join

Funders, journalists, and civic actors are rethinking how to defend media freedom amid funding cuts, political intimidation, legal threats, and the dominance of Big Tech. From pooled funds to local initiatives, a range of strategies is emerging to support public interest journalism.

The barrage of challenges facing independent journalism is alarming. The funding landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, even before the US foreign aid freeze, with organisations like the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and various governments retreating or shifting their focus. Adding to that is Meta’s decision to cut fact-checking programmes, which has deprived many non-profit newsrooms of crucial revenue – another sign of the growing dependency on Big Tech.

Repressive legislation is another major concern. Foreign agent laws in Central and Eastern Europe are increasingly being used to intimidate independent outlets, with the newest examples coming from Georgia. Attacks and threats or smear campaigns have become widespread in several countries, for example, in Serbia, while the Hungarian government threatens to ban foreign funding for the media. “It is a disaster in pretty epic proportions,” said Drew Sullivan, Co-founder and Publisher of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

These developments threaten to further fracture information environments, leaving citizens without access to reliable information. In April, the annual event of the Journalism Funders Forum discussed these issues, creating a space to examine how to navigate the challenges and collaborate to preserve independent journalism.

How US Funding Losses Are Shaking Newsrooms Worldwide

The cuts to US government funding hit journalism support worldwide, with a global loss of USD 735 million. According to data from OCCRP, the Pacific region suffered the most, losing 88% of its funding, followed by Central Asia with 47% and Europe with 43%. In Europe, the impact was particularly severe in Cyprus, which lost all donor funding for journalism, while Ukraine lost 82%, Albania 80%, Kosovo 77%, Moldova 69%, and Belarus 64%.

Sullivan warned that some OCCRP partners now face an existential threat, with many unable to secure advertising revenue, being targeted by smear campaigns, and struggling even before the cuts. Countless other outlets are facing potential layoffs and pay cuts.

Press Under Pressure in Italy

The situation is difficult not only in Central and Eastern Europe but also in other EU Member States. In Italy, journalism faces a unique set of challenges rooted in both cultural and systemic issues. To discuss these issues with local foundations, the Journalism Funders Forum’s annual meeting took place for the first time in Florence in cooperation with Assifero, the Italian umbrella organisation for foundations, close in time and location to the subsequent International Journalism Festival in Perugia. As Francesca Mereta, Head of Programmes and Communications at Assifero, explained, journalism historically has not been a focus for philanthropies because the state and public welfare systems seemed to provide sufficient support. However, with the growing spread of disinformation, there seems to be a rising awareness among philanthropies of the need to engage in this field.

Nevertheless, recent years have also seen the concentration of media power in the hands of a few companies, leaving less space for investigative journalism. Freelancers are paid poorly and lack legal protection, making independence from advertising revenue almost impossible and opening the door to political interference. According to Sara Manisera, Investigative Reporter and Fundraiser at the FADA Collective, fragile journalism is dangerous to democracy and leads to increasing polarisation, especially as news consumption shifts to social media.

News organisations struggle not only economically but also in reaching their audiences. Younger generations consume news on platforms like Instagram, making multimedia content increasingly essential. Legal risks also weigh heavily, Cecilia Anesi, Centre Director of the Investigative Reporting Project Italy, noted. Papers are hesitant to publish investigations due to the threat of civil and criminal lawsuits.

One of the most pressing legal threats comes in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), with Italy having the highest number of such cases in the EU. Journalists, whistleblowers, and even comedians face lawsuits by politicians seeking damages of €50,000 to €100,000. The resulting legal costs and mental health impacts are severe, and while EU directives offer some hope, Martina Turola, Head of Communications at The Good Lobby Italy, emphasised that providing journalists with the necessary tools and funding to defend themselves remains essential.

