In a study in Journalism and Media, Najm A. Kh. Alhatimi Aleessawi, Rahima Aissani, Jumana Mohammad Ali Moh’d Rsheidat and Mohammed Habes compare media consumption and communication preferences across generations. They found that Gen X favours news sites, Y social media and websites, while Gen Z prioritizes social media and multimedia.
Rapid shifts in information and communication technologies have significantly reshaped how people communicate and consume media, turning communication into a multi-directional, interactive process within digital environments. These changes have led to diverse media behaviours across age groups. However, existing research has mostly focused on single platforms or single age groups, often using quantitative approaches that measure usage rates rather than exploring motivations and interaction patterns. This leaves a gap in understanding how and why different generations engage with media in distinct ways.
Generational categories are used as a framework to interpret differences in values and behaviours shaped by shared social, economic, and technological experiences. Generations X, Y, and Z are distinguished by their varying relationships with technology, from gradual adaptation to digital tools in older cohorts to lifelong immersion in digital environments among younger groups. Generation X tends to combine traditional and digital media use, Millennials (Gen Y) grew up with early internet technologies and use a blend of digital communication in various aspects of life, while Gen Z is highly skilled in digital environments and relies heavily on social media. A younger age group is also emerging, but it is not included in this analysis.
The authors used a qualitative design to explore lived experiences through focus group discussions involving participants from the three generations. They analysed the data using thematic analysis, allowing patterns in communication preferences, media consumption, and interaction styles to be identified and compared across groups. Reliability was strengthened through independent coding, triangulation, member checking, and reflexive practices to minimise bias and enhance trustworthiness.
The findings show distinct generational patterns in media use, content preferences, and communication styles. Across all three generations, websites and social media are central sources of news and information, although their relative importance differs. Gen X relies most on online news sites, with social media and television also playing a role, reflecting a blend of traditional and digital habits. Gen Y places strong emphasis on social media alongside websites, valuing speed, accessibility, and reliability, while still engaging with television and other formats. Gen Z shows the strongest dependence on social media, using it as the primary gateway to news, followed by websites, with traditional media such as television and newspapers playing only a secondary role. This reflects a broader shift towards fast, mobile, and visually engaging platforms, while some trust in traditional media remains for credibility.
In terms of content, political issues are consistently important across all groups, but other interests vary. Gen X demonstrates a broad focus that includes social and cultural themes alongside politics, as well as occasional interest in science and technology. Gen Y combines political and social concerns with cultural and sports interests, often linking political topics to their broader social impact. Gen Z also prioritises politics and sports but shows stronger engagement with entertainment, culture, and technological developments, reflecting the influence of digital platforms and fast-paced media consumption habits.
Communication preferences also differ but they share some common ground. Text messaging is widely used across all generations, particularly among Gen X and Y, who also value face-to-face interaction. Gen Z shows greater diversity in preferred communication forms, with strong use of voice calls, text messaging, voice messages, and video calls, while face-to-face communication is less dominant.
Overall, these patterns highlight how differing technological environments and social experiences shape how each generation communicates and consumes media, reinforcing the idea that media preferences evolve alongside technological change and user needs.
Aleessawi, N. A. K. A., Aissani, R., Rsheidat, J. M. A. M., & Habes, M. (2026). Communication Preferences of Generations X, Y, and Z in Receiving Media Content. Journalism and Media, 7(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia7020081
Collaboration is a strategy for survival, and it would require greater coordination efforts from journalism funders, Florence Wild, Chief Development Officer at CORRECTIV argues.
My first meeting at this year’s International Journalism Festival in Perugia really struck a chord. It was an encounter with the leadership team of Sinatle Media, an initiative of 22 independent media outlets from Georgia that formed shortly after the government introduced a new set of restrictive foreign agent and grant laws which effectively cut off independent media from any kind of international funding.
I was deeply impressed with the group of young women’s resolve to defy the government’s increasingly authoritarian tactics, and with the network of solidarity they had built among the group of media outlets. You see, media organisations and journalists can be quite finicky when it comes to cooperation – in diplomatic terms, I’d say our sector runs on friendly competition, in the best of times. Yet we are most decidedly not in the best of times. Still, Georgian media were not only collectively fundraising, but the Tbilisi-based outlets were also forfeiting their shares so that their colleagues from more rural parts of the country could keep the lights on.
It’s a beautiful and moving example of deep collaboration in a situation that feels impossible. Teo Kavtaradze, one of Sinatle Media’s co-founders, later re-shared the story at a workshop on unconventional approaches to collaboration that I co-hosted together with Rozina Breen, Director of Editorial Programs at the Pulitzer Center. All of us were picking up on the same need and the same trend: that collaboration in this day and age is not a nice to have, it’s a strategy for survival.
Collaboration as Infrastructure
The term “collaboration” is of course rather vague, capturing any kind of instance in which two organisations or organisational units align themselves to achieve a common goal. This can take place anywhere between the project-based short term to more permanent forms of working together.
Journalism funders have played a big part in advocating for more collaboration in the sector – for example by enabling cross-border investigations and cross-sectoral initiatives, bridging journalism, academia, and the arts. This has no doubt helped to bring the sector closer together. Building trust is the first stepping stone from one-off projects towards deeper and more catalytic ways of collaborating that can lead to sector-wide renewal. My prediction: Amidst shrinking spaces and resources, we’ll start seeing a lot more of the more structural and permanent forms of collaboration, including mergers.
Exactly two years ago, one of the most exciting examples of deep collaboration, the Journalism Cloud Alliance, was officially launched at the International Journalism Festival with the ambitious goal of building a community-owned cloud infrastructure. Led by the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP), the Alliance now consists of 37 members spread across all six continents (disclaimer: this includes CORRECTIV) as well as 17 partners from academia, philanthropy and technology.
It stands out to me because the focus so clearly is to build a shared infrastructure for independent journalism at a time where Big Tech companies have turned increasingly and outwardly hostile towards fact-based discourse and the idea that information as a public good is worth safeguarding. The JCA is an investment into the health of the information ecosystem and the underlying infrastructure that all organisations whose mission is to provide information in the public interest depend on. Philanthropic funding has kick-started this endeavour which would not have been possible under normal market conditions.
Collaboration as Leverage
Another interesting field of collaboration next to shared services and infrastructure is collective bargaining and advocacy. The Danish Press Publications Collective Management Organisation (DPCMO) which accounts for 99% of the Danish news media landscape, for instance successfully negotiated a collective licensing agreement with Google in 2023. As of 2026, DPCMO is taking OpenAI to court over compliance issues with Danish copyright law, transparency and fair compensation over the use of protected works.
