For the King Baudouin Foundation, journalism is a core pillar for sustaining democratic pluralism. An Lavens, Head of the foundation’s Democracy Programme, explains how they support journalism while rethinking impact, risks, and the role of philanthropies.
Supporting Journalism and Democratic Participation
The King Baudouin Foundation has a long history of supporting democratic governance and civic participation. How does supporting journalism fit within your broader strategy?
Democracy ultimately depends on people being able to make sense of the world around them. Reliable, independent, and diverse public-interest information is one of the public goods that makes this possible. People can only participate meaningfully in society if they have access to trustworthy information, understand how it is produced, and feel able to form their own opinions. That is why we increasingly see journalism as part of something much broader than the media sector itself. It is part of the democratic infrastructure that allows open societies to function.
In our new Democracy Programme, we focus on two closely connected priorities: strengthening people’s democratic agency and strengthening the democratic information environment. Reliable information enables citizens to participate in democracy, but citizens also need the capacity to question, interpret, and use that information responsibly. The two reinforce one another.
This also explains why we do not see journalism as a sector that should be supported in isolation. A healthy democratic information environment depends on many interconnected elements: independent journalism, informed citizens, pluralistic public debate, and democratic institutions that remain open to scrutiny and dialogue.
At BELvue, our House of Democracy, we contribute by helping young people understand how information is produced, shared, and interpreted. Through activities such as Reporters of Democracy and Investigative Journalist for a Day, they experience what it means to ask questions, verify information, and engage with different perspectives. In that sense, we are not only investing in journalism, but also in the citizens who rely on it.
The same philosophy guides our support for journalism. Whether we invest in investigative journalism, media organisations or young journalists, the objective remains the same: not simply to strengthen journalism as a sector, but to strengthen one of the essential conditions that allows democracy itself to flourish. Ultimately, supporting journalism is not an end in itself. It is part of a broader ambition to ensure that democratic societies remain informed, open to dialogue, and capable of understanding themselves.
Do you work through intermediaries, or do you also fund organisations directly? Do you support individual journalists?
Because our objective is broader than supporting journalism alone, there is no single way of working. Different needs require different roles, and over the years, we have learned that philanthropy can contribute in several complementary ways.
Sometimes we work through specialised partners. Belgian Bridge, which we developed together with Journalismfund Europe, is a good example. Journalismfund brings the editorial expertise to organise the call, appoint an independent jury, and select the projects. This independence is essential because it fully protects editorial autonomy while allowing us to support high-quality public-interest journalism.
In other cases, our added value lies in governance. The National Lottery Democracy Fund is a good example. The National Lottery established the Fund within the King Baudouin Foundation because it wanted to pursue societal ambitions through an independent, transparent, and credible governance model. Our role is to organise the calls and provide that framework, while funding decisions are entrusted to an independent jury of external experts. I believe this is one of the important roles a philanthropic foundation can play: creating trust for partners, applicants, and society alike.
We also support organisations directly when that creates the greatest value. Through initiatives such as Pluralis and Civitates, we contribute to strengthening independent and pluralistic media over the long term, recognising that resilient organisations are just as important as individual projects.
Finally, we invest directly in people. The Prince Philip Fund’s Belgodyssee programme supports the next generation of journalists by giving journalism students practical newsroom experience across Belgium’s linguistic communities. Building on that philosophy, we also hope to launch the Stolarski Investigative Journalism Fellowship in 2027, helping early-career investigative journalists develop their skills, professional networks, and international experience.
Taken together, these different approaches reflect the way we think about philanthropy. Sometimes the greatest contribution is funding a project; sometimes it is strengthening an organisation, investing in people, or providing an independent governance framework. What matters is choosing the role that creates the greatest public value.
A Multi-Level Approach to Journalism Support
To what extent do you focus specifically on Belgium versus working internationally?
Growing up and working in Belgium inevitably shapes the way we think. We are used to living with different languages, different communities, and different perspectives. Perhaps that is one reason why pluralism feels less like an abstract principle and more like an everyday reality.
Some of our work is firmly rooted in Belgium. Through BELvue, the National Lottery Democracy Fund, Belgian Bridge, and our educational activities, we contribute to strengthening democratic life close to home.