Local Media’s Battle for Survival

Local media face even greater difficulties within the already challenging media landscape. Anesi pointed out that local outlets often lack the international connections that larger mainstream organisations can rely on. Their limited capacity and the burden of bureaucracy also prevent them from offering additional services to increase revenue, making their financial situation particularly precarious.

Still, the survival of local media outlets is essential, as they provide crucial information for their audiences to remain informed about local issues directly impacting their lives. However, while it is easy to start such an outlet, it is extremely difficult to keep it alive in an increasingly hostile and unfair market. “Funding and working on the local level is a way to counter what is happening around the world and online,” Sameer Padania, Director of Macroscope London, argued, stressing the importance of supporting journalism “where people are.”  

There are various ways to support independent local media beyond grant funding. Placing advertisements in them or subscribing as an organisation could make a significant difference, as even small contributions can be meaningful on one hand and have the potential to encourage others to do the same on the other. Supporting local media is not just altruistic, Padania noted; businesses also benefit by having accurate, reliable information about what is happening in their own communities.

Regulating Big Tech to Protect Journalism’s Future

The shifting funding landscape is just one part of the problem. As Adam Thomas, Founder of Evenly Distributed, pointed out, Big Tech has been disrupting traditional business models for two decades. Vera Franz, former Division Director for Technology & Society at OSF Global Programs, described the moment as “very bleak” but also as an opportunity to challenge Big Tech’s dominance.

At the moment, tech giants have a monopoly on advertising. 80% of Google’s revenue comes from its control of the online advertising system, and it also controls how ads are sold. Although an increasing number of news organisations no longer rely on ads, instead turning to crowdfunding and subscriptions, they are also forced to pay Big Tech through app store or cloud service fees.

“For journalism, Big Tech is the problem of the past, present, and future,” Franz warned, highlighting the importance of building digital infrastructures independent of Big Tech control, as funders must address not only symptoms but also the structural causes of the broken ecosystem.

One step towards this could be monetising unique content by outlets themselves and preventing AI from scraping it without compensation. However, regulation is key in this regard, and, as Pierrick Judeaux, Director of Portfolio and EU Representative at International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM) noted, it is an open question how far the European Union is willing to go and how many Member States would be willing to implement stricter regulation.

There are also ongoing discussions about building a European cloud system, independent from US tech giants, but, as Franz highlighted, journalists and funders are not yet sufficiently involved, although funders, with their broader perspective, have a particular responsibility to connect initiatives and strengthen the sector’s resilience.

How Philanthropies Can Step Up for Independent Media

In these circumstances, it is crucial for funders to rethink their approaches if independent journalism is to survive. Civil society and media are equally vital pillars of democracy, a reality becoming more apparent not only in autocracies but also in parts of Western Europe. “If you don’t have free media based on facts, where would you go to discuss your causes?” asked Maribel Königer, Director of Communications, Journalism and Media at the ERSTE Foundation.

The recent tragedy in Serbia’s Vojvodina region, when a train station’s roof collapsed, demonstrated why independent media is important. According to Vasic, it made many realize what journalists have been saying for years: corruption can kill. Although the donation culture is underdeveloped in the country, KRIK has been successful in securing revenue from its audience by explaining why they need money and involving donors in the decision-making process about spending. Vasic believes that brand awareness and connection to readers are paramount for the success of such efforts.

There are various other success stories of organisations using their creativity to increase revenue. Dennik N in Slovakia increased its subscriber base by almost 40% due to a successful campaign. Direkt36 in Hungary gets 75% of its income from commercial revenue. These examples show that there is potential in the sector, but entrepreneurial leadership and business-mindedness are key to such achievements, Sullivan emphasized.

Nevertheless, there are several ways where philanthropies could also strengthen their involvement. Judeaux called for better advocacy, bringing other potential funders to the space by articulating the value of public interest journalism, unlocking more private capital, attentive listening to grantees, and understanding where grant funding fits best.