Initiatives similar to DPCMO have emerged in other countries in recent years, some of which to date have stalled precisely due to lack of funding. While the Danish example is primarily financed by membership fees, philanthropy could play a key role in supporting initiatives in other markets, including covering costs for setting up governance structures, legal consultation, and convening members.
I’d actually heard about the DPCMO example at a side event in Perugia on Big Tech reporting organised by Agência Pública, CLIP (Centro Latinoamericano de Investigación Periodistica), Lighthouse Reports, and Democracy for Sale. Part of the afternoon showcased the reporting from the cross-border investigative project “The Invisible Hand of Big Tech” which brings together 18 media organisations from 13 countries, led by Agência Pública and CLIP.
In terms of methodology, cross-border investigations and investigative networks are of course not new (this makes any successful collaborative investigation no less impressive, there absolutely is an artistry behind it). But for the purpose of this article, the Invisible Hand project stands out in particular because it dares ask some uncomfortable questions to journalists, media outlets, and media support organisations that have in the past benefitted from the once highly lucrative and sought-after funding from Big Tech companies. Beyond the powerful reporting it produces, the project provides a space for self-reflection and reaches out another “invisible hand” to investigative journalists and media organisations around the world, inviting them to collaborate in defence of democracy under attack.
The Role of Journalism Funders
This year’s International Journalism Festival left me feeling energised, despite the abundance of challenges and outright attacks our sector is facing. There’s an incredible appetite for creativity to build on, a willingness to learn from one another, and a moral conviction to serve communities even more deeply through these times of turmoil. Collaboration comes into frame not merely as a prerequisite for funding but an existential necessity – whether the aim is to pool and distribute resources, build shared infrastructure, collectively advocate for better regulatory frameworks, grow editorial capacity, or to better reach and serve audiences.
Given the complexity of the task at hand, this would require greater coordination efforts on the part of journalism funders themselves. After all, if we are serious about journalism as a public good, the focus should not solely be on the ability (or inability) of single media organisations to survive. Our conversation as a sector should also include an angle on ecosystem health and the connective tissue between media organisations.
As we enter a new era of collaboration for journalists and media organisations, it is important for journalism funders to reflect on how they can create an enabling environment that feels supportive rather than prescriptive. As outlined, collaboration can and must take on different forms beyond a project-based logic if we are to make any real advances on the underlying systemic issues. One of the participants of our workshop put it best when she stated: “The risk of not collaborating feels much higher to me now than the risk of not moving at all.”
The landslide defeat of Viktor Orbán marks a turning point not only in Hungarian politics but in the country’s media landscape. Yet the path from political change to genuine media freedom is not guaranteed. What follows will depend on institutional reform, market restructuring, and sustained philanthropic support for independent journalism.
Under Orbán’s leadership since 2010, Hungary evolved into a hybrid regime or electoral autocracy, where formal democratic institutions remained in place but were systematically hollowed out. Media capture was central to this process. The government and its allies built an immense media empire, supported by regulatory control, state advertising, and ownership consolidation.
The government controlled hundreds of outlets, with centralised messaging always supporting the governing party’s narrative, while independent media were gradually squeezed out of the market. Regulatory bodies lacked independence; public service media, in theory designed to serve the public interest, became a vehicle for government propaganda, while opposition voices were marginalised.
Financial pressure also played an important role. State advertising was disproportionately channelled to loyal outlets, distorting the market and undermining sustainability for independent media. At the same time, legal and administrative tools were deployed to intimidate independent media. The Sovereignty Protection Act targeted news organisations receiving foreign funding, increasing suspicion and stigma. SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), smear campaigns, and restricted access to public information further constrained the work of journalists. As a result, trust in the media fell to one of the lowest levels in Europe, and he audience became deeply polarised.
Still, independent media held the line, relying on reader support, donor funding, and innovative business models. However, their capacities remained limited compared to the vast pro-government media network.
The Promise of Reform
With the victory of Péter Magyar and his Tisza Party, expectations for change are high. The new government has a historic opportunity to dismantle media capture.
During the election campaign, Magyar and his party positioned themselves as advocates of institutional renewal, including in the media sphere. While media policy was not the central pillar of the campaign, Magyar repeatedly emphasised the need for transparency, fair competition, and the depoliticisation of state media. His rhetoric focused on restoring the rule of law and ensuring that public service media would serve citizens rather than political interests.
He reinforced the latter in his first post-election interview on state media (in fact, his first appearance there in years), describing the broadcaster as a “factory of lies” and stating that he would seek to suspend its operation until balance is restored, drawing on the Polish example.
Still, detailed policy proposals remained relatively sparse, leaving open questions about the depth and speed of potential reforms.
Dismantling Capture, Building Independence
One of the most immediate challenges will be reforming the regulatory authority. Ensuring its independence will be essential to rebuilding trust. This will require changes to appointment procedures, mandates, and oversight mechanisms.
Equally important is the future of public service media. Transforming it into a genuinely independent institution has to involve not only leadership changes but new governance models, editorial safeguards, and sustainable funding. Without such reforms, there is a risk that political influence could simply shift rather than disappear.
Market restructuring presents an even more complex task. The highly concentrated media landscape cannot be easily reversed. Without state advertising, many pro-government outlets may collapse or be forced to merge, while others could be sold or rebranded. One national private television channel owned by an oligarch has already announced that it will suspend its “news” bulletin, one of the most notorious propaganda vehicles.
However, creating a pluralistic market will require proactive policies. Although the state is the biggest player on the advertising market, fair distribution of state advertising is just the first step; transparent media ownership rules and support for competition will also be key components. This direction is also reflected in a recent working paper by the Médiafórum Association, which proposes a broader redesign of Hungary’s media system including safeguards against the re-emergence of capture.
Further legal reforms will need to address the broader environment for journalism. This includes revising or repealing laws that restrict access to funding or enable the surveillance and harassment of journalists. Strengthening protections against SLAPPs and improving access to public information are other necessary steps.
These reforms are necessary beyond domestic considerations, as Hungary has obligations under the European Media Freedom Act, which establishes binding standards on media independence, transparency in state advertising, and the protection of editorial autonomy. As the Media Capture Monitoring Report, a joint project of the Media and Journalism Research Center and the International Press Institute found, the Orbán government failed to implement these provisions.
