Can small, local independent media thrive in an authoritarian environment? A multiple-year-long funding programme revealed that upscaling small outlets can deliver results, but only when paired with strong internal capacity, business-minded leadership, and continued donor engagement.
Supporting Independent Media Under Pressure
Since 2021, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) has supported independent local media in highly authoritarian environments through a sub-granting programme. For safety reasons, MJRC does not disclose the names and locations of the media outlets in the programme.
Funded by a philanthropic partner, the programme provided core funding to help outlets achieve financial and organisational sustainability, grow audiences, and strengthen resilience. It also fostered collaboration among grantees and evaluated their progress through regular monitoring and comparative analysis, measuring impact across audience reach, revenue, and staffing.
The programme consisted of two phases. In the first phase, MJRC awarded grants to seven local organisations. According to the programme evaluation, it filled a critical gap in local media, offering vital funding, mentoring, and capacity-building. Grantees appreciated the tailored support and local-language administration. Challenges included limited capacities, inexperience running donation campaigns, economic instability in the country, and political pressure.
What Upscaling Looks Like
In the second phase, three of the grantees were selected and received a much larger grant. This phase focused on two core goals: scaling up the infrastructure and impact of the selected outlets and exploring how innovative strategies work in captured media environments. The aim was to help grantees take meaningful steps toward long-term sustainability.
The selection process emphasised operational growth and capacity-building rather than content production, with the jury assessing how applicants could realistically expand their infrastructure, outreach, and impact, based on past performance and readiness for organisational change.
Two grantees received grants almost three times larger than their previous annual budgets, but even the largest outlet experienced a 40% budget increase. In addition to funding, the programme provided ongoing training sessions, peer learning, and mentoring in capacity-building. The organisational development training supported internal improvements, while a needs-based approach ensured tailored support aligned with each outlet’s goals and capacities. The programme aimed to build more sustainable, resilient, and independent media organisations capable of withstanding pressure in challenging environments.
Without this grant, the two smaller grantees would likely have continued to struggle with day-to-day operations, facing little opportunity for meaningful development and little hope of achieving visible impact. In a heavily captured media environment where prospects for press freedom and media sustainability remain bleak, the survival of independent local outlets is largely dependent on donor support. The market simply does not offer the necessary conditions for a small news organisation to become sustainable, let alone to grow or innovate.
The Role of Management and Capacities in Sustainability
One of the key lessons of the project was that smaller outlets often lack the skills and internal capacity required to carry out the kind of strategic and structural transformation that sustainability demands. This became apparent as both smaller grantees faced significant delays in implementing their plans and struggled to use the funds in a timely manner due to insufficient capacities and lack of expertise.
In contrast, the largest grantee was able to deliver on its project goals within the expected timeframe. As a more established organisation with experienced management and a stable internal structure, it was well positioned to absorb the grant and make full use of it.
The size of the organisation and its internal capacity are critical factors in determining how effectively a grantee can handle a grant that dramatically expands its operating budget. While the smaller grantees also experienced a temporary increase in income, primarily through supplementary grants from USAID’s Central Europe programme, the sudden termination of that programme in early 2025 posed a serious threat to their financial stability.
However, the two smaller grantees are not in the same position. One of the most important insights from the project’s earlier phase was confirmed again: outlets led by a business-minded management are significantly better equipped to sustain and grow their operations. This difference became even more apparent after the USAID funding ended. While both smaller grantees lost key financial support, one of them is now in a much stronger position due to its more robust operational staff which has proactively secured new sources of revenue. The other organisation, which lacks a strong business-minded management, has returned to a precarious financial state with potential staff cuts on the horizon and little clarity about the future.
The Limits of Market-Based Models
Long-term sustainability for independent media depends on diversifying revenue streams. Yet in such a hostile and distorted media environment, this is exceedingly difficult. Advertising remains one of the biggest challenges. In captured environments, state advertising often is an important source of media ad revenue but is reserved exclusively for outlets that support the ruling parties. Moreover, in such environments, private businesses are reluctant to advertise in independent outlets, fearing political or economic retaliation.
This makes it all the more important for media organisations to experiment with alternative ways of engaging their audiences. Encouraging regular feedback from readers can help shape editorial strategies that better respond to audience needs. Data on content performance can also reveal which formats or topics are most effective in building loyalty and trust.
Financial sustainability could also benefit from more targeted efforts to understand the audience’s willingness and capacity to pay, whether via donations, subscriptions, or paywalls. Still, in many countries only a small portion of the population is willing to pay for news, therefore audience-based funding, while desirable, cannot yet provide a stable foundation, especially for local outlets with smaller audiences.
Independent local journalism remains indispensable for informing communities and holding power to account. However, without external financial support there is a growing risk of entire regions turning into news deserts where propaganda and misinformation go unchallenged.
Therefore continued donor support is essential. Core funding is the only realistic way to keep small local media running, as the current market offers no viable path to full financial independence. While relying on grants is not ideal, it remains the only available lifeline for independent journalism in countries with declining media freedom.
For more information, contact the Media and Journalism Research Center.
In an article published in the International Journal of Communication, Sebastian Sevignani, Hendrik Theine, and Mandy Tröger offer a new theoretical framework for analysing different forms of direct and indirect influence of Big Tech on news media by expanding the concept of media capture to media environment capture.
Powerful tech companies, especially US-based ones such as Meta and Google, are shaping journalism worldwide. They not only distribute news but also control the digital systems that decide what people see. This growing influence, which the authors call media environment capture, goes beyond ownership concentration: tech giants shape the entire information space. While researchers tend to focus on national cases or mix up different types of influence, this study suggests a broader way to understand how tech companies use both economic and technological power to shape journalism and public debate across countries and regions.
The idea of media capture originally described how governments influence media, despite laws protecting press freedom. This can happen through ownership, financial support, regulation, or corruption, usually leading to more positive coverage of the government. Over time, private companies and advertisers have also used similar tactics, buying media outlets or influencing content through advertising.
At the same time, with the rise of digital media, traditional media lost much of their advertising income to tech companies, leaving many outlets struggling financially and sometimes owned for political reasons instead of profit. Meanwhile, tech giants such as Google have become both funders of journalism and providers of essential tools which news outlets rely on, resulting in media environment capture.