Successful funding programs also require long-term strategy and a deep understanding of grantees’ operations and national contexts, particularly in authoritarian environments. Long-term, flexible funding is seen as the most helpful, enabling organisations to plan beyond mere survival. Adrian Arena, Director of the International Human Rights Programme at Oak Foundation, argued that linguistic barriers often hamper proper grant evaluation, therefore, it is important to have team members who understand the language in which grantees publish.

Pooled funds may provide an answer to many of these challenges and can play a crucial role in supporting journalism by opening up opportunities for funders and media outlets alike. They provide a buffer between donors and grantees that can be beneficial for all parties involved. Pooled funds also bring together a diversity of experiences, allowing knowledge-sharing and fostering a collective response to challenges that no single funder could address alone.

Civitates is one such pooled fund. Its Senior Programme Manager Eszter Szucs explained that linking journalism support to broader democracy funding could help bring in new funders, using the shrinking media freedom as an indicator of democratic backsliding.

Another example of such pooled funds is the recently launched Media Forward Fund (MFF), which focuses on developing business skills within media organisations, as the team realised that the level of business skills is really low in many media organisations, argued Founding Director Martin Kotynek.

MFF is a “cousin” of Press Forward, a US initiative, and there are other similar regional pooled funds in the making, in the UK, Brazil, and Australia, with the potential of bringing in new, locally engaged funders. As Kathy Im, Director, Journalism and Media at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation emphasised, attracting new funders requires offering flexibility, recognising their varying starting points.

Recognising the scale of the current crisis, Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager at Adessium Foundation and Willem Lenders, Programme Manager at Limelight Foundation, the Co-chairs of the Journalism Funders Forum, called for urgent collective action. They announced a joint initiative to respond to the funding gaps left by US cuts. Although philanthropies cannot fully replace lost US support, a coordinated answer could ensure that crucial independent media outlets have a fighting chance.

Veronika Munk, Director of Innovation and New Markets at Denník N, shares insights into the outlet’s recent, highly successful campaign.

In just two weeks, we gained 24,000 new subscribers, bringing our total to more than 90,000. Even writing that number feels overwhelming. These people chose quality journalism in a world that is turning upside down – where audiences are tuning out of news, major platforms dominate and distort media markets, and anti-democratic governments are advancing, often treating independent media with hostility, even paralysing it in some regions.

Denník N is one of the market leading Slovak independent news outlets, reaching 1-1,5 million readers every month, operating with a 130 strong staff, being the largest newsroom in Slovakia. We focus primarily on in-depth, investigative, explanatory journalism in text, audio, and video, and fast short news service. We also publish a print daily, monthly educational magazines, and books.

“We are 10 years old, looking to the future, and searching for another 10,000 people who care about it.”

That was our message for our 10th birthday – and it worked.

Our 10-years anniversary campaign

We launched this campaign to celebrate Denník N’s 10th anniversary with the goal of bringing in 10,000 new subscribers. To mark the occasion, we let them bypass the fixed subscription fee and instead choose their own contribution for a 10-week trial period – however much they felt was fair for reading, watching, and listening to Denník N.

But our value proposition was more than just, “Come, get it cheaper.”

We invited our 70,000 existing subscribers to help strengthen the country and its fragile democratic system. Our request? Convince at least one friend to try Denník N for 10 weeks, and in return, we pledged to fulfil 10 key promises – each designed to make Slovakia, and European democracy at large, a better place.

Our 10 promises to Slovakia

If we reached 10,000 new subscribers, we committed to:

  1. Unlocking all content published in Denník N’s first 10 years.
  2. Giving a free subscription to all future first-time voters.
  3. Producing significantly more free, short videos on social media.
  4. Sending free print editions to all senior homes and senior clubs.
  5. Conducting 100 interviews with people who haven’t given up on Slovakia.
  6. Publishing special print editions dedicated to at least five Slovak regions.
  7. Offering our video content for free to TV broadcasters.
  8. Organising lectures on the dangers of social media for 10,000 students.
  9. Launching a training programme for young journalists.
  10. Dedicating 10 million ad impressions to organisations that improve Slovakia.
What we learned: 5 key takeaways for the industry

1. People will invest in a better future if you ask them directly.

Audiences care about their own future and believe in free media – but they need to be invited to take part in its operation. When framed as a collective effort, people respond.