The Continuing Role of Funders
The deeply polarised media environment will not change overnight. Audience habits, trust deficits, and economic struggles will continue to shape the landscape.
In this context, the role of philanthropies and other journalism funders remains critical. Over the past decade, international donors have provided a lifeline for independent Hungarian media, supporting investigations, innovation, and simply survival. Even with political change, this support will not become redundant. On the contrary, it may need to evolve.
One key area is local journalism. Local media have been particularly vulnerable to political pressure and financial instability. Philanthropic funding can help rebuild these sectors, ensuring that communities outside major cities have access to reliable information. This is especially important in a country where media consumption is highly segmented and often aligned with political preferences.
Another priority is sustainability. Several independent outlets will need support to transition from donor dependency to more diversified revenue models, including subscriptions, memberships, and commercial activities. Capacity-building programmes and technological investment can all contribute to this goal.
Funders can also play a role in safeguarding editorial independence during the transition period. As the market will likely shift, there is a risk of both political and commercial pressures reshaping the media landscape. Transparent funding mechanisms and strong accountability standards will be essential.
Finally, continued international engagement can provide both resources and oversight. European institutions and global organisations have already signalled their interest in supporting media reform in Hungary. Coordinated efforts between domestic actors and international partners could help anchor reforms in broader democratic norms.
Hungary now stands at a crossroads. The fall of Orbán has created an opening that would have seemed unlikely just a few years ago. Yet the legacy of media capture is deeply embedded, and dismantling it will require sustained political will, institutional reform, and engagement from citizens. Media freedom can be restored, but only through a careful and comprehensive process that addresses not just the symptoms, but the underlying structures that enabled its erosion.
For three decades, the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF) has taken a different path in supporting independent journalism through patient capital rather than grants. CEO Harlan Mandel reflects on what it takes to build sustainable media, why grants could fall short, and how investment can strengthen journalism in increasingly volatile environments.
How do you define MDIF’s role in today’s journalism funding ecosystem?
We recently celebrated our 30th anniversary, and throughout that time I think we have played a unique role: we are the only organisation providing independent journalism with commercial financing using a patient capital approach. We do this globally — not in North America or Western Europe, but in the countries where free press is under threat. To my knowledge, we remain the only organisation doing this on a global basis, and at this point, I am not aware of any other organisation doing it even on a local basis.
Rethinking Media Sustainability
Two years ago, you said that grants are “free money,” but not a sustainable long-term solution. What do you think, where do grants still play an important role?
I think grants do continue to play an important role. But over the past year we’ve seen significant reductions in the grant funding available for independent media because of the shutdown of USAID — historically the largest single international funder of independent media — and we’ve seen retrenchment by other significant funders in the space as well. So it is more challenging than ever to obtain grant financing.
Beyond availability, grant funding has its limitations because of how grants are used by donors. They tend to be focused on specific projects defined by the funder’s interests, rather than geared towards advancing the long-term sustainability of a media outlet. This matters even in the context of non-profit media that are not aiming to generate commercial revenue.
What is most lacking in grant-making is core operating support — funding that gives a media outlet some latitude to make its own decisions about what is important for its own development. And the flexibility to experiment — to develop and test new approaches and new products with the potential to increase earned income in one form or another.
We have always said that our model is far from a panacea for the needs of independent media in the world. For many outlets, there is no realistic path to earning commercial revenue. They have to be supported with grants. What they do is vitally important. Our model is for media that have the potential to be commercially viable.
And especially given today’s challenges, there is a role for grants to play even for commercial media, in supporting specific initiatives they may be pursuing.
What types of media organisations are better suited for investment rather than philanthropic funding? What factors do you look at when considering investments?
Looking at a macro level, the nature of our funding defines what kind of media we can work with. We make equity investments and loans — and of course we provide a lot of strategic advice and capacity building around media management alongside that provision of capital — but these are the two basic tools we use for providing financing.
You cannot make an equity investment in a nonprofit organisation: by definition, there is no ownership stake to take. Beyond that, for an equity investment to make sense, there has to be confidence that the media company can either grow in value over time or generate sufficient positive cash flow — profitability — to return the investment through dividends or another kind of profit -sharing arrangement.
For a loan to work, we need to believe the media company can generate positive cash flow over time to service and repay it. Nonprofits can, in principle, meet that bar, but in practice it is very rare unless they own and operate a commercial media company, which presents a different picture. The nature of nonprofits and their funding makes it very hard to generate positive cash flow: grant-makers generally do not favour it, and grant agreements often restrict using grant resources to repay loans. For these reasons, virtually all the media we work with are for-profit media.
You mentioned that the sector has lost a lot of funding. What would it take to unlock significantly more private capital for independent media, especially when we see that it is not only the US that has cut back from philanthropic support, but also other countries?
Across the financing vehicles we have developed, we have seen an important role for philanthropic funders to play in catalysing other kinds of capital. For a number of funds that we have designed and raised, there are risk mitigation layers in the way they are structured.
For example, we have raised a couple of debt funds where the lenders into that fund get the benefit of a 50% guarantee from SIDA, the Swedish development agency. And we have had some other vehicles where foundations have played a similar role in providing a guarantee for lenders.
The fund we most recently raised to fight media capture and promote media pluralism in Europe, Pluralis, is set up as a holding company model. This means that the investors are shareholders in the company. But there is a class of shareholders that do not participate in the economics of the fund. They have full governance rights like any other shareholder, meaning they can vote like the others, and they have seats on the board of directors, for example, but they don’t participate in any of the potential profits of the fund or the return of capital.
We call these “media steward shares.” They function in effect as grants into the capital structure. This reduces the financial risk for the other shareholders. The common shareholders are accepting a concessionary rate of return for their investments, but in exchange, the layer of steward shares absorbs a portion of the downside risk.
From Legacy Media to New Information Ecosystems
What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?
The most important lesson is that it is a never-ending fight. Even in the best cases, a free press is a fragile thing, and it requires constant vigilance to protect it. We can see what is happening in the United States and other countries that have a history of press freedom, and even there it has come under threat.
What were the biggest challenges MDIF has had to face in recent years, particularly in Europe?
In a way, the biggest challenge is the same worldwide at this point. The business model for journalism-centred media has been under challenge for 25 years, since the beginning of digital disruption, which has never stopped. If anything, the only constant in the media business today is constant change. As an investor or lender, this creates some significant challenges for how we assess the economic potential of any media.