To better understand the concept, the authors combine and apply interdisciplinary theories. They apply the theory of intellectual monopolisation, which focuses on the capabilities of digital conglomerates to absorb and claim knowledge, information, and data, influencing other industries including news media. They also borrow from critical state theory, offering conceptual clues as to how corporations influence media regulation. They also look at more recent theories of capitalism to understand how Big Tech harnesses the underpinnings of journalism.
Media environment capture explains how these tech giants create dependencies that make it hard for news organisations to function independently. On one hand, Big Tech provides funding to media outlets and journalism projects, sometimes to ease tensions with traditional media companies over advertising revenues. On the other, they also shape state media laws by spending millions on lobbying and supporting think tanks and research institutions, particularly in the European Union and the United States, which helps them steer debates on regulations and protect their business interests.
Furthermore, tech companies shape journalism practices through the platforms they provide, such as Facebook, through which they dominate news distribution and advertising. Through services like Google Analytics and Facebook Insights, tech companies control how media outlets understand and reach their audiences. Because so much news is consumed online, often through these platforms, journalists must adapt their content to fit algorithms and user data collected by Big Tech. This dependency forces them to adjust to the business models and distribution methods of tech giants, reducing their independence and changing journalism itself.
But news outlets also depend on Big Tech services and technologies to organise their daily work. Journalists use tools like Google Search, WhatsApp, and Teams for research and communication, while also relying on platforms like Facebook Instant Articles to share content.
The power of Big Tech comes from building large-scale hardware and software infrastructures and collecting vast amounts of user data, which they use to shape the digital public sphere. The concept of media capture, which focuses on ownership and financing, is no longer enough to explain their influence. Instead, the broader idea of media environment capture shows how their influence affects every part of news production and distribution.
As a result, media policies should be rethought by looking beyond single companies and instead considering how to reorganise the entire digital public sphere to protect independent journalism.
Sevignani, S., Theine, H., & Tröger, M. (2025). Unpacking Property: Media, Ownership, and Power in Transformation| Toward Media Environment Capture: A Theoretical Contribution on the Influence of Big Tech on News Media. International Journal of Communication, 19, 21. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/21987
Independent journalism in Europe faces mounting financial and political threats, but a new wave of mission-driven outlets is fighting back. The Journalism Value Project explored how independent media can survive and thrive, offering practical solutions and a vision for a healthy ecosystem.
The Journalism Value Project, run by and for non-profit independent media organisations, including members of Reference – the European Independent Media Circle, and Netzwerk Recherche, aimed to highlight the need to support independent public interest media in Europe and strengthen their financial sustainability. According to Peter Matjašič, former Executive Director of Investigate Europe, a consortium member, the project responded to the “rapid emergence of small, independent media outlets,” which are “countering the decline of traditional media and the rise of misinformation,” yet face serious financial and political pressures.
Through research, podcasts, stakeholder dialogues, and study visits, the project mapped the field, shared best practices, and engaged key stakeholders. It identified significant challenges which public interest journalism has to face in Europe. Journalists encounter violence, harassment, and surveillance, while restrictive laws and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) silence critical voices. Economic pressure, precarious working conditions, and unsustainable business models further weaken independent outlets, especially at a local level. Media capture and political interference threaten editorial independence, while misinformation, amplified by generative AI, clickbait content, and attacks on journalistic integrity undermine public trust.
Despite some EU efforts, institutional support remains inadequate, and recent shifts in the funding landscape – the USAID funding freeze, changing priorities of some foundations, corporate funders abandoning fact-checking – have created a significant gap that threatens the sector’s sustainability.
What Independent Media Leaders Shared
As Matjašič stressed, the main lesson of the project was that independent journalism is “essential infrastructure for democracy,”; still it remains severely underfunded and exposed to both financial and physical risks. Many independent newsrooms operate with minimal resources and precarious business models, but a new wave of mission-driven, digital-native outlets is stepping in. These organisations demonstrate innovation, community engagement, and resilience, helping to fill the gaps left by declining legacy media.
Matjašič also highlighted that the project’s podcast series produced some of the most surprising insights through interviews with over 20 independent media leaders. These conversations revealed that partnerships with influencers opened new avenues for audience engagement and funding, often from non-traditional sectors such as science and innovation. “Reluctance among donors to support journalism often stems from its role in holding power to account,” he noted, adding that independent outlets have shown creativity in securing alternative support.
Peer learning during study visits was also a very important element of the project. Newsroom leaders shared experiences on membership models and newsletters, among other topics. As Matjašič said, this showed that there is a strong solidarity among independent outlets, and they are eager to share their experiences.
During the consultations and in the podcasts, media professionals from the Reference Circle stressed that sustaining independent journalism requires investment beyond editorial work, such as in subscription systems, CRM (Customer Relationship Management) tools, and community engagement. They highlighted the urgent need to improve journalists’ working conditions and financial security to maintain a skilled workforce and attract new talent. They also saw it essential to grow new audiences and reach underserved communities to expand both impact and revenue.
Stakeholder consultations echoed these concerns. Funders recognised journalism’s social value in combating misinformation, fostering transparency, and promoting social cohesion, but pointed out serious challenges such as distrust in media, misinformation, the lack of charitable status for journalism, and funding gaps.
Impact investors noted that public value and financial sustainability can complement each other, though public value is harder to quantify. Some investors prioritise journalism’s mission over profit, using patient capital to help outlets build resilience. At the same time, think tanks value independent media as partners who help translate complex research into accessible stories, though they recognise capacity limitations.
How to Build Resilient Newsrooms
The project outlined a series of recommendations to strengthen independent public interest media in Europe, focusing on financial sustainability, collaboration, advocacy, capacity building, and public engagement.
A key priority should be the shift from project-based to core funding, which, as Peter Matjašič explained, enables outlets “to focus on their mission, innovate, and build resilience,” whereas project funding restricts long-term planning and flexibility. He added that while some funders recognise the value of core, multi-year support, others are constrained by internal structures or legal restrictions.
Diversifying funding sources is also essential for financial resilience. According to Matjašič, relying on a single income stream leaves media outlets vulnerable. “Business models should be open, with a moral compass about where to accept money from,” he argued, adding that investing in business skills is vital for developing sustainable organisations. “This is where many outlets fail,” as journalists often don’t see these business skills as important and sometimes are even afraid of the word “management,” although they should not be. Without these skills, many journalist-founded outlets struggle to monetise their work or navigate legal and organisational necessities. Coaching in the handling of complex funding structures and managing sensitive information is equally important to help media outlets professionalise and become more resilient against financial and political pressure.