2. Your existing audience is your valuable recruiter.

We successfully mobilised our current subscribers (and even newsroom members) to recruit new subscribers – a method proven effective by Zetland (Denmark) and Direkt36 (Hungary). We took it further with gamification: on our site, every participant could track in real-time how many subscribers had joined thanks to their recommendation. Our most successful subscriber-influencer brought us 372 new subscribers – for free.

3. People will pay for a good cause and high-quality service – especially when combined.

We told readers they could pay any amount for their 10-week subscription. Only 22% chose the free option, proving that people are willing to contribute if they believe in the mission and see value in the product.

4. The right promises make all the difference.

We spent months crafting the right commitments – pledging initiatives that served a clear public interest (such as supporting first-time voters or fact-based journalism), and also that added value to our core mission of delivering high-quality content.

5. Social media can work – when used strategically.

Slovak influencers helped amplify our campaign on Instagram and Facebook. We also used ManyChat, a chatbot and marketing automation platform, to create direct, personalised connections with users who showed interest in subscribing.

The next challenge: Retention

I could say that after thorough strategic planning, we expected exactly 24,000 new subscribers, but that wouldn’t be true. We had a plan, yes, but the plan was to reach 10,000 entirely new subscribers in ten weeks – and if we didn’t, we would shut down the campaign after six weeks. In the end, we hit the 10,000 mark in just four days, and after two weeks, we had 24,366 new subscribers. Only 22% of them chose to pay nothing for the 10-week subscription.

The trial period ends in April, and churn is inevitable – industry benchmarks suggest we might lose around 70% of our new subscribers.

Our main task now is convincing them to stay. And our most powerful tool? Quality journalism – the ultimate marketing asset. Moreover, thanks to their registrations, we are able to remain in contact with tens of thousands of new readers, giving us a direct line to continue proving our value. If we manage to retain one third of them in the long term, it will still be the most successful thing we have ever done, and successful by reader revenue business standards in Central-Eastern Europe.

I believe this campaign wasn’t just about subscriber growth – it was a statement. It proved that people still value quality journalism, that they’re willing to pay for it, and that strong reader communities can be mobilised to protect independent media.

The challenge for all of us in the industry is clear: we must continue proving that journalism is worth supporting by making it indispensable, by making it participatory, and by making it a cause people want to invest in.

Donor dependency, wherein media outlets rely heavily on external grants, has become a major challenge for independent media. While crucial for the survival of many outlets, it comes with substantial risks, as the recent freeze on US funding has demonstrated. Experts emphasise the need for revenue diversification to ensure long-term sustainability.

Donor dependency occurs when an organisation relies predominantly on external grants from philanthropies or other donors to sustain its operations. This has become particularly common among independent media operating in challenging environments where alternative revenue streams are scarce.

Anya Schiffrin, Director of the Media, Technology, and Communications specialisation at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, notes that donor dependency is not a new phenomenon. However, concerns related to it were different two decades ago. When new donors entered the field and started to fund reporting on certain topics, it raised concerns about editorial independence. Later, “donors started to fund too many outlets,” which began to compete for the same resources.

The landscape changed after the 2008 financial crisis. “Everyone needed money,” Schiffrin argues, adding that a lot of news organisations improved their fundraising capabilities in the process. As her study highlighted in 2019, advertising remained difficult to secure and audience-based revenue models often failed to generate sufficient funds. A report by Free Press Unlimited further reinforced that many public interest media, especially those operating in difficult environments, became highly dependent on donor funding, as many struggled to generate commercial income.

