sued OpenAI for copyright violations, while Dow Jones and the New York Post have taken action against Perplexity.
Others have chosen partnership. A number of news organisations have already agreed to licensing deals. Burns sees “some development in the content of such deals, they are more sophisticated.” She believes that the companies should pay the newsrooms not only for historical, but also for ongoing access.
Survey data from the Reuters Institute shows that almost four in ten publishers expect licensing income from AI companies to become significant. Most, however, prefer collective deals that support the entire sector, rather than each newsroom negotiating its own terms.
Munk agrees that AI companies need journalistic content, and she sees licensing as essential for the future. “It doesn’t work otherwise. If you use something, you need to pay for it,” she argues. Burns also believes that licensing is the right path but warns that not every market will benefit equally. Large English-language publishers have more leverage, while smaller organisations will struggle. She argues that this imbalance shows why “regulatory intervention is needed here, not just ad hoc deals.”
At the same time, the growing value of human editorial oversight may become a strength for publishers who emphasise accuracy, verification, and accountability. Munk notes that journalists are responsible for the content they produce, and this responsibility gives this type of content greater value. Outlets that maintain strong editorial standards, she says, will stand out in the information environment.
Looking ahead, many argue that publishers, journalists, and tech companies should work together to understand how different forms of journalism contribute to the AI value chain. This understanding will be essential for building sustainable business models in the next era of journalism.
Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager, Informed Society at Adessium Foundation explains why supporting journalism is central to the foundation’s mission, shares insights into their focus, and highlights both the opportunities and challenges of sustaining a healthy information ecosystem in Europe.
Why is it important for the Adessium Foundation to support journalism? How does it fit into your broader strategy?
Adessium is a Dutch family foundation that works on various topics with the aim to foster positive societal change. We operate three programmes, one of which is dedicated to a well-functioning information ecosystem in the digital age.
We have been funding journalism for over 15 years, with a consistent focus on strengthening networks that produce high quality cross-border investigative journalism. Over time, we have developed our approach to ensure we meet the needs of the changing information ecosystem. We believe that quality information is key to informed decision making, whether that’s by politicians, policy makers, business leaders, or the general public.
In the early years, we mostly supported organisations that focused on accountability work. Over time, we have expanded the types of organisations we support to make sure that information that’s relevant for broader audiences is also produced. We don’t dictate what needs to be done but, provide general support to journalism organisations and aim to help strengthen them. In addition, we support press freedom and media defence work, and have taken a key interest in the impact of digitisation and technology on the information ecosystem.
In what forms do you support journalism? Do you work directly with news organisations or through intermediaries?
Our Informed Society programme tries to cover different parts of the information ecosystem, but if we just zoom into those who produce journalistic content, we support nonprofits that engage in cross-border collaborative investigative journalism. We support those who directly coordinate the work and who often publish through their partners. Typical examples are Lighthouse Reports, Investigate Europe, and Correctiv Europe.
We also support intermediaries because we believe it is key that complementary funds exist for those whom we do not fund directly, but who are the partners of our grantees. The network of our network, so to say. We have funded Journalismfund.eu for many years and currently co-fund IJ4EU. Additionally, we are among the founding partners of Civitates, where we co-created the sub-fund that focuses on fostering public interest journalism at a national level within the EU.
What are your focus areas?
Geographically, we focus on the EU. We don’t restrict our funding to any specific themes, primarily because we believe that our partners should be those who identify which topics are most relevant to society and need to be investigated. It is to respect their editorial integrity, but also because we want to provide partners with space and flexibility to develop expertise or to expand their topical areas over time.
In addition to financial support, do you provide any other assistance?
Our main approach is to provide multi-annual core funding. In addition, we fund complementary activities such as strengthening infrastructure (e.g. tooling that benefits the broader field, support mechanisms for access to information, etc.).
Where it makes sense, we provide additional earmarked funding to our partners for specific organisational development priorities. This usually entails bringing in external expertise and support. We identify the challenges and needs together with grantees but make sure they remain in the driver’s seat and select and contract external support. This could be a consultant who helps with fundraising, for example, or building income generation capacity.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?
More and more, our partners struggle to distribute their content and findings effectively. With the proliferation of AI-based search and retrieval, the way people consume information is once again transforming. Content producers, including journalism groups, are losing control over how to reach broader audiences or retain direct relationships. In the long run, this undermines the viability of quality information providers.
But I’m also seeing more and more organisations adapting to this reality. Various groups are putting more focus on intentionally and effectively distributing information by, for example, hiring an impact producer, or trying to at least make that a skillset carried by someone within the team.
We see some of our grantees partnering up with different kinds of stakeholders to make sure that publications can reach those affected by the investigation topic, or those who can affect social change. It makes me hopeful to see these efforts succeed in reaching relevant and broader audiences and showcase why journalism in itself continues to be really relevant.