Now, with artificial intelligence beginning to wreak its own havoc on the media business, it is a whole new level of challenge that we are facing, and I think it represents a change that is coming even faster than the original digital transition.
What that means for us is twofold. First, the challenge of helping the companies we are already working with, to manage their way through this change and understand how the business model is changing and how they can adapt to it. The other challenge is understanding how these technological changes create new and different kinds of opportunities for meeting our mission.
For our first 15 years, virtually all the media we worked with were classic media: newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, news agencies. About 75% of the loans and other investments we made were for buying printing presses and building printing houses, often the first independent ones in a given country. But since 2012, we have seen an evolution in our thinking about what kind of information companies can meet our ultimate mission, which is not journalism per se. It is what journalism enables, which is accountability, real civic debate, access to information: a whole list of things that we feel are critical elements of functioning democracies.
Now there are other kinds of companies that also can serve those purposes: digital social networks, online communities, good governance apps, a whole range of businesses. Our challenge today, as the world is changing very fast with artificial intelligence, is to understand the new kinds of companies — ones we have never seen before — that may be coming into existence and meeting our mission.
Measuring Impact Beyond Financial Returns
How do you assess the success or impact of your investments? What does meaningful impact look like?
We issue an impact dashboard annually, which tries to assess our impact as rigorously as possible. As part of that, there is quantifiable data that we can look at. We focus largely on two metrics to understand the immediate impact of our financing: change in revenue, and change in reach.
Change in revenue shows whether we have moved the dial on increasing a company’s economic potential. Change in reach has two purposes. One, it also reflects whether economic potential is increasing. But it also reflects greater impact, with the idea that the more people you are reaching with your content, the more impact you are having, if the content is good.
But looking beyond that, the real impact that we are interested in is the societal impact: accountability, civic debate, political participation, access to information. I think the sector has historically struggled to quantify this kind of impact. World Bank studies have shown that simply having an independent media outlet playing a watchdog role can have salutary effects on corruption that extend well beyond the specific stories it covers. How can anyone quantify that?
For media support organisations, measuring the societal impacts of media beyond a qualitative approach has remained elusive. That leaves looking at the stories media tell, the nature and quality of their coverage, and the role a given media outlet plays in its country’s public life. Tracking journalism awards is, in a way, the low-hanging fruit in trying to demonstrate that kind of impact. Ultimately, beyond tracking change in reach, we present societal impact by conveying the kinds of stories our investees cover, how they cover them, and specific developments to which they may lead. Various efforts have been made across the sector to genuinely quantify societal impact, but none has yet succeeded in a satisfying way.
MDIF is involved in countries where media freedom is under threat. How do you assess risk in these environments?
We are designed to absorb significant political risk. We take a patient approach, absorb the inevitable bumps in the road that media companies face in these environments, and accept a level of risk of loss beyond what a commercial investor would be willing to take.
What we require is a minimum level of rule of law — a reasonable likelihood of being able to enforce our contracts. Where that is absent, we cannot work. There also has to be independent media. If there is no possibility for independent media to exist, then obviously there is no basis for us to be working there. For example, we have never been able to work in China.
In the investment world, when people talk about returns, they talk about risk adjusted returns: the greater the risk, the higher the expected return. In many of our investments, the risk-adjusted return would simply be too low for a commercial investor. We are designed to bridge that gap by absorbing the political risk.
We look at the other risks the same way any other investor would look at them. We are assessing the quality of the management, whether they have the capacity to manage a company and achieve what they say they want to do, and whether they have the right mindset, which is I think a big factor.
It varies by region, but in many parts of the world, there is a certain journalistic culture that is averse to profit as a matter of principle. Many of the companies we work with were founded by journalists, and that shapes their orientation in ways we need to understand. Our view is that merely breaking even — which is often celebrated as a big win — is a slow road to oblivion. No media company can survive long term without generating positive cash flow: it is what enables them to absorb the shocks that inevitably are going to come, and invest in experiments, in growth and expansion.
We also assess the business environment: its direction, the scale of the market, whether it can realistically support a media company of a given size. These are the standard considerations any commercial investor would apply.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
To return to what I said earlier: think carefully about how and when grants are useful. There needs to be more core, general support for media organisations. If they can use that funding well, its impact can continue and compound over time.
At the Rudolf Augstein Foundation, journalism is both legacy and strategy. Executive Director Stephanie Reuter reflects on strengthening resilience in a fragile media landscape, from supporting exiled journalists to investing in local news and building a broader base of philanthropic support.
How does supporting journalism fit into the broader mission of the Foundation? Why do you think it is important to support it?
Journalism is in our DNA. Our founder, Rudolf Augstein, established DER SPIEGEL and is widely regarded as one of the most influential journalists of Germany’s postwar era. Throughout his life, he stood for rigorous, investigative reporting and an informed public. In 1962, he was even imprisoned for publishing a critical article, an enduring testament to his uncompromising defence of press freedom.
This legacy continues to shape our work today. Since its inception, the foundation has been committed to strengthening the journalistic and information ecosystem. Democracy is never a given. It must be constantly defended and renewed. Free and independent journalism is not optional; it is a cornerstone of any functioning democracy.
Did your approach to supporting journalism change in recent years as a response to the rapidly changing environment?
Yes, our approach to supporting journalism has evolved markedly in recent years, shaped by an increasingly volatile and fragile media landscape. At its core is a clear priority: strengthening resilience.
Given limited resources, we focus on helping newsrooms become more sustainable, reinforcing their economic viability while ensuring journalism remains relevant and future-ready. Investments in innovation are key to this.
A defining moment came in 2022. The launch of the JX Fund – European Fund for Journalism in Exile was a direct response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the sweeping repression of independent media in Russia and Belarus. Within weeks, journalists were forced into exile and entire newsrooms were silenced. Supporting exiled journalists had not previously been part of our portfolio, but the urgency of the situation called for swift, coordinated action. Together with partners, we established the JX Fund as a rapid-response, multi-stakeholder mechanism, bringing together foundations, civil society, and public funding to provide financial support, infrastructure, and networks that enable journalists to continue their work in exile.
Alongside this, we have broadened our focus. Building on our “Wüstenradar” study, we place greater emphasis on local journalism and its importance for democratic cohesion. We are also exploring new intersections between journalism and the arts, for example through collaborations with the theatre sector to engage audiences in new ways.
Our funding practice has also evolved.