In regions like the Western Balkans and Central and Eastern Europe, “donor support has been part of media business models,” argues Davor Marko, Central and South East Europe Programme Manager at Thomson Foundation. While grants were crucial in establishing independent voices after the wars in the Balkans, donor dependency has now become a threat, as many media outlets have neglected sustainability and capacity building.

The Consequences of Donor Dependency

While donor support is often essential for independent media, particularly in restrictive environments, over-reliance on external funding creates significant risks. One major consequence is financial instability. Newsrooms that fail to develop independent revenue streams risk severe financial crises or even closure when donor funding ends. A striking example is the recent USAID funding freeze, which has left many news organisations struggling to stay afloat.

Donor dependency can also distort market dynamics and weaken audience engagement. Donor-funded media often neglect sustainable revenue strategies. As a result, they may capitulate to donor priorities over audience needs, failing to cultivate a loyal readership or produce content that people are willing to pay for. This undermines long-term viability.

In authoritarian or hybrid regimes, donor dependency also exposes media outlets to political pressure. These governments frequently label donor-funded organisations as “foreign agents” or tools of foreign influence, using this narrative to restrict their operations or damage their credibility.

How Can Newsrooms Reduce Donor Dependency?

Reducing donor dependency requires a shift in mindset and a commitment to exploring new revenue streams. For years, many media outlets operated under the assumption that donor funding, particularly from US-funded programmes, would be reliable, Marko notes, adding that this led to a complacent approach wherein newsrooms did not prioritise exit strategies. Now, with US funding drying up, the urgency to adapt has never been greater. Schiffrin warns that European countries are unlikely to fill the gap in journalism support left by US funding, and she expects widespread layoffs. “I am definitely worried. There will be a bloodbath,” she says.

Diversifying revenue to mitigate the risks associated with donor dependency is a critical step. This could include subscriptions, memberships, advertising, and commercial services. Some media outlets have successfully experimented with alternative business models, such as offering video storytelling or live streaming services. Marko points to a newsroom in Serbia that has leveraged its expertise to provide video production at competitive prices. However, these strategies are not one-size-fits-all, he argues; local market conditions must be considered when designing new business models. “The Thomson worked with 100+ media outlets in Central and Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans. 10% of them were successful in creating something new and sustainable,” he says.

Audience engagement is another key factor in financial sustainability. Encouraging reader support through crowdfunding or membership programmes can help newsrooms build financial independence. However, securing this support is not easy, as it requires trust and consistent value delivery to readers.

Collaboration may offer additional opportunities. Anya Schiffrin suggests smaller newsrooms consider partnerships with other outlets or even universities. Academic institutions could provide resources such as office space or even students, although increased bureaucracy might be a trade-off.

Despite these possibilities, the overall outlook remains uncertain. The media development sector is undergoing dramatic changes, and without strategic-level thinking, many outlets will struggle to survive, Marko concludes.

A 2023 survey conducted in Austria with 1,000 participants investigated the relationship between media trust and consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for online news in the post-pandemic era. The results indicate a strong correlation between media trust and both WTP and actual media expenditure. This highlights the importance of trust in securing financial sustainability for media organisations. As free content dominates the digital landscape, media companies must rebuild trust to encourage consumers to pay for credible news.

The media industry faces various challenges due to digital disruption and declining trust. While scepticism toward the media is not new, the pandemic accelerated its decline. Trust in media is essential for democracy and economic stability, yet media institutions remain among the least trusted. Despite increased news consumption during the pandemic, trust did not improve. This decline in trust has affected financial sustainability, forcing media companies to shift from ad-based models to paid subscriptions. However, WTP for news remains low, stagnating at 17% globally and only 13.7% in Austria.