The project also highlighted the need to simplify application processes and refine impact measurement to ease the administrative burden on newsrooms. Collaboration across media outlets and sectors is another cornerstone of the recommendations, which encourage peer learning, resource-sharing networks, and partnerships with think tanks, whistleblowers, and civil society to amplify impact. The project advocates for better legal protections against SLAPPs and the recognition of journalism as a charitable cause across Europe, alongside the allocation of tax revenue to support journalism-focused NGOs.
Finally, fostering public trust and engagement is essential. Transparent editorial and business practices, alongside innovative audience engagement strategies such as live journalism and impactful storytelling, can build trust and increase audience revenue. Nevertheless, robust philanthropic support and thoughtful policy reforms are still essential to securing the future of independent journalism in Europe.
The Essentials for a Sustainable Media Sector
Matjašič emphasised that independent media organisations should balance financial sustainability with editorial independence, and they should seek funding that aligns with their mission rather than chasing money that influences editorial priorities. Transparency about funding sources is critical, as is maintaining clear boundaries with funders. Based on the lessons learned from the project, the Reference Circle – a network focused on non-editorial issues – will continue to advocate for more effective funding and provide opportunities for peer learning and knowledge exchange, he added.
As he argued, although “there is no silver bullet” for a healthy ecosystem, it would combine core funding, diversified revenue streams, and strong business skills among newsroom leaders, alongside collaboration across borders and sectors. Such an environment should be underpinned by legal protections for press freedom, charitable support for journalism, and high public trust built through transparency, engagement, and demonstrated social impact.
Penelope Winterhager, Managing Director of the European Fund for Journalism in Exile (JX Fund) explains how the Fund helps independent media outlets forced into exile quickly restart operations and reach audiences back home, and provides insights into how they support emergency needs, foster sustainability, and fill gaps in the funding landscape.
The JX Fund has a very special mission: supporting media in exile. Why was it important to launch such an initiative?
We were initiated in 2022 by two foundations, the Schöpflin Foundation and the Rudolf Augstein Foundation, who joined forces with Reporters Without Borders. What we had seen was that not only more and more journalists needed to leave their countries, but whole media outlets. Especially when the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine started, whole editorial teams had to leave the country due to repressive measures.
What was missing in the funding space was quick and unbureaucratic support to get back on their feet and reestablish in exile. We saw that if you don’t support them right after they go into exile, it’s getting more difficult to reconfigure, and we said, OK, we try to change that: Let’s create a pooled fund to help those media.
What you have to consider is that most outlets that go into exile don’t leave with a business plan, with what they want to do. If you were, for example, a TV station before, it’s not necessarily the same as what you do in exile. You need time to arrive personally, and you also need time professionally. The area medium faces fundamental questions like: What is our editorial offer? What channels do we serve? How do we keep in touch with sources and colleagues who are still in the country?
So, you have this first period of emergency support, and then if exile continues, the medium arrives at a second period in which they try to become more self-sustainable.
How do you define media in exile? Who is eligible for your support?
That’s an interesting question that we were asking ourselves as well. To define media these days is quite challenging. Is every YouTube channel a medium or not? And we had two more challenges. We support independent media in exile, so we created definitions for all three categories, which can change due to circumstances. In the beginning, when you just arrive in a country, there are different criteria than later on.
Being independent means you don’t have a connection to political parties, actors, or to a politically exposed person, and are not state funded. Those media would not be eligible.
To identify as media, you have to publish journalistic, non-fictional content on a regular basis – not, for example, a book once a year. The published content must cover current affairs and be socially relevant.
Finally, exile means to report for people who are still in the country, mostly with some colleagues and sources still there. But a significant part of the team is located outside. We support media that still want to serve audiences in the country, not diaspora media. We are supporting media from countries where press freedom is suppressed, and media must leave to continue their work.
How do you support these organisations? Do you offer grants only, or do you also provide other forms of support?
We support on three levels. First, we continuously map all offerings that exist so as not to duplicate anything. We have a database and if somebody turns to us, we try to match them with these offerings. By collecting these existing opportunities, we also see gaps, not only financially but also structurally. Secondly, we give grants, and we try to do this with open calls, wherever possible, so as to not only give chances to selected organisations that we know.
And third, we saw a need for structural support. For example, we initiated a media incubator when the outlets first arrived in exile and had to reestablish themselves as an organisation, to support immediate challenges, such as what is the right legal entity, what channels, what technology to use, how to communicate safely, etc.
Over time, when the basic editorial structure is set up, new questions arise. We are about to start a programme on entrepreneurial skills for exiled media, on how to further build audiences, generate money, and thus become more self-sustainable when funding declines.
Do you focus more on emergency support or long-term sustainability?
It depends on the situation. Right after or during a crisis, we focus on the emergency. After 6-12 months, plans for medium- and longer-term need support. We do fund media in times of transition into exile – but not for 10 years. We aim to help in the emergency and medium term.
You mentioned that the Fund has existed for three years. How many organisations have you supported so far?
We have supported around 85 media outlets in exile by now, with around 132 grants. Additionally, we have implemented around 36 projects, like those incubators.
We always try to understand the media landscape of a country to best support single outlets. We have been supporting media from Russia, Belarus, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. I believe we have quite a good overview over those landscapes – something that was missing in the field. We continuously assess how many media outlets are in exile, what channels they use, what topics they serve, which audiences they reach, what their budgets look like, and what funding they need. We publish the results in the form of studies or country profiles to provide a better understanding of the landscapes and potential funding gaps for the media but also for other funders and supporters.
What is the most important lesson you have learned?
I think one of the most important lessons is that rebuilding media in exile is not a linear thing. It’s not that you go into exile, you start something and build on it with a fixed plan. There are new challenges constantly, and you need to be innovative and reconfigure your media. Channels can be closed because of repressive measures. Security needs to be rethought. Colleagues may be imprisoned back home. These are things that you cannot plan for. I think exiled media are often the most innovative because they reinvent themselves constantly.