At the same time, many of today’s challenges no longer stop at national borders. Disinformation, platform dynamics, artificial intelligence, and pressures on media freedom are shared European and global challenges. That is why we complement our Belgian work with initiatives such as Pluralis, Civitates, the AI & Society Fund, and Media Support Ukraine.
For me, there is no contradiction between working locally and internationally. They constantly reinforce one another. Experiences from elsewhere help us look differently at Belgium, just as Belgian experiences can contribute to wider European conversations.
Does being based in Belgium, the centre of European policymaking, influence how you think about supporting journalism?
Perhaps less because Brussels is the capital of Europe, and more because Belgium has always encouraged us to look beyond ourselves. As a relatively small country with several languages and strong international connections, we naturally think across borders. We rarely see democratic challenges as purely national. They are often shared, even if they take different forms depending on the context.
Belgium also reminds us every day that pluralism is something to be practised, not simply defended. Different perspectives coexist, sometimes comfortably and sometimes not, but always requiring dialogue, compromise, and a willingness to listen.
Being close to the European institutions is, of course, an additional advantage. Many debates around media freedom, digital regulation, and artificial intelligence take place almost on our doorstep, encouraging us to think simultaneously about Belgium, Europe, and the wider democratic landscape.
Supporting public-interest journalism has therefore never been an end in itself. It is about strengthening the conditions that allow democratic societies to remain informed, engage in a shared public conversation, and understand one another despite their differences.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?
One thing that has always struck me is the curiosity of journalists. I studied communication rather than journalism, so entering this world made me realise how central curiosity is to the profession. Good journalists keep asking questions. They rarely settle for the first explanation. They look beneath the surface and try to understand what is really happening. Over time, I have come to think that curiosity is much more than a professional quality. It is a democratic one.
At BELvue, where we work with young people every day, we often say that democracy begins with asking questions. Before people can participate, they first need to understand. That means listening, questioning assumptions, encountering different perspectives, and sometimes changing your own mind.
In today’s information environment, where people are constantly exposed to enormous amounts of information, algorithms, and increasingly convincing AI-generated content, those qualities become even more important. Curiosity encourages people to look beyond headlines, compare sources, and remain open to complexity instead of searching for easy answers.
I also believe creativity deserves far more attention than it usually receives. Democracies need people who can imagine alternatives, connect different perspectives, and find new ways of explaining an increasingly complex world. Perhaps curiosity and creativity are two of the democratic capacities we should invest in most in the years ahead.
What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
One observation that comes back quite often is that potential philanthropists hesitate when journalism enters the conversation. Some worry that supporting journalism may be perceived as taking a political position. I understand that hesitation. Yet, for me, the intention is almost the opposite.
Independent public-interest journalism is not about promoting one opinion over another. It is about ensuring that different voices can exist, that facts can be investigated, and that citizens have access to reliable information on which they can form their own opinions.
Ultimately, independent journalism is one of the institutions that helps democratic societies examine themselves, question themselves, and continue learning about themselves.
Perhaps this is one of those moments where philanthropy requires a certain amount of courage. Not the courage to defend a particular political view, but the courage to protect the conditions that allow democratic debate to remain open, informed, and pluralistic.
Another lesson is that there is rarely a single solution. The greatest needs differ from one country to another and from one community to another. That is why I increasingly believe philanthropy should begin by listening, rather than by deciding what it wants to fund. The first question should not be, “Which project do we want to support?,” but “Where are the greatest needs?”
Rethinking Impact and Success
How do you assess the success of your programmes? Can you share a particular success story?
Impact is probably one of the most difficult questions in philanthropy. We measure outputs such as grants, participants, and projects, but those numbers never tell the whole story. For me, the more interesting question is whether we have helped make the democratic information environment more resilient. Has a media organisation become stronger? Has a journalist developed professionally? Have citizens gained a better understanding of how information is produced? Those are often much more meaningful questions.
Occasionally, long-term investments become visible. In countries where media pluralism has come under pressure, organisations supported through initiatives such as Pluralis have demonstrated how important sustained investment in independent media can be. Research has even suggested that, in certain contexts, these long-term investments helped preserve pluralism during critical democratic moments.
I would be careful, though, not to define success only through these exceptional examples. Democracy is rarely strengthened by one flagship project. More often, it is the accumulation of many smaller contributions over many years. Perhaps that is one of the paradoxes of philanthropy: its greatest successes are often the least visible.