Where we once focused primarily on intermediaries and infrastructure providers, we now support newsrooms directly, exclusively through pooled funds such as Civitates, the JX Fund, and the Media Forward Fund.
At the same time, we see our role in media policy becoming increasingly important. We actively advocate for conditions that enable independent journalism to thrive and understand ourselves as advocates for an informed society. In short, our approach today is more focused, more adaptive, and more systemic, aimed at strengthening the long-term resilience of journalism.
Supporting Journalism in Germany and Beyond
Which organisations are eligible for your support?
Our work is primarily focused on supporting organisations in Germany and German-speaking countries. At the same time, we engage in collaborative, pooled funding initiatives to extend our reach beyond national contexts and contribute to cross-border and international efforts. Given our limited resources, we focus on early-stage funding, deploying risk capital to support new initiatives at a critical stage.
In what forms do you support journalism?
We support journalism through a combination of collaborative funding mechanisms and flexible grantmaking approaches. As outlined above, direct support to individual newsrooms is provided exclusively through pooled funds. These partnerships allow us to work more strategically, leverage shared expertise, and increase our overall impact. At the same time, we remain open to new proposals on an ongoing basis. We do, however, encourage prospective applicants to contact us in advance to discuss whether their project aligns with our strategic priorities.
Our grant sizes typically range from €5,000 to €100,000 per project. We offer both multi-year core funding, aimed at strengthening organisational resilience, and project-based funding for specific initiatives. Overall, our approach is designed to be accessible, collaborative, and responsive while ensuring that our resources are deployed where they have the greatest impact.
Do you provide any other assistance beyond funding?
Beyond funding, we offer guidance and connect our partners to relevant expertise and networks, helping them strengthen their development and impact.
The Need for Patience and Persistence
What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?
One of the most important lessons we have learned is that supporting journalism requires patience and a long-term commitment.
Building this field of philanthropy does not happen overnight. It takes sustained effort, trust, and collaboration. Coming from journalism ourselves, our challenge was never a lack of understanding of editorial independence. Rather, our focus has been on how to develop journalism as a field of philanthropy in Germany. To this end, we actively engage with the German Association of Foundations, where we contribute through advisory roles, lead a working group on communication and journalism, produce reports, and host workshops to raise awareness and strengthen the field.
For many years, we have worked to encourage more foundations to recognise journalism as a vital area of support. Independent journalism is relevant to virtually every philanthropic mission, as it underpins informed societies and functioning democracies. Yet awareness of this connection still needs to grow.
This is why we are particularly grateful for cross-border initiatives such as the Journalism Funders Forum. They create spaces to exchange ideas, share knowledge, and develop joint strategies. Ultimately, what is needed is a much broader base of funders committed to this essential field, because the future of our societies depends on it.
What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
As a shareholder of the JX Fund, the designation as an “undesirable organisation” in 2025 presented a complex and challenging moment for us. On the one hand, it can be seen as a stark reminder of the relevance and impact of its work in supporting independent journalism under difficult conditions. On the other hand, it has very real implications for our partners and members of our team, particularly for those with personal or family ties to Russia.
A further challenge lies in the long timeframes of policy change. For years, we have advocated for granting charitable status to non-profit journalism. This demand has now been included in the federal government’s coalition agreement for the second time, yet implementation is still pending. This reinforces the need for persistence and sustained engagement.
How do you assess the success of your programmes? Can you share a particular success story?
An impact-oriented approach is central to our work. We are constantly guided by the question of how we can increase our contribution to the common good.
Clear goal-setting is therefore essential, as it provides both direction and a shared sense of purpose.
As a grant-giving foundation, logframes are typically developed by our partners, with us offering feedback and support throughout the process.
One of our standout success stories is the funding of CORRECTIV.Lokal. The model originates in the UK, where the Bureau of Investigative Journalism launched the Bureau Local. Its core idea is to strengthen local journalism by connecting reporters, sharing data and tools, and enabling collaborative investigations on issues of public interest that resonate at the local level. Together with CORRECTIV, we brought this model to Germany and adapted it to the local media landscape. Today, the network includes around 2,000 journalists. It has enabled numerous joint investigations, strengthened collaboration across newsrooms, and helped bring underreported local issues such as housing, environmental concerns, and public spending into the public spotlight.
Why this example? The entire ecosystem benefits from this. We are particularly interested in approaches that have the potential to create strong leverage effects.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Pooled funds are a powerful way to increase impact while offering an accessible entry point for new funders, who can benefit from the expertise and networks of experienced partners.
Where no such fund exists, we encourage reaching out to foundations active in journalism. In our experience, we all share a strong commitment to growing this essential field and to exchanging knowledge.
Understanding when local news meets audience needs is a complex issue. This paper, published in Journalism, presents the Local News Proximity Index, which measures access to local news and how strongly outlets are connected and committed to their communities.
Local news in small towns and cities plays an important role in keeping people informed and connected. It helps communities understand local issues, follow government actions, and stay safe during emergencies. Yet many outlets are struggling. Changes in advertising, the digital shift, and cost-cutting measures have led to closures, weaker coverage, and the rise of “news deserts.” Governments and municipalities have tried to help, often by funding established media, but support does not always reach the areas that need it most.
One challenge is defining what “local” really means. News outlets may claim to serve a place, but their actual presence and coverage can be limited. Some operate from distant hubs or rely heavily on shared content, reducing their connection to the communities they cover. This weakens trust and the value of local reporting.
Measuring local news has long been difficult. Early efforts often relied on maps that showed where outlets were based, but they missed a key point: being listed in a place does not mean an outlet truly serves it. Newer methods look at newsroom strength or content, but they still do not fully capture how connected an outlet is to a community.
The authors argue that proximity offers a clearer way to assess local news. It looks at three elements: geographic, cultural, and social proximity. Together, these show whether an outlet is truly embedded in a place. Focusing on proximity can help identify gaps, guide support, and strengthen local news where it matters most.
The Local News Proximity Index
Therefore, researchers developed the Local News Proximity Index (LNPI). It measures how closely a news outlet is tied to a specific place. The index looks at two main areas: physical presence, and the focus of coverage. These are broken down into factors such as staffing, infrastructure, local focus, and how well stories reflect the community. Together, they produce a single score that shows how strong an outlet’s local connection is.
The LNPI uses a 25-question survey based on a sample of recent coverage. It can be completed by journalists, researchers, or community members. Scores place outlets into four types, from strong local presence to little or none. Importantly, the focus is on each place, not just the outlet.