Not new but ever prominent is the dependency on visas to continue reporting in exile. Often visas and residence permits are connected to your income. If for some reasons a medium loses its funding and has to terminate work contracts, then these colleagues also lose their right to stay in the country. It is a huge issue. At the same time, we see autocratic governments worldwide on the rise and more and more media under pressure to leave these countries to continue their work. But financial support for those media is not growing at the same pace. This is one of the biggest challenges.
What other significant challenges have you had to face so far?
An organisation like ours needs to be extremely flexible. We continuously assess the needs of the community, assess what everybody else in the field is doing, and quickly fill the gaps with tailor-made programmes.
Challenges can come from autocratic governments, such as new legislation that criminalises consuming reporting or blocks access to the content of the medium in the country. But it can also come from the funders themselves, such as the funding freeze of USAID, or from big tech who take apps from the app store or deprioritise content. You need to find the right way forward in a constantly changing environment.
Is there a particular success story you can share? In general, how do you assess the success of the programme?
Success can be measured on different levels. For me, it means diversity and impact. There are 64 media outlets in exile from Russia. They cover different regions, different channels, different topics. We helped to keep this diversity of voices alive. This is the only way to ensure that there is an informed audience or civil society.
We know that these media still reach a substantial audience back home. Due to the use of VPNs, this is not an easy task to measure. But there are ways, and we can say, sticking to Russian media in exile, that they still reach between six to nine percent of the Russian speaking adult population. I think this is a great success. Especially if you take into account that about 48 times as much money is being spent on propaganda and censorship in Russia than on exiled media.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so? Do you have any specific advice about supporting media in exile?
Always look at the media landscape. Don’t just look at the prominent media, or the famous outlets. There are many important regional media, or those focusing on certain topics. Look into these, because in times of news fatigue and rising repressions, they are often more capable of reaching audiences and being relevant than the larger ones. Always look at the whole set of voices that continue their work in exile.
A second hint would be: look at the innovations of those media in exile. I think we can learn a lot from them as they are some of the most innovative in the field: how to circumvent censorship, how to deal with platforms that don’t always treat content evenly, and how to reach audiences with news fatigue. We should see them as partners, learn from them, and interact with them.
Maribel Königer, Director of Journalism and Media at ERSTE Foundation, highlights the importance of supporting independent journalism to protect democracies in Europe. From fellowships to pooled funds, the Foundation’s evolving approach aims to strengthen media resilience, for which it is essential to develop sustainable business models.
Why is it important for the ERSTE Foundation to support journalism? How does it fit into your broader mission?
The Journalism and Media programme is embedded in our Europe and Democracy programme. We define the problem here: liberal democracy is under threat. Europe’s democracies remain fragile and unprepared to withstand internal and external socio-economic, technological, and geopolitical disruptions. One of our answers to this problem is that we want to support high-quality independent media and journalism in CEE. We have been doing this since the very beginning, only a bit differently; now we do it with a wider focus.
Together with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, who left some years later), we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence. At that time, in 2007, we were focused on the Balkans because we thought that countries in Central Europe who just became members of the European Union – Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, et cetera – were good, so we should focus on South Eastern Europe, on countries which are not yet there. As a fellowship it was meant as an investment in people, in investigative journalists, and for many years this was our only project in the field of journalism.
Then in 2018, we were shocked about what happened in our surroundings. Jan Kuciak and his fiancé were killed. Hungary and Poland changed their laws and their attitudes towards independent media. Also in the Czech Republic, politics became hostile towards independent media. Suddenly we became aware that focusing on the Balkans to support independent journalists and good journalism in CEE is not enough.
First, we enlarged the scope of the fellowship to the – back then – so-called Visegrad countries. Then we saw a decline in the media scene: the well-trained journalists that came out of this fellowship had no platforms anymore on which to publish. A lot of media were gone. What could we do now, if they cannot tell their stories to their audience anymore? The geographically enlarged fellowship was embedded in a platform called “Reporting Democracy” where articles could also be published.
It was clear from the very beginning that we don’t want to invest directly in media. Actually, we cannot. As an Austrian savings bank foundation, the core shareholder of Austria’s biggest bank, Erste Group, we are only allowed by our statutes to invest in nonprofits. There are a lot of nonprofit media around, but we also saw a risk of conflicts of interest in both directions, as well as reputation risks. Then we discovered the wonderful tool of pooled funds.
What are the advantages of these pooled funds?
We very much like the idea of joining forces. The leverage is bigger. If you put money in a pile, you can support media with higher amounts, or longer, or more of them, and have more impact. Also, you can delegate the delicate task of selecting the media you support. You have a qualified jury to do that. It’s much more efficient if several foundations join into a fund.
Civitates was the beginning. Its sub-fund for public interest media has a focus on Southern and Eastern Europe. That is important for us because we have a strict geographic focus on Central and Eastern Europe. Our revenues are the dividends of our share in Erste Group, one of the biggest financial service providers in Austria and Eastern European countries.
In 2021, we were approached by the Media Development Investment Fund. They presented us with the idea of Pluralis. An impact investment fund was something new for us. Pluralis guarantees editorial independence for legacy media by investing in publishing houses in Eastern Europe; a smart concept. By now, Pluralis has a portfolio of three important media in Poland, Slovakia and Croatia and it plans to grow further.
Finally, we became one of the initiators of the Media Forward Fund, focusing on Austria, Germany, and Switzerland.
So, your journey as a funder of journalism started in the Balkans and ended in Austria?
Indeed! If you had told us 18 years ago, when we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, that we would one day be supporting innovation in Austrian media, we would have laughed in disbelief. But the media ecosystem in Austria is in danger, like in many other countries. The market is in an extremely precarious situation, public interest media struggle to survive although (some even say: because) there is a lot of public funding.
The Media Forward Fund supports – with much money for a short and limited period – media organisations that apply with a convincing business idea. Good journalism is the precondition, but it’s not what is funded. You should apply with a smart idea to scale up your business or to secure more stable resources.
How would you explain this substantial growth in the Foundation’s engagement for journalism?
ERSTE Foundation reacted in a timely manner to what was happening to the media scene and in journalism. We all see the threats everywhere: Autocratic regimes attacking independent media, media capture, disinformation campaigns, decreasing societal trust, and increasing technological and economic disruptions put public interest media and critical journalism in CEE at high risk.