Sometimes success simply means that an independent newsroom survives, that a young journalist remains in the profession, or that citizens continue to have access to reliable and diverse public-interest information. Ultimately, philanthropy rarely changes society on its own. It creates the conditions that allow many others to make a difference.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
My first piece of advice would be to understand the landscape before deciding what to fund.
Rather than asking what kind of journalism you would like to support, I would first ask where the greatest needs are. The answer will almost certainly differ from one country to another.
Sometimes the priority may be investigative journalism. Elsewhere it may be local journalism, journalism education, young talent, public-interest technology, media literacy or helping existing organisations become financially sustainable through core funding.
There are many ways philanthropy can contribute, and they are usually complementary rather than competing. Sometimes the greatest impact comes from supporting organisations, sometimes from investing in people, sometimes from funding research, and sometimes simply from providing patient, long-term support.
I also believe responsibility does not lie only with philanthropy or with citizens. The media sector itself benefits from continuous reflection. Trust is not something journalism can simply ask for; it is something that is earned over time through independence, transparency, quality, and a willingness to keep listening to audiences. If there is one thing I hope we continue to protect, it is curiosity.
Journalists cultivate it every day, but it ultimately belongs to all of us. If philanthropy can help nurture that curiosity—in newsrooms, in classrooms, and across society—we are not only supporting journalism. We are helping strengthen one of the essential conditions for democracy itself.
In Journalism Practice, Emma Verhoeven and Sarah Van Leuven examined generative AI’s impact on journalism employment and found that rather than replacing journalists, it reshapes skills via reskilling and deskilling.
Generative AI is beginning to take over parts of journalistic work, from spotting stories to producing content, raising both hopes and anxieties about the future of the profession. This study looks at how it is changing work conditions and job security through interviews with key actors in newsrooms in Belgium. The broader picture is more complex than simple narratives of disruption, as long-standing economic pressures and newsroom practices also shape these changes.
In newsrooms, AI is settling into everyday workflows without overturning them. Large media groups have built dedicated teams and secure systems, weaving AI into content management tools that suggest headlines, summaries, or handle transcription and translation. Smaller outlets move more loosely, often relying on free tools, while a few draw firm ethical lines and restrict AI to research support. In general, automation remains limited in scope and tightly supervised, even if that supervision is uneven in practice.
The authors found that fears of widespread job loss have eased as AI’s limits have become clearer. Journalists mostly use it to offload repetitive work, which saves time but does not yet translate into measurable efficiency gains. Managers do not rule out small staffing adjustments over time, though not on a large scale. The more immediate pressure falls on freelancers, whose roles can be quietly reduced. Fully automated publishing exists only in narrow, data-driven areas like sports results or real estate listings, where structured inputs make automation feasible and where such coverage would otherwise not necessarily exist.
At the same time, AI is creating new roles and reshaping existing ones. News organisations are appointing editors with hybrid responsibilities, bridging editorial judgment and technological implementation. In some cases, journalists specialise in crafting prompts and refining how AI tools are used, a task framed less as technical work than as an extension of editorial thinking. These developments open new career paths but also deepen inequalities between large, well-resourced organisations and smaller outlets struggling to keep up.
Nevertheless, certain skills are losing ground. Routine language tasks, basic editing, and parts of distribution are increasingly automated, while expectations shift toward creativity, judgment, and adaptability. The picture that emerges is not one of sudden disruption but of gradual reorganization, shaped as much by long-standing economic pressures and newsroom hierarchies as by the technology itself.
Stepping back, the study suggests that generative AI is not transforming journalism as dramatically as often claimed. Its effects remain modest and uneven, more an extension of long-running digital shifts than a break with them. Direct job losses are rare, but change seeps in through hiring freezes and unfilled vacancies, quietly narrowing opportunities over time. Skills tied to judgment, verification, and human storytelling gain importance and journalists lean into this distinction, emphasising what machines cannot replicate.
The research also uncovered that old tensions persist. The promise of freeing up time for deeper reporting coexists with fears of cuts and heavier workloads, much as it did a decade ago. For some, especially freelancers and newcomers, the risks are sharper. Access to training and tools is uneven, competition intensifies, and entry-level pathways may shrink as basic tasks disappear. Newsrooms respond by pushing staff toward new skills or roles, though this adaptation depends heavily on resources.