A case study of Tenterfield, Australia, shows how this works. While several outlets claim to cover the town, none have a strong local presence. Most reporting comes from outside the area, and coverage is often limited. The index helps reveal these gaps and shows where support is most needed.
The LNPI can help donors target support more effectively and encourage collaboration between outlets. It also offers useful data for researchers and for news organisations seeking funding. The index helps identify areas at risk, supports better decisions, and highlights opportunities to improve local news coverage.
Hess, K., Ross, A., McAdam, A., Blakston, A., Forde, S., Ricketson, M., & Martin, H. (2026). Putting news in its place: An index measurement tool to evaluate local news access. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849261427802
Two recent documentaries produced by Hungarian investigative newsroom Direkt36 represent a rare case of high-impact investigative journalism achieving mass audience reach in an increasingly captured media environment.
In Hungary, much of the mainstream media is aligned with the government, while independent outlets operate with limited access to traditional distribution channels. As András Pethő, Co-founder and Director of Direkt36, explains: “Already 5-6 years ago, we started discussing how to improve and expand. There were two main ideas: publishing more stories or being more ambitious and producing even deeper investigations. We chose the latter. We also saw the power of YouTube, the power of videos, so we decided to try them.” As the newsroom did not have the internal capacity, they turned to professional filmmakers.
Their first documentary, about hospital infections, was published in 2023 and has 120k views as of March 26, 2026, which is a respectable number in a country of around 9.6 million, where about 66% of the populationuses YouTube.
The breakthrough came last year with The Dynasty, a documentary detailing the business empire of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s family.
The film quickly became a viral phenomenon: it reached 800,000 views within 24 hours. Within one week, it surpassed 2.7 million views, and by March 2026, it had reached 4.1 million.
This scale is highly unusual for investigative journalism, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. The film became, by all available measures, the most watched Hungarian public affairs content on YouTube, far exceeding the reach of Direkt36’s written investigations.
Several factors explain this success. “First of all, it is a really strong story, and no one has told it in this format before. And it is a good movie, with some particularly powerful elements, for example the hidden camera footage,” Pethő argues.
Timing also played a crucial role. In February 2025, the Hungarian political system was already in turmoil after 15 years of authoritarian rule. Public interest in similar topics was high, and “the digital sphere really came alive, with several popular podcasts and video channels,” says Pethő. Published at the right moment, the documentary crossed traditional audience boundaries. Instead of reaching only politically engaged readers, it attracted a broader YouTube audience, including viewers less likely to consume investigative reporting.
Attacks by government propaganda further amplified reach. Even before the release of The Dynasty, government-aligned figures framed the documentary as “politically motivated disinformation.” Officials claimed the film was part of a “Ukrainian intelligence campaign” against Orbán, and these baseless accusations were widely circulated in pro-government media ecosystems. Paradoxically, these attacks generated additional public curiosity and media coverage, helping to drive viewership. This dynamic resembles the Streisand effect, where attempts to suppress information instead amplify it.
From Viral Moment to Sustainable Audience Growth
A year later, The Trap, which tells the story of Hungary’s missed economic opportunities during Orbán’s rule, built on the success of The Dynasty. Within a month, it reached 1.4 million views.
This sustained audience interest demonstrates that the success of The Dynasty was not a one-off viral moment. Together, the two films show that investigative outlets can build ongoing audience engagement through documentary storytelling, a model more commonly associated with streaming platforms than with non-profit journalism.
Nevertheless, the documentaries were not only editorial successes; they also contributed to financial sustainability, even though Direkt36 did not rely on commercial monetisation strategies such as paywalls or advertising.
Direkt36 operates primarily on reader-supported funding, and The Dynasty directly strengthened this model. According to Pethő, paid memberships increased from around 3,000 to 5,000 last year, and “most joined after the release of the film, or following the government’s campaign against independent media in the spring.”
This suggests that the documentary functioned as a conversion tool, turning passive viewers into paying supporters.
“The challenge was to keep these new supporters, because retention rate can be high: they forget about their subscription, their credit card expires and they don’t update it, and so on. So we had to show them that it is worth supporting us,” Pethő continues.
Producing The Trap was part of the response to this challenge, and it brought another increase in supporters. However, it was not the only motivation for making the film: “It is another very important story, and it also resonated with the audience,” says Pethő, adding that these two are currently the most watched Hungarian political documentaries on YouTube.
Beyond Monetisation: Reputation, Community, and Impact
Beyond direct memberships, the films contributed to Direkt36’s sustainability in other ways. In Hungary, the law allows anyone who has paid personal income tax to request that 1% of that amount be redirected to a qualified non-profit organisation. “We saw enormous growth in that last year,” says Pethő: tax donations to Direkt36 more than doubled compared to the previous year.
Furthermore, “these movies are really useful for audience building. It is much easier to organise meetups when you want to show a film instead of reading from articles,” Pethő explains. He adds that they do not monetise these meetings; even if there is an entrance fee, it only covers organisational costs. However, these events strengthen the outlet’s reputation.
The films also generated international recognition and awards. Their success has been widely covered in the international press, and The Dynasty has received several awards. This gives increased credibility and potential access to grant funding, while strengthening partnerships and cross-border collaborations. In this sense, monetisation is not purely transactional; it also includes reputational capital, which is crucial for non-profit investigative outlets.
“The films increased our audience and impact. Being a nonprofit, we cannot ask for more,” Pethő says.
In heavily restrictive media environments, shifting to video can dramatically expand reach and impact. These documentaries demonstrate how this can translate into financial support.
On the fifth birthday of the Limelight Foundation, its Director, Alinda Vermeer reflects on this critical moment for journalism in Europe, discusses the foundation’s focus on public interest journalism and the broader ecosystem, shares insights into its ambitious €150 million funding goal, and explains why a systemic, long-term approach is essential to sustaining independent journalism.
The foundation is relatively young, why was it important to establish it? What gap in the journalism funding landscape did it intend to fill?
This is a very timely interview, because we have just celebrated our five-year anniversary. The foundation was set up in 2021 to protect and strengthen independent journalism in Europe and its watchdog role in society, with the idea that democracy only works if you know what is going on and what those in power are doing, because then you can make informed decisions. Basically, it was inspired by the hard-hitting journalism of some of the organisations that are now grantee partners and the role that this work fulfils in society.