After the quasi organic growth of the portfolio, we now have a clear strategy. The foundation worked on its overall strategy and one of our goals for the next few years is a healthy media ecosystem in CEE that upholds democratic values, combats misinformation, and empowers communities with reliable information. We therefore invest in and support sustainable and independent free media and fact-based critical journalism. This is how a single project topic developed into a consistent programme portfolio. The consequence was that I changed my position. As of July 2025, I am the Director of Journalism and Media. After 18 years as Director of Communications with the journalism projects as my second task, I switched focus.
In what other ways do you support journalism?
In Vienna, together with Presseclub Concordia and the Forum für Journalismus und Medien (fjum), we organise in-person and hybrid press briefings with researchers and experts from our other programmes. Journalists get firsthand information on the political, economic or societal situation in other countries, often just before elections in a given country.
Through the funds we support, we also offer capacity building. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is not only funding the development of business ideas in media but is also coaching to develop business skills.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from these programmes?
I have two lessons in mind. Firstly: Most journalists are passionate about and very good at their job, but many of them have no idea about the business side of media. New media outlets with a great mission will die very quickly when no one looks at target groups, funnels, revenue plans, and the like. Even proper accounting or having a business plan is not a given. This lack of basic business skills or appropriate competent personnel in young media is so obvious that, today, many foundations or intermediaries offer tools known from the start-up world: media accelerators and incubators. Media viability became also a very important topic in conferences.
This brings me to the second lesson: Why is it so important to build a sustainable business model? Because relying on a single resource – be it a donor, be it public funds of your community, be it, well, USAID – can have fatal consequences. In January it became clear that a full focus on a single source, as generous as it might have been in the past, causes real problems. Sustainable business models (meaning also diversification of revenue streams) are crucial for media viability but also for media pluralism.
What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
One big challenge is to explain to people why the media are in such a problematic situation at all. Just 10 or 15 years ago, people founded newspapers to make money, and not to be funded. Today, classical public interest media have lost their business model. But there are still big, powerful media groups, for some it is still big business. So explaining why some media need funding is a challenge.
Fortunately, we haven’t had challenges such as smear campaigns yet. But everyone knows that independent media and their funders are under constant threat of authoritarian attacks. It has become a risky business to be a foundation supporting what should be the most natural thing in the world in a liberal democracy: free media.
How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story related to supporting journalism?
Usually, our projects include process assessment and impact measurement. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is constantly assessing its brand new processes and results. It just started one year ago, and one term is two years. If the grants have had a real impact on the businesses of the grantees, we will soon see, with the first cohort ending the programme in one year. The application process was also assessed and some selection criteria have been changed in the second round. For example, we wanted the business part and editorial part to be clearly separated. That works for the New York Times, sure, but if you are a three-person, brand new, young organisation, then it is not possible. So we changed this criterion. Now you must agree that these entities will be separated once the medium has grown…
These seem banal things, but it is important to realise when something does not work and change it. The real success will be, in two years, to have businesses that double their subscription base, or make money on theatre stages with their concept, whatever they applied with.
Whether our funding has societal impact is, of course, very difficult to measure. I would take Pluralis as an example which pooled philanthropic investment in media matters. Gremi Media, the publisher of Rzeczpospolita in Poland, is part of Pluralis’ portfolio. Having kept one of the biggest Polish newspapers as a free, independent one is very important. It is a centre-conservative paper with fact-based reporting. This also shows that our goal is not to support a certain agenda. It is about the quality of journalism and media pluralism. In Slovakia, Petit Press, publishing the daily SME, has in Pluralis an owner that is backing the editors in a very hostile public environment.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
First of all, I would ask them to imagine that there is no more media where they can talk about their main topics, be it climate, culture, environment, equality, or whatever. People would get their information only from social media, from influencers, from AI bots. If you think that this might be a really bad situation, then start supporting media and journalism.
My advice for newbies would be to start with a pooled fund. You don’t have to fund media directly, trust in experts. My other advice is that, if you are unsure what kind of pooled fund you should turn to, then come to the Journalism Funders Forum. This is a peer group of foundations which are happy to give anyone advice about the risks, realistic goals, about what you can gain, et cetera, by funding journalism. Or look for foundations that already support journalism, everybody is happy to share their knowledge. The main thing is: do it.
Philea has launched a survey on media and journalism funding in Europe, seeking to create an image of the funding landscape and shape a stronger philanthropic agenda for independent journalism in Europe.
Independent journalism is not only valuable in its own right but is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Often referred to as the Fourth Estate, journalism serves as a crucial watchdog that upholds the separation of powers and reinforces democratic checks and balances.
In an era where misinformation and disinformation threaten democratic institutions, the role of independent journalism in defending democracy has become even more vital. It holds those in power accountable, exposes corruption, and ensures citizens have access to accurate and reliable information, an indispensable foundation for informed participation in democratic processes. By elevating diverse perspectives and nurturing open, fact-based public discourse, journalism helps sustain the freedoms and civic engagement at the core of democratic life.
The survey, created by the Journalism Funders Forum, seeks to better understand how foundations support media and journalism in Europe, which areas receive focus, where the funding gaps lie, and what the various approaches are. The insights will help guide new funders and shape a stronger independent journalism sector in Europe.
This study is part of the 2025 work of the Journalism Funders Forum, Europe’s only peer-learning platform for funders committed to independent, quality journalism and its role in democracy.
In an article published in Journalism Studies, Alison McAdam outlines a multidimensional approach to sustainability that expands the primary economic focus by considering how the social, cultural, and political roles that local news outlets play in their communities shape it.
The term “sustainability” is widely used across various fields and has become central to discussions on the crisis facing local journalism. Research has documented the decline of local news through concepts like “news deserts” and “news blackholes,” with sustainability often invoked in relation to finding viable futures for the sector. Still, there is limited research defining what sustainability means in this context.
In local journalism, economic concerns remain central but are interlinked with social, cultural, political, geographic, and temporal dimensions. While economic considerations often dominate discussions, the approach of this study draws on cross-disciplinary and journalism-specific literature, highlighting the multiple roles local news plays in communities. The suggested framework argues that each dimension contributes to the long-term viability of local news, recognising endurance as a fundamental principle of sustainability.
Local media serve multiple functions: they foster community cohesion, act as cultural ambassadors, provide historical records, and hold local political powers accountable. These contribute to the unique connection between local news outlets and their audiences, underlining their importance in maintaining an informed community.