Verhoeven, E., & Van Leuven, S. (2026). Between Anticipation and Impact: Assessing Generative AI’s Influence on Journalistic Labor and Employment. Journalism Practice, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2026.2692441
The provisions of the EU AI Act coming into effect in August may not change journalism overnight, but they will have a significant impact. The most consequential change relates to transparency: now it is a legal obligation.
On August 2, the EU AI Act reached a new milestone. The provisions entering into force and becoming fully enforceable in practice do not focus primarily on regulating AI use in journalism. Instead, they concentrate on disclosure, labelling, and enforcement: they introduce a regulatory layer into editorial decision-making, particularly in areas where the boundaries between human and machine input are difficult to draw.
Disclosure, Exceptions, and Editorial Responsibility
As Krisztina Rozgonyi, senior scientist at the Austrian Institute of Technology and the Austrian Academy of Sciences, explains, Article 50 includes important elements. The most important provision for journalism is the disclosure obligation: if texts published to inform audiences on matters of public interest are generated with AI, they must be labelled accordingly, with certain icons. There are, however, certain exceptions: the disclosure obligation becomes more flexible if the content serves artistic or satirical purposes, and there is no labelling requirement if the text undergoes substantial human review and is subject to editorial responsibility.
This means that routine applications, such as automated summaries, translation, or the use of generative tools in drafting, may fall within the scope of disclosure requirements, depending on the degree of human editorial control.
This threshold, however, remains open to interpretation: it is vague what constitutes ‘meaningful editorial control’. According to Rozgonyi, regular, professional editorial practices fall into this category, and another EU regulation, the European Media Freedom Act, defines what editorial control means. Accountability procedures must be defined, responsibilities must be clear on the individual level. This could influence workflows, she continues, and maybe editorial policies should be revised. In fact, in the case of smaller outlets, this might be the time when they have to put these editorial policies into written form.
Furthermore, according to Article 50, deepfake content, which resembles real persons or events and may reasonably be mistaken, must be labelled accordingly. Users must be informed if they interact with AI agents, for example, chatbots. The European Commission’s guidance elaborates on these requirements and their intended scope.
As Rozgonyi argues, news organisations also need to be mindful whether they qualify as providers or deployers of AI systems. In most cases, they are deployers, however, if they build their own AI systems, for example news assistants or chatbots, then they have to align with further regulations as providers.
From Regulation to Enforcement
August 2 marks the date at which enforcement mechanisms must be in place across member states. Regulatory bodies, penalties, and oversight structures move from design to implementation. For media organisations, this turns questions of AI use into matters of compliance. Decisions about disclosure are no longer confined to internal editorial guidelines but carry potential legal consequences.
The broader ecosystem is also affected. Rules governing general-purpose AI systems have been in force since 2025, requiring providers to document their models and meet transparency standards. As enforcement intensifies, these obligations become more visible in practice. Journalists gain access to additional information about how such systems are trained and operate, which may inform reporting on issues such as sourcing, bias, or intellectual property.
At the same time, media organisations remain largely dependent on external technology providers, while bearing responsibility for how these tools are deployed in editorial contexts. The Act does not fundamentally change this relationship, but it does bring greater attention to it.
Still, some of the most far-reaching elements of the AI Act are not part of this phase. Provisions concerning high-risk AI systems, including those relevant to employment or certain forms of automated decision-making, are largely deferred to later implementation stages. For journalism, this means that the immediate regulatory impact is concentrated on content and transparency, rather than on the internal use of AI in business or organisational processes. According to Rozgonyi, it is yet to be seen what kind of impact these provisions may have later.
The result is an uneven regulatory landscape. Editorial uses of AI are subject to new expectations, while other applications within media organisations remain, for now, less directly affected. Furthermore, Rozgonyi believes that the bigger focus should be placed on improving AI literacy of audiences.
There are, however, emerging areas of opportunity. The Act requires member states to establish regulatory sandboxes, designed to allow organisations to test AI systems under supervision. For media organisations, particularly those with the capacity to engage in experimentation, this may provide a structured environment to develop and refine AI-driven practices in dialogue with regulators.
Why This Matters for Funders
For funders and other stakeholders in the journalism ecosystem, these questions intersect with ongoing concerns about sustainability, credibility, and the capacity of news organisations to adapt to technological change. As previous waves of transformation have shown, the introduction of new tools rarely affects only production processes but also reshapes relationships between journalists, audiences, and the institutions that support them.