It happened to coincide with the moment where a number of funders were reconsidering their priorities and shifting focus away from, for instance, working in Europe or supporting European journalism. But that growing gap in the European funding landscape wasn’t necessarily the reason to set up Limelight, it was more inspired by the importance of this work and our founders’ sense of responsibility to protect it.
Even before that shift in focus by a number of foundations, there wasn’t enough funding. I remember, back then I was still working in the NGO sector and was so thrilled that a new funder was willing to support this work.
The foundation describes its mission as strengthening Europe’s information infrastructure. What does that mean in practical terms?
On one hand, we support public interest journalism. We support cross-border investigative networks and public interest newsrooms that focus on specific European countries, but also organisations that support journalists and newsrooms, for instance when they are in legal trouble or under digital attack. Then we also support targeted work to strengthen the enabling environment, for instance, countering SLAPPs.
But we focus on the information infrastructure more broadly, because we feel that you cannot focus exclusively on journalism if you want to support it properly.
The revenue model was broken by the loss of advertising revenue and audiences shifting to reading news on social media.
From the outset, we have looked at the wider ecosystem in which journalism functions. Producing honest, reliable information is one thing, but it must also reach people. This has become increasingly difficult through big tech platforms, which have at the same time become instrumental in rising authoritarianism around the world.
In practice, it means that we look also at the role of tech, for instance supporting the enforcement of EU laws against big tech companies to ensure that they respect fundamental rights, including our right to information, or bringing accountability and transparency to the tech sector in other ways.
So our program has two pillars. On the one hand, the public interest journalism pillar, which is by far the biggest part of our work. On the other hand, there is what we call the tech and information ecosystem pillar, which focuses on the role of tech platforms through the public interest journalism lens: what the whole infrastructure should look like for public interest journalism to flourish.
Why Journalism Funding Needs a Scale Change
Limelight has ambitious plans to build a €150 million fund for journalism. How did you arrive at that number and how do you plan to raise it?
I’ll take you back to a year and a half ago, when we started thinking about what the strategy for the next couple of years should be. We realised that we had become the leading journalism fund in Europe, but also that we had a very modest budget of less than EUR 7 million per year. That made no sense, or at least not to us.
We also thought about the context in which we operate, and we know that our societies are confronted with so many crises: rising authoritarianism, climate crisis, geopolitical instability, technological disruption. A healthy information infrastructure plays a key role in confronting these issues.
At the same time, we saw so much funding for journalism disappear from Europe. The revenue that the sector itself can generate can never close that gap. And then think about the amount big tech companies invest, for instance, in AI. The Guardian reported that last year alone they jointly invested 155 billion.
This is the context in which we operate.
To secure journalism’s future, the whole scale must change. We have to stop thinking short term and look at much longer term, at least the next 10 years.
What do we want to be able to support? What should we be supporting to help this sector survive and thrive? This is how we started thinking, and then we looked at our portfolio and thought that the way we have structured works, and the organisations we fund do fantastic work and we can see the impact of that. So what else can we do? How much can we grow?
It is not to say that 150 million invested over 10 years is all that is needed. Philanthropic funding should be a catalyst. In that sense, we also hope that it will unlock larger funding pools from public and private sectors that recognise the fundamental importance of this work.
To answer the question of how we plan to raise it, let me first say what we plan not to do. We don’t want to coordinate existing funding or take it away from others. We regularly encounter a “scarcity mindset.” I don’t think that this mindset serves this work at all, especially not at this critical time for the sector. It focuses too much on the short term rather than more systemic changes, and it holds back long-term impact.
Instead, it is about encouraging funders who are new to this field to join this mission by making them see the fundamental importance of public interest journalism and healthy information infrastructure to all the things they care about, be it climate, health, or whatever mission they have.
It is our hope that we can look beyond the usual suspects, funders who are already on board with supporting democracy, and look to funders who do not yet have that as part of their portfolio. If you look at the climate sector, it can be done, but it is indeed very ambitious.
Flexible Funding and a Targeted Approach
In what forms do you support journalism?
We mainly give financial support, typically for three years. Our preferred way of working is giving unrestricted funding, and we provide this where we can. We don’t work with open calls, but when we scope new partners, we speak with a lot of people in the sector, whether they are grantee partners or experts in the field. We call them referees. On the basis of their inputs, we make a decision on what to prioritise next.
We don’t accept unsolicited applications, simply because our team is too small and we don’t want organisations to waste time drafting fantastic proposals that we cannot support, even though we want to, because our budget is already allocated for the year. Potential grantee partners can fill out a form on our website giving information about their organisation and how they align with our strategy, and we do respond to all these requests. We don’t want to be a fully closed organisation that is impossible to approach, and I don’t exclude the possibility that we will do open calls at some point.
This is our preferred way of working. With the traditional business models collapsing, you just can’t do your best work as a journalist if you constantly have to fundraise, report, or work in a big jigsaw puzzle, figuring out what funding goes where. You just need to be able to pay rent, retain talent, and strengthen your team or your digital security. You need to be able to innovate, if necessary. Core funding enables you to do that. We also feel that it’s the best way to guarantee editorial independence.
Do you provide any other assistance beyond funding?
Where it is helpful to our grantee partners, we are happy to act as sparring partners. We really enjoy doing that, connecting with them on the organisational challenges they face. We also connect them to others in our network, for instance, journalism support organisations.
Building a successful revenue model is very important with the amount of funding that has left the field, and we don’t want to pretend that we are the ones with that expertise. It requires hyper-local expertise, and we don’t have that in-house. There are better ways to approach it, for instance through peer learning or having a dedicated consultant who knows the specific local context.
We are one of the donors behind the Revenue Axis run by OCCRP, which helps investigative journalism outlets navigate the changing funding landscape and achieve long-term financial sustainability by figuring out new ways to monetise the work, not with a one-size-fits-all approach, but with a view to what works in that specific local context.
We try to be realistic about what we can provide in-house and keep our team quite small so the overhead remains low and as much funding as possible goes into the field.
Which organisations are eligible for your support?
When we look at our public interest journalism portfolio, geographically it is focused on Council of Europe countries. We try to support organisations in countries where press freedom is under pressure or where there is hardly any funding available for journalism. That is, of course, a very long list of countries.
We fund a mix of smaller and larger organisations.
We look at the financial dependence that organisations would have on us, and we try to spread the risk there.