Media trust is a crucial factor in social interactions and economic behaviour. Trust in media means audiences believe the media will perform its role satisfactorily. Without trust, the media cannot serve its democratic function, however, it should not be unconditional and should be accompanied by critical media literacy. Trust also involves uncertainty and a leap of faith, as audiences cannot always verify news content. The digital age complicates trust with misinformation, fake news, and algorithm manipulation. Media organisations have also contributed to declining trust through poor reporting and inaccuracies. Since consumers cannot assess media quality before consumption, trust plays a key role in their decision to pay for content. Building trust requires a focus on journalistic integrity and media branding.

From an economic perspective, trust in media brands influences consumer decisions and financial support. Trusted brands create competitive advantages, increasing WTP. Prior studies show that consumers are more likely to pay for news from trusted sources. Economic theories suggest that consumer preferences determine the value of a good: when consumers trust a media brand, they perceive it as more valuable and are more willing to pay for its content. However, free alternatives on social media and financial constraints make it difficult for media companies to convince consumers to pay.

The sample for the online survey, conducted by the Austrian Gallup Institute in October 2023, consisted of 1,000 respondents aged 16 and older, representing Austria’s web-active population. The survey measured media usage, trust, perceptions of media performance, payment behaviours, WTP, and trust in political institutions. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test hypotheses. Predictors included socio-demographics, media use, and political trust, with interaction terms to test moderation effects.

The results show that trust in media significantly influences WTP and media expenditure. Public service media were rated as the most trustworthy, with television and radio considered more credible than social media. Although media consumption is high, 25% of respondents avoid news, citing psychological stress and lack of trust. Trust in political institutions is low, with only 12% expressing high trust. There is a moderate correlation between media trust and WTP, indicating that trust influences payment behaviour. Political trust also correlates with WTP and media expenditure, suggesting that those with higher trust in political institutions are more likely to support paid news.

Regression analysis shows that higher education and larger households predict higher WTP, while older age, being female, and living in rural areas predict lower WTP. Media use is also a significant predictor, with frequent media users showing higher WTP. Political trust independently predicts WTP, and its interaction with media trust further strengthens this relationship. Media trust remains a significant predictor of WTP across models, though its effect weakens when political trust is considered. When media expenditure is analysed as the dependent variable, similar patterns emerge, though with lower explanatory power. Income significantly influences media expenditure, while media trust loses significance in complex models.

Trust in the media is important for both democratic and economic reasons. Trust enables informed citizenship and financial stability for media organisations. The survey results confirm that trust strongly predicts WTP and media expenditure. As the pandemic increased scepticism toward media due to misinformation and political biases, and social media has further weakened traditional media, trust has become even more critical for securing paid subscriptions. Consumers prioritise credible media brands, which influences their willingness to pay. Therefore, media organisations must focus on rebuilding trust and demonstrating the value of their content.

To restore trust, transparency is essential. Providing insight into journalistic processes can help regain credibility. Fact-checking, ethical reporting, and clear labelling of content can also enhance trust. Accountability is another key factor, requiring strict ethical standards and swift correction of inaccuracies. Engaging with audiences and considering their perspectives can strengthen trust and loyalty.

Beyond trust, understanding other factors influencing WTP is crucial for media sustainability. Socio-demographic factors play a role, highlighting the need for flexible pricing strategies such as micropayments. Regular news consumers tend to trust the media more and are more inclined to pay for content. Advanced data analytics and AI can help tailor content recommendations and increase engagement.

While quality journalism is important, media companies must also focus on branding and marketing. Consumers’ willingness to pay depends not only on content quality but also on brand perception. Strong media brands create competitive advantages, increase perceived value, and drive higher WTP. Marketing and psychology research emphasise the importance of brand trust, yet this remains an underexplored area in media studies.

Voci, D., Karmasin, M., Luef, S., Förster, S., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2024). Trust has a price?! Unraveling the dynamics between trust in the media and the willingness to pay in the post-pandemic scenario. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241311101

Image credit: Peter Rigaud

Martin Kotynek, Founding Director of the Media Forward Fund, stresses the need for sustainable business models in journalism to strengthen democracy, shares insights to their funding model focusing on user-centric independent media in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, and highlights the growing role of pooled funds.