Supporting journalism in an AI-shaped environment is no longer only about financing content or institutions, but about enabling the conditions under which trust can be maintained. That includes investment in editorial standards, disclosure practices, and technical literacy within newsrooms, as well as independent scrutiny of the tools those newsrooms rely on. Without that layer of support, the burden of compliance and transparency risks falling unevenly across the sector, deepening existing gaps between well-resourced organisations and those already struggling to stay afloat. In this sense, funding decisions begin to influence not just what journalism is produced, but how accountable, legible, and resilient it remains as AI becomes embedded in its core processes.
AI is already embedded in many aspects of journalism. What the Act does is bring greater structure to its use, particularly where that use intersects with public trust. In the coming years, the practical significance of these provisions will depend on how they are interpreted and applied. Much will be determined not only by regulators, but by the choices made within newsrooms and across the broader media ecosystem.
In a research article in Journalism Studies, Jacob L. Nelson and Seth C. Lewis argue that transparency alone cannot rebuild trust; news organisations must adopt capital transparency, which includes openly addressing profit motives and acknowledging tensions between financial interests and public service.
Trust in journalism has declined sharply worldwide, making it harder for people to stay informed and for news organisations to sustain themselves. In response, audiences increasingly turn to their own forms of “fact-checking,” often reinforcing existing beliefs and deepening exposure to misinformation. While transparency in reporting processes has been promoted as a remedy, its impact remains limited because it does not address a central concern: the perception that journalism is driven more by profit than public interest.
Public attitudes range from healthy scepticism, which encourages critical engagement, to corrosive cynicism, which dismisses journalism altogether. This shift towards cynicism is fuelled by beliefs that journalists are influenced by political bias and, increasingly, by economic pressures. Many people suspect that news is shaped to attract attention and generate revenue, a concern not entirely unfounded given the growing entanglement of editorial and commercial priorities.
Although distrust is influenced by broader social and psychological factors, perceptions of journalists’ competing interests play a significant role. Rebuilding trust therefore requires acknowledging these tensions openly and demonstrating that professional integrity can coexist with financial realities, rather than denying the pressures that shape news production.
The idea that greater transparency can restore trust in journalism has gained wide support, especially as news organisations face growing scepticism and accusations of bias or “fake news.” Transparency typically involves explaining how stories are selected, how reporting decisions are made, how journalists interact with audiences, and how errors are corrected. The underlying belief is that by opening up these processes, news organisations can demonstrate accountability and reinforce their credibility. Many outlets have embraced this approach, publishing explanations of their reporting methods and editorial guidelines to rebuild their relationship with the public.
However, research has consistently shown that these efforts have had little or no meaningful effect on public trust. In some cases, transparency produces only modest improvements, and in others it can even deepen scepticism. Several explanations help account for this. Audiences may simply not encounter transparency efforts, particularly as news consumption shifts to social media, where such explanations are less visible. Furthermore, those who already distrust journalism may dismiss transparency as self-serving or insincere. There is also the risk that transparency is used strategically, revealing only favourable aspects of journalistic practice while concealing more problematic elements, which can make it resemble a form of promotion rather than genuine openness.
A more fundamental limitation is that current transparency efforts focus almost entirely on how journalism is produced, while neglecting a key source of distrust: the perception that news organisations prioritise profit over truth or public service. This is where the concept of capital transparency becomes central.
Capital transparency calls for openness about the financial structures underpinning journalism, including ownership, funding sources, and the economic pressures shaping editorial decisions. By revealing how money influences news production, journalists can address suspicions that otherwise are left unchallenged.
This approach goes beyond routine disclosures, encouraging journalists and organisations to explain how they maintain independence despite financial constraints and potential conflicts of interest. It may involve acknowledging the limits of the traditional “firewall” between editorial and business operations and being open about instances where that boundary is strained.
While such honesty could expose uncomfortable realities and may not improve trust in the industry as a whole, it has the potential to build credibility at the level of journalists, distinguish genuinely public-serving outlets from those driven primarily by profit, and consequently, improve public trust in public interest journalism.
Nelson, J. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2026). Show Them the Money: The Case for Capital Transparency in Journalism. Journalism Studies, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2026.2655667
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