Sustainability is a complex concept with diverse definitions, ranging from a vision of the future to a social phenomenon. Traditionally, it focused on economic indicators such as profitability and financial viability, but more recent approaches emphasise material well-being, quality of life, and social equity. The “triple bottom line” framework integrates environmental, economic, and social dimensions, and time is considered a crucial factor in sustainability. However, journalism studies on sustainability have yet to fully incorporate these perspectives.
A multidimensional approach to sustainability in local news incorporates economic, social, cultural, political, geographic, and temporal dimensions. This framework draws from cross-disciplinary literature and highlights the importance of these factors in ensuring local news’ financial viability, legitimacy, and trust within communities.
The economic dimension of local news sustainability focuses on the production, distribution, and consumption of news. Media corporatisation and cost-cutting strategies have weakened local news, but non-profit outlets are also emerging, prioritising financial viability over growth. Business models focus on increasing audience revenue and diversifying commercial strategies. Some scholars argue that relationship-building and preserving the civic value of local news are essential for long-term sustainability.
The social dimension concentrates on the community’s demographics, the role of local news in connecting people, and on building social capital. Local news outlets embedded in the community can leverage this position to develop power, trust, and loyalty, fostering reciprocal relationships with audiences and advertisers. This social capital, along with a deep understanding of local knowledge, helps news outlets maintain relevance and become more sustainable.
The cultural dimension focuses on how media shape and maintain community values and identities. Local news outlets leverage cultural elements, such as producing alternative publications or archiving historical content, to generate revenue and reinforce their standing in the community. This cultural role helps solidify local news as an essential part of the community’s identity and history.
The political dimension examines the role of the media in supporting democracy and public participation. It highlights the importance of government support for local news, including funding or advertising. While government subsidies can enhance credibility, there may be concerns regarding political influence.
The geographic dimension focuses on the role of physical locations in shaping news outlets’ functions. It highlights how especially rural and remote communities can influence news production, audience relevance, and the dissemination of emergency information. Local sensibility and understanding geographic boundaries help news outlets gauge their reach and relevance, ensuring their viability and connection to audiences.
The temporal dimension highlights the importance of recognising both historical and current factors in sustaining local media. By focusing on past successes and enduring practices alongside modern challenges, this approach advocates for long-term solutions and acknowledges the value of what has stood the test of time amid changes in the landscape.
The concept of “sustainability” provides valuable insights into the challenges faced by local news media. Journalism studies must embrace the complexity of the term “sustainability,” drawing on the broader concept from other disciplines. The sustainability of local news should be viewed as multidimensional, demonstrated by its endurance over time. This nuanced approach can also benefit the communities served by local news outlets. By considering sustainability in a broader context, social equity factors emerge, ensuring equitable access to local news that connects citizens to their community, fosters engagement, and supports democratic processes.
McAdam, A. (2025). Rethinking “Sustainability” as a Multidimensional Conceptual Framework for Local Journalism Studies. Journalism Studies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2492738
Combining EU and philanthropic funding, the Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU) fund has become a model for supporting cross-border investigative journalism with high impact. With 90% public and 10% private funding, the fund has helped expose corruption, influence policy decisions, and protect press freedom, offering donors a vehicle for meaningful media impact.
The recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union to outlaw so-called “golden passport” schemes that allowed foreigners to buy EU citizenship marked a significant victory for investigative journalism. In its ruling, the court referred to the work of journalists who had exposed the abuse and malicious intent often underpinning these schemes.
The investigation was only one of many high-profile stories supported by IJ4EU, an initiative dedicated to strengthening cross-border watchdog reporting across the continent.
Launched in 2018, the IJ4EU fund backs investigative journalism that crosses national boundaries, reflecting the transnational nature of pressing public interest issues. The fund is operated by a consortium of four independent organisations committed to press freedom: the International Press Institute (IPI), which leads the consortium, the European Journalism Centre (EJC), the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), and Arena for Journalism in Europe.
Timothy Large, Director of Independent Media Programmes and IJ4EU manager at the IPI, underscores the programme’s success. “The jury is no longer out. This model works,” he says. By combining public and private funds, IJ4EU channels money into “the highest quality investigative journalism without compromising editorial independence.” According to Large, 90 percent of the funding comes from the European Commission, while 10 percent is contributed by philanthropies such as Adessium, Fritt Ord, and Isocrates Foundations, as well as the City of Leipzig. Previous donors also include Luminate and Open Society Foundations.
“Implementers make sure that editorial independence is at the heart of the programme,” he adds. IJ4EU’s model of “cascading grants” allows taxpayer and foundation money to flow via neutral intermediaries, with the consortium partners performing the intermediary function. Independent juries select all projects for funding. “All donors can have confidence that recipients are of high quality, while grantees can be sure that there are no strings attached,” Large highlights.
IJ4EU focuses on cross-border reporting. “Big issues nowadays require time and investment and are beyond borders: climate change, migration, corruption,” Large explains.
The demand for such support has been overwhelming: since its inception, IJ4EU has received applications from 1,526 teams seeking over €43 million in funding. It has distributed €6 million to 226 teams, involving more than a thousand journalists working on complex investigations.
An independent external evaluation report of the initiative found that it has made a significant contribution to improving the media ecosystem and, in turn, to fostering a more well-informed public.
IJ4EU offers targeted support through two primary grant schemes. The Investigation Support Scheme, managed by IPI, provides up to €50,000 to carry out resource-intensive investigations. The Freelancer Support Scheme, overseen by EJC, offers up to €20,000 to teams led by freelance journalists.
In addition to the grants, the scheme offers mentoring, training, and legal counselling to address the distinct challenges they face. Large describes the offering as a “full package,” noting that legal assistance and technical support are essential, as legal threats, including SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) and defamation suits, have increased. “Weaponisation of legal risks has a chilling effect,” he says, adding that covering such complex topics sometimes also demands mentoring and help with finding partners.
The Fund’s independent external evaluation highlights that its training, mentorship, legal, and editorial support have significantly strengthened journalists’ professional resilience. Many beneficiaries, particularly freelancers, report feeling better equipped and protected in pursuing public interest investigations.
IJ4EU has seen a wide range of topics among grant applications. Many focus on stories related to climate change or the environment, Large explains, adding that since 2022, many teams have started framing their investigations through a security lens; partly to appeal to funders. Stories about EU borders have also been frequent.