How do you assess the success of your programs? Is there a particular success story you can share?
We assess the success of our partnerships by keeping an eye on the objectives that are set at the very beginning. We do this in three areas: the substantive work and impact of the organisation, organisational development objectives, and objectives around the way we work together.
What we really focus on in these partnerships is seeing how organisations become stronger so that their expertise can flourish. When I look at the journalism portfolio specifically, the primary success indicator is relevant quality information in the public interest being produced and making an impact.
We look for creative and effective ways of reaching different kinds of audiences. We don’t have any specific audiences that we aim to serve ourselves, it’s rather following our partners and understanding what has been done differently per investigation to make sure that it’s not the same people behind the same paywalls that are receiving all the information.
Another aspect we look at is the kind of role our grantees play within the information ecosystem: what they manage to contribute within their own network. Think of organisations that develop a new kind of methodology, or a tool that helps others investigate stories in a different way, or organisations that have discovered a new way of creating information. For example, Bellingcat really revolutionised how OSINT can be part of investigations. They have inspired not only other nonprofits, but even legacy media, to adapt their entire newsroom to include this way of collecting information and producing new content.
Another example of changing the information ecosystem is Forbidden Stories, which also influences the incentive of why a story is being investigated, making solidarity a key incentive to continue the investigation of a silenced journalist and hopefully deter future threats to journalists. We also have some grantees, such as The Examination, who are experimenting with how better collaborative models can be developed. This includes providing support to their investigative partners so that the collaboration works better for everyone.
To mention an example of success, I could share Lighthouse Reports’ work. About two years ago, they published an investigation with local journalists in the Netherlands on an algorithm which was used by the municipality in Rotterdam to flag potential fraudsters in welfare support. It turned out that this algorithm was actually targeting migrants, specifically single mothers. Because they managed to reveal this, in the end the municipality decided to stop using the algorithm. But what was also very interesting to follow in this example was that Lighthouse Reports did not only collaborate with local partners who then published behind paywalls, but also managed to distribute the information in a way that it reached the people who the investigation was about, the single mothers. I think this is a really striking example that shows how you can make sure that the information doesn’t only reach the same audience which can afford to consume news.
What were the biggest challenges that you have had to overcome or that you still struggle with?
One that I think we will continue to struggle with is the unpredictability of the funding landscape. There are a couple of funders that are very stable and consistent with their strategies and provide multi-annual support. But what’s out there is not enough to allow our partner networks to really strategise and think about how they are going to become stronger and more futureproof.
The fact that the largest global funder, the US, has cut its global development support in many areas, including journalism, just brought this to a whole new level. There are so many organisations that are now either shutting down or going through their reserves. The entire ecosystem is quite vulnerable at the moment. It made very clear that there was an over-dependency on US public funding in Central and Eastern Europe. Even for organisations who had successfully diversified their funding streams, it turned out that some of the intermediaries they were relying on were also dependent on US funding. We saw organisations that went from having five funders to having none.
One of the biggest challenges we’re about to face due to these funding cuts is that national newsrooms are going to shut down in certain countries where no independent quality information is going to be produced anymore. Or it’s going to be small and competing with unintentional or intentional undermining factors, like disinformation and misinformation. The watchdog role of these outlets will be weakened, and quality information will be reaching less people, thus not informing decision-making. This is something that we are really going to feel in the future.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
It is crucial to have a healthy information ecosystem to support your line of work, regardless of what your foundation focuses on. If you are a foundation that works on broad topics, like democracy, the environment, or social change, the production of information is going to be crucial in the success of your strategy.
Within this whole information ecosystem, I don’t think we all have to do the same thing. What is important is that we complement each other. As one of our grantee partners recently said, a healthy democracy needs media plurality, but it is also crucial to have plurality in the strategies of funders. We should not all jump on the same thing. We need funders who focus on the local level, on the national level, the regional level, and the international level. We need funders who focus on cross-border investigative journalism, but we also need funders who focus on other forms of public interest journalism. We need funders who focus on supporting the ecosystem or the infrastructure that enables information production, funders who support conferences or training, who support FOI requests of journalists. Then we need funders who support press freedom more broadly, who ensure that there are emergency mechanisms that can support journalists being attacked for the impactful work they do.
So there is a lot to support in this space, and there are different ways of starting to experiment with this. If you make your first grant in journalism, you don’t have to have a full strategy right away. You can take your time in building that up.
We, as funders, need to be in conversation about how we are going to complement each other. I’m not inherently opposed to having thematic funding either, as long as it’s not extremely short term and not overly restricted. In places like the Journalism Funders Forum and other informal settings where funders inform each other and exchange ideas, there are plenty of lessons, but there’s also plenty of inspiration to discuss these questions.