Why is it important for the Media Forward Fund to support journalism?

 We want to contribute to more quality journalism with strong business models. Right now, there is a big transformation crisis happening in the media, and we want to support the development of new business models that make journalism more sustainable in the long term. Through that, we want to strengthen democracies in our societies, which are also right now in a crisis.

Which outlets are eligible for funding, what are your criteria?

We have 24 selection criteria in five pillars. Number one is “transformation”: We fund media organisations that serve the common good and can both sustainably strengthen media’s role in society and create transformative benefits for the media sector. Other news organisations can learn from the experience of our grantees, to help the whole industry.

The second pillar is “user focus.” News products, which sound like a fantastic idea to the journalists who make it, but don’t really serve the needs of users, often fail. We want to make sure that there is a real user need, and that the information is trustworthy to the audience – also a necessity for commercial success.

We have “diversity” as our third pillar because there are underserved communities which have been widely neglected by journalism so far. We especially want to support media organisations that report for these communities. At best, these target groups are represented in the staff of the organisations.

Then we have “independence” as our fourth pillar. We do not see philanthropy as a business model for journalism. Media organisations need to be commercially independent from a single source of revenue to guarantee editorial independence. They will also be independent of us, we will never interfere in reporting.

And there is the fifth pillar, journalistic quality. We fund media organisations that base their work on recognised journalistic standards. At the heart of quality journalism are principles such as truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, transparency, and independence. This is why we look at the organisation’s commitment to the principles of the press codex in its country of registration, the existence of established editorial standards, and institutionalised mechanisms to monitor compliance with those standards.

And there are geographical criteria, you have to have your headquarters in Germany, Austria, or Switzerland, and the majority of your revenues have to come from these three countries as well.

What do you think about the advantages of similar pooled funds?

 Pooled funds for journalism are becoming a global movement. There are MDIF’s Pluralis, IFPIM, and Civitates, with Press Forward in the US being the largest. More “cousins” of Press Forward are in the making right now; after Media Forward Fund began in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, there are now similar initiatives in the UK, Canada, Brazil, and Australia. 

These philanthropic collaborations have many advantages. If several donors with a shared vision combine their funding, they have greater leverage to make change. Secondly, a pooled fund minimises the reputational risk for a funder. If you fund one single media organisation and it makes an error in reporting, or there is a mission drift, it might backfire to you. In a pooled fund it’s the fund’s responsibility; there’s a buffer. This is one of the reasons why we have a firewall between the funders and our independent jurors, who make all the funding decisions.

How do you provide support? Do you provide core or thematic funding? Do you also support outlets with training?

Smaller non-profit news organisations with up to 30 full time equivalent employees can get core funding. Everyone else – both for-profits and non-profits – can get project funding if there is at least a proof-of-concept and if the product or market fit can be shown. We want to see revenues first. We fund in the growth phase, because we have realised that there are several options for funding in the initial idea phase, but then there is a kind of “valley of death.” We want to bridge the idea phase and the phase when the media organisation is ready for an impact investment. Between these two phases, there is almost no money in the media market.

We support our grantees to grow their business model to show that it is sustainable. We bring in impact investors like Karma Capital Group, which is also a donor to Media Forward Fund. They get to know the grantees from the beginning, they see how they develop, how the teams work, and then it is much easier to make investment decisions for both sides. Journalists need to know that a potential investor doesn’t want to interfere in their reporting.

Our grantees also have access to our capacity building programme. They can get coaching, which is very individual, and they can take part in “deep dives” where we bring media organisations from all three countries together to share their experiences, work on their specific problems as a group, and learn from each other.

What is the most important lesson you have learned since the launch of the Fund?

 We learned that there is a lack of skill in media management, especially on the business side. We got 136 applications from the three countries in our first call, and we saw that there is really a need for upskilling in public value news organisations, especially on business issues. We want to contribute to that.