Geographically, applications have come from every EU Member State and candidate country, with particularly strong proposals from Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, he says. There are many applications also from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, with a noticeable rise from Ukraine.
“Some stories have had tremendous impact,” Large says, citing examples such as the story about the Maltese golden passport scheme, or an investigation into corruption in the Danube Delta that resulted in the suspension of EU funds and an OLAF inquiry. The independent external evaluation also confirms that IJ4EU-backed investigations consistently spark responses from policymakers and businesses and are often quoted by other major media. The programme has been particularly impactful in Eastern Europe, where independent journalism often faces more severe threats. These stories are also “building trust in watchdog journalism as a public good,” Large adds.
At the same time, he acknowledges that while IJ4EU has achieved much, it faces various challenges. Fundraising, for example, remains a concern. “It is wonderful to be able to provide this amount, but there is need for more,” he says, describing current support as “a drop in the ocean,” particularly in the context of the worsening funding landscape.
On a human level, he points to the psychological toll investigative journalism can take. Many of these stories are stressful, and there is “a lot of burnout and anxiety among journalists, even trauma,” he notes. Cross-border cooperation, while essential, can also be difficult to manage.
Participating foundations recognise that “independent media is a cornerstone of democracy,” Large says, adding that IJ4EU is a “safe and impactful way of getting into funding journalism.” He hopes that the programme will not only continue, but attract more philanthropic support, as there is a huge demand for such grants. Looking ahead, he imagines a possible future expansion: “Dreaming big, maybe one day the model can be expanded beyond Europe, to become global, because it really works.”
TikTok has been rapidly emerging as a major news source, particularly for younger audiences. Its preference for relatable, personality-driven content offers new opportunities for newsrooms to increase their reach among these younger age groups – but also comes with challenges.
TikTok’s Growing Influence in News Consumption
At the start of April 2025, there were 5.31 billion social media users globally, 64.7% of the world’s population. Among all platforms, TikTok now ranks fifth and continues to grow rapidly. The 2024 Reuters Institute Digital News Report (DNR) identified TikTok as one of the fastest-rising platforms for news engagement, particularly among young users. Furthermore, Gen Z adults (aged 18 to 24) spend a significant amount of time, an average of 77 minutes per day, on the app. According to a fresh study by the Thomson Foundation and the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), it has all but taken over in Romania, where 47% of the population uses it – the highest proportion in the EU.
TikTok is now much more than dance trends or weird challenges. It has become too big to ignore. “News media have to follow where the audiences are,” says Ali Mahmood, Audience Revenue and Engagement Expert at FatChilli for Publishers. “Algorithmic distribution is now the reality for a significant segment of the news-consuming population.”
Since the Covid-19 pandemic, audience preferences have shifted toward video-based platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram, which have grown in importance as news sources. The DNR notes that 13% of respondents now use TikTok for news, surpassing X (formerly Twitter). Among younger audiences, this shift is even more significant. As Freddy Tran Nager, Clinical Associate Professor at USC Annenberg, points out, around 40% of young people now get their news from TikTok, though this comes with risks, as there is a lot of misinformation on the platform. He believes that it is the responsibility of professional journalists to provide credible information.
The Thomson-MJRC study found that only 9.9% of Romanian teens follow journalists, highlighting a shifting ecosystem shaped by influencers rather than traditional newsrooms. Mahmood stresses that with the growing influence of news-focused content creators, “you don’t want to be left out and have people (mis)informed only by them.”
However, as younger users are less likely to trust institutions than individuals, both he and Nager agree that news brands must be represented by real people to successfully connect with audiences. “They need a face,” Nager emphasises. Furthermore, according to a study by Zinc Network, presented at the Central European Media Trends conference in Warsaw in December, the majority of paying subscribers regularly seek out news content from identifiable personalities such as journalists, influencers, and podcast hosts, showing a strong preference for personality-driven content.
Still, TikTok also offers an opportunity to increase brand awareness. For many young adults, it may be the first platform where they encounter a news brand.
How Newsrooms Are Adapting
Across Europe, many news executives have been grappling with how to make their outlets relevant to younger audiences, and there are many examples of successfully turning to TikTok. Spanish start-up Ac2ality quickly became one of the pioneers when its founder, Daniela McArena, realised that traditional news sources lacked context and clarity for younger readers. Ac2ality set out to deliver news in a “quick, concise and comprehensive manner,” tailored specifically for Gen Z on TikTok.
A similar success story unfolded in France where Hugo Travers, known online as Hugo Décrypte, has become a leading news source for young people. There are also promising examples from Central and Eastern Europe. Mahmood points to Romania’s Project F, run by journalists from PressOne, which focuses on women’s issues and involves the audience directly by asking what topics interest them. In the Czech Republic, Czech News Center experimented with distributing sports journalism via TikTok, targeting content to Gen Z by focusing on sports relevant to them. After hiring a Gen Z journalist to ensure an authentic tone, the initiative exceeded expectations and is now inspiring other teams within the organisation.
Traditional outlets have also begun to adapt. BBC News created a dedicated TikTok team, while The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal use the platform to reach new readers, even without monetisation. As Erika Marzano, Deutsche Welle’s Audience Development Manager argues, “TikTok has evolved from a platform of minimal output to one where posting at least once daily is necessary for growth.”
To connect with TikTok audiences, authenticity and relatability are essential. Mahmood emphasises that successful content addresses the audience’s real information needs. Rather than merely echoing existing coverage, journalists should offer explanation, context, and a human touch. “You have to be relatable,” he says, adding that journalists don’t need expensive equipment: a smartphone is enough, what matters is engaging storytelling. Seemingly casual, lo-fi content often garners more trust on the platform than polished productions.
Nager highlights that young audiences expect creators to have a visible personality. “It is not good to be neutral,” he argues. Showing emotion in a professionally restrained way, and being open about one’s perspective, can actually increase credibility. Encouraging reporters to be transparent, vulnerable, and even share personal experiences can foster stronger connections. This also means, according to Nager, that TikTok is not for everyone: journalists should not feel pressured to perform on the platform if it doesn’t suit their strengths. Ultimately, success comes from being real, not rehearsed.
Navigating the Algorithm
TikTok’s algorithm creates a highly personalised feed for each user, meaning no two people see the same content. This makes it difficult to know what kind of news others are encountering. Nager notes that creators must be patient as early videos may get little attention, and even followers might not see every post, as distribution is driven by the algorithm.