So we support, for instance, some larger, cross-border investigative networks, or newsrooms that have very diversified income and are in a relatively strong position, or small newsrooms that may just be starting out or may only have one other funder. So we balance that. We don’t want to say that we don’t support organisations at all if they have a certain level of dependence on us, because we think that you have to be realistic. It’s very difficult to find funding in certain countries.
Some of the organisations that we support have a global focus, for instance, cross-border investigative networks or support organisations like Media Defence, which gives legal support to journalists around the world. But when it comes to newsrooms, they often have a focus on their specific country.
Why an Ecosystem Approach Matters More Than Ever
What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?
Before I started working at Limelight three years ago, I had worked for nearly a decade in legal representation of journalists. I think the most important lesson now is still the same: journalism is under threat from every angle, and I have only seen it increase over the past 10 years.
There is a financial threat, with the advertising revenue being absorbed by big tech companies and the change in news consumption, but also a legal threat, especially SLAPPs. When I started representing journalists as a lawyer, it was typically articles with a mistake that would get you into legal trouble. Now it is often the really good journalism that gets you into trouble, especially because it is so effective.
Digital threats have also increased, blocking of websites, spyware infections, you name it. Online violence has also become a massive threat, and it can also spill offline. And then an insight that comes more from my days at Limelight: reaching audiences is increasingly difficult because of the big tech platforms.
Journalists have an incredibly challenging job, and their resilience has amazed me again and again. It also makes me hopeful, because they keep going even if their work comes at a high personal cost. But the sector can’t thrive under so much threat, and I think the main lesson for me is that the philanthropic sector has a role to play, giving them the backing that they deserve. Yeah, this is a slightly depressing lesson.
What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
Over the past couple of years, it has been a very big challenge: how to allocate a limited budget when there are so many organisations that deserve support. Even if we grow, I think it will continue to be the case. Making these decisions is difficult.
But I think that an even bigger challenge is the fundraising target. We do think that it is critical to have a flourishing media sector to keep our democracy strong and our society stable, and we urgently need that support at a much bigger scale.
After the USAID funding cuts last year, when so much funding for journalism disappeared overnight, and US democracy is being dismantled bit by bit, you would think it would be very easy to make a case for new allies and new funders. That has not yet been the case. I don’t know whether it is complacency, or a feeling that we are immune from this level of democratic backsliding, or a sense of this problem being too big for us to take on.
Our biggest challenge now is driving home the message that we do need to act now and at a much bigger scale, and the response needs to come from a much bigger group of people and donors than just existing journalism funders.
How do you assess the success of your programs? Can you share a particular success story?
We have an impact framework that helps us keep track of our grant-making and our own organisational development. The main goal of this framework, and of our own monitoring and reporting, is to make sure that we work in line with our strategy.
When it comes to journalism, it is quite hard, because you can have all these KPIs about supporting this many newsrooms that published this many investigations and this many people have read those, but this tells only a very small part of the story. When it comes to measuring the impact of journalism, we work with change stories. We zoom in on a newsroom to see what our multi-year support has enabled them to do, whether it is on the organisational side, strengthening their team, bringing new skills on board, improving their financial sustainability, or on the journalism side, what it meant in terms of accountability, or connecting a global crisis to a local context, or amplifying voices that might otherwise not have been heard. We try to look at all the various forms of impact over the course of years.
In terms of one single success story, it is really hard, because we come across so many fantastic success stories on a daily basis. On the other hand, we have only been around for five years, and some of this impact materialises over the course of, say, a decade.
What is interesting to see, though, is the reporting from some of our grantee partners on the impact of important investigations that have happened even before we were set up. This also informs our own way of looking at the impact of the journalism we support now.
The Panama Papers investigation is a good example. It is coming up to its 10 year anniversary and we see the impact from recovered public funds to resignations or convictions of political figures, to legal reforms, to the impact on journalism itself in normalising large-scale, cross-border collaboration or secure data sharing. It really helps you understand what to look for and how much patience to have.
But it is also a success that the newsrooms that we support help 500 million Europeans to access independent news, or that some newsrooms are still going, but without our support they may have had to close doors. This is great to see.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Consider an ecosystem approach. It is important to fund the cross-border network that you know from the headlines, but which is made up of local journalists and local newsrooms. You also need to look at each of these newsrooms individually, and they often struggle to get funding. Maybe there is no government funding available in their country, or private funding potentially comes with strings attached. So consider looking beyond those networks to the smaller players as well.
Then, as the next step, look at the support that will be needed when journalism is published because it may get people into legal trouble, or it may result in a digital attack. What happens then? How do you ensure that you set your partners up for success in the long term? How can they keep going beyond that investigation and survive these attacks?
Finally, look at the role of tech. Producing information is one thing, but it has to reach people. What do you need to support to make sure that information reaches the audiences?
I get that, as a first piece of advice, it is a bit daunting, because budgets are typically far too small to do all of that in a way that makes sense from a strategic point of view. So the second piece of advice is: don’t hesitate to team up with others. Together, you can work at a larger scale and achieve meaningful impact.
So these are the two things: take an ecosystem approach and team up with others.
The Journalism Funders Forum has published “Journalism and Media Funding in Europe”, a new report offering a snapshot of how philanthropic organisations are funding journalism and media in Europe.
The field of journalism and media is widely recognised by funders as essential for democracy, accountability and countering misinformation, but it still receives only a tiny slice of philanthropic budgets. Despite this, there is growing urgency, a slow but visible increase in investment, and a shift toward more flexible, long‑term funding, as the field grapples with a rapidly changing media landscape, unstable business models, and rising threats to independent journalism. The data from this study underlines this context, showing a field that is crucial yet under‑resourced.
Bringing together key findings on funding patterns, priorities and emerging challenges, the report helps build a clearer picture of how philanthropy is supporting journalism and media in a fast-changing environment.
Based on a sample of 36 philanthropic organisations from 12 countries, the report shows that while funding for the field remains relatively limited, it is diverse, evolving and increasingly shaped by concerns around democracy, misinformation and the long-term sustainability of independent journalism. The report highlights a journalism and media field that is varied across different types of actors, content and geographies but accounts for just 3.2% of the total budget of the funders surveyed.
Key takeaways:
- Funding for journalism and media is relatively limited but highly diverse.
- Support is spread widely across different types of actors, content and geographies.
- Protecting democracy and countering misinformation are core motivations for funding.
- The sector is undergoing major changes, creating new challenges for funders and grantees
Read here: “Journalism and Media Funding in Europe”
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