As many of the users are on the platform to learn something, he suggests using short, context-rich explainers to engage them and create a bridge to other platforms, such as websites or newsletters, adding that “one email address is worth 100 followers.” However, Mahmood cautions against pushing audiences to leave TikTok. As he points out, users are deeply engaged on the platform and attempts to redirect them may not be successful. Instead, success lies in adapting content to how users prefer to consume information within the app itself.
As digital journalist and TikTok creator Sophia Smith Galer advises, consistency is key: regular posting helps content appear on users’ For You pages rather than relying on follower shares. Journalists should return to and evolve their niche while actively engaging with users through comments. Originality also matters: TikTok content must be authentic, personal, and designed specifically for the platform, not recycled from traditional media.
TikTok is often misunderstood as a passive, entertainment-first platform, but research from Weber Shandwick shows that its users are highly engaged, with the comments section serving as a space for learning, fact-checking, and interpretation. This has important implications for newsrooms. As Mahmood points out, TikTok should not be treated as a traditional marketing channel where one simply posts a video and adds a link. Instead, active engagement is key: if a comment attracts significant attention, it can serve as the basis for a follow-up video.
Nager agrees that meaningful interaction boosts visibility on the platform but cautions journalists to avoid engaging with commenters with antagonistic intent. He also notes that the algorithm rewards both engagement and regular content output, so creators should be mindful of their time.
Collaborating with content creators who already have a large follower base can help news organisations build credibility and reach on TikTok. However, Nager stresses the importance of vetting collaborators carefully. He recommends working with professionals who already use TikTok responsibly. Mahmood adds that successful partnerships require mutual understanding and benefit. While some fear reputational risks, he argues that collaboration is similar to recruitment: it simply requires proper due diligence.
Balancing Engagement and Risk
While TikTok offers promising opportunities for audience growth, it also comes with risks. One main concern is misinformation: the platform does not prevent the spread of inaccurate content. This is especially troubling given that 27% of TikTok users say they struggle to assess the trustworthiness of news they see – more than on any other platform.
There is also the danger of over-reliance. News organisations may risk repeating the same mistakes made with Facebook, where dependency on a single platform left them vulnerable to algorithmic shifts.
Nager advises treating TikTok as one of several options, not the only one, highlighting other viable channels such as YouTube, Instagram, BlueSky, or newsletters. Still, as the Zinc Network study suggests that those most likely to pay for news tend to use multiple platforms, it is an opportunity that media outlets would be wise to explore.
Adrian Arena, Director of the International Human Rights Programme at the Oak Foundation, highlights the importance of a healthy information sphere by supporting independent journalism to hold power to account and ensure citizens have access to accurate information. He emphasises the value of local expertise while sharing insights into how the Foundation supports journalism, reflecting its commitment to strengthening democracy and human rights.
What is Oak Foundation’s approach to supporting journalism?
At a meta level, the human rights movement seeks to unlock truth and inspire justice – in brief, to hold power to account. Independent and investigative journalism is critical to that task. As a human rights programme, one of our priorities is also to ensure a healthy information sphere. This demands that citizens have access to reliable, accurate information.
Professional, rigorous, courageous journalism is foundational to democracy.
The foundation is a founding member of Civitates. Why do you think it was important to be part of the consortium?
Our early membership of Civitates was a strong expression of solidarity with civil society and independent media. Both are critical partners in the defence of democracy.
As a pan-European mechanism, Civitates permits us to access partners in national contexts where we have no footprint or expertise. It provides an assurance in terms of rigour and strategy.
What do you think of the advantages of similar pooled funds? Are you a member of any other?
Yes, we are a member of the EU Artificial Intelligence Fund, EPIM (addressing migration in the EU), and various pooled funds in the United States.
We are a small team. Pooled funds give us an opportunity to expand our footprint, but without increasing headcount. Perhaps more importantly, they provide an excellent opportunity for peer learning and strategizing.
In what other ways does the foundation support public interest reporting?
Aside from participation in Civitates, we make bilateral grants to various news outlets and investigative journalists in our priority regions. We generally provide core support and trust the outlets to pursue their journalistic mission with professionalism and integrity. Some organisations maintain specific newsrooms on certain issues. Lighthouse Reports, for example, does this with respect to migration, which is an important programmatic focus for us. We support Lighthouse for this specific work.
But our engagement with the sector goes beyond the journalistic product. Journalists are under frequent attack in the discharge of their duties. We support organisations that assist journalists at risk, including defending them from SLAPPs (Reporters Shield) or organisations which provide emergency assistance and services.
Do you have open calls for these grants, or do you invite organisations to apply?
As a program we do not have open calls, but maintain an open mailbox where anyone can lodge an inquiry. In some of the more restrictive environments in which we work, an open call would not work. In those contexts, trust is paramount, and we work hard to understand the local partner community. We invest in relationships.
I know that Civitates has, however, routinely pursued open calls. This can be useful to surface promising initiatives in new or unfamiliar contexts.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from these programmes?
One key lesson – and it is very simple – is to take the necessary time to understand the national context. Alternatively, work through an intermediary (like Civitates) that knows it already. Local understanding is critical.
What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
A clear but not always obvious challenge is to properly assess the quality of the journalism produced. You need to have someone who reads content in the local language and can speak to its tone and quality. We have also had to calibrate our expectations around audience and sustainability. These expectations must be appropriate to the national context.
How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story related to supporting journalism?
As I mentioned previously, one of our overarching goals is to hold power to account. Independent media partners have done exactly that. Their list of accomplishments is long. Partners have exposed malfeasance, corruption, and abuse which, in turn, have led to prosecutions, sanctions, fines, and regulatory change. There is a clear path of success.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded/supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
I would say three things.
Firstly, independent media is important to amplify the voice of civil society. Whatever issue you are funding, whether it be education, health, or science, it is critical that your partners’ voices are heard. Independent media can play an important role in amplifying those voices, which, for whatever reason, may be excluded or marginalised from the mainstream press.
Secondly, there may be some barriers to entry. But these are no more significant than in other areas of work. Like in all areas, it is essential to do one’s homework and to understand the local context. Or work with a trusted partner who does.
Lastly, core support is essential to ensure independent media pursues its work fearlessly and without undue restriction.
The results can be very rewarding.