We are only half a year old, but up to this point, we thought that our capacity building and upskilling programme would be available only for our grantees.  But after we went through the applications, we realised that we have to play a role in upskilling potential grantees, too. So, we are going to extend our invitation to take part in our upskilling programme and in our “deep dives” to everyone who is potentially fundable.

What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?

We started with 4.5 million Euros, and half a year later we are at nine, but fundraising for journalism is quite complicated. Up until a few years ago, media was very profitable in general, and at least in our region, there was no need to make a philanthropic contribution to media organisations. But now, as the old print models are really under pressure, the transformation crisis in the media has accelerated. So we learned that first we need to explain what is going on in the media market right now, and how this affects our democracy, in order to bring additional donors into the fund. We have 18 partners so far; many of them haven’t funded journalism before.

What was the biggest success story?

To quote Maribel Pérez Wadsworth, President and CEO of Knight Foundation, which is a funder of Media Forward Fund: “Foundations need to act at the speed of news.” We have been trying to do this from the very beginning. A year ago, there were five foundations which initially came together, now we are 18. It took us only half a year from the initial idea to the launch of the Fund and of our first call, and only one year to welcome our first grantees. Philanthropy can act “at the speed of news,” if foundations collaborate with a shared vision.

Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet but are thinking about doing so?

“Whatever your first funding topic is: Journalism should be your second” – that’s one of my favourite quotes from John Palfrey, President of John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which is an initiator of Media Forward Fund. Whatever you want to change in the world, you need journalism to explain it to the public, to criticise it if things go wrong, and to make sure there’s a common understanding of the facts, so that we can make informed decisions as a society.

The sudden freeze on USAID funding has sent shockwaves through independent newsrooms across Europe. With grants halted and uncertainty looming, many smaller outlets face closure, while larger ones brace for financial strain. As autocratic leaders may seize the moment to tighten control, experts are calling on European institutions and private donors to fill the sudden gap and prevent long-term damage to media pluralism.

On January 20, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring all federal agencies to halt foreign development aid for 90 days. The directive, which took effect on January 24, applies to foreign funding managed by the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The administration stated that the review aims to ensure alignment with the President’s foreign policy.

USAID’s Critical Role in Supporting Independent Media

The US has long been the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid. Through USAID, it has distributed billions of dollars in development assistance in more than 100 countries. The US government has also been the largest public donor to media development, supporting independent media as a core component of USAID’s mission since the 1980s.

“US public funding has played a crucial role in strengthening independent public interest journalism throughout the world. Particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, it has been one of the few key funders,” says Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager at Adessium Foundation and a Co-Chair of Journalism Funders Forum.

In the 2022 financial year, USAID invested approximately $130 million (EUR 123.9 million) to support media and the free flow of information. In 2023, the agency funded training and support for 6,200 journalists, 707 non-state news outlets, and 279 media-sector civil society organisations dedicated to strengthening independent media. For 2025, US Congress had allocated $268,376,000 (EUR 255.8 million) in foreign aid funding to support independent media and access to information.

USAID programmes have helped journalists expand their reach, secure sustainable revenue, and leverage digital tools to engage audiences. The agency has also worked to protect journalists from digital, legal, psychological, and physical threats while promoting professionalism and media management skills.

“USAID grants have allowed many independent media outlets to survive, especially in challenging environments,” says Marius Dragomir, Director of the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC). “For most independent media, grants are a major source of income. In many cases, they represent the largest part of their budget,” he continues.

Zselyke Csaky, a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Reform, does not believe that these funds will return. According to her sources, with the shutdown of USAID’s Central Europe programme, originally launched in 2022, only 10-30% of grant funding will remain available in the region compared to three years ago. 

The Financial Fallout

“This freeze means that some news outlets will be hit disproportionally, which will undermine the role of journalism in holding power to account. This will have consequences for all journalism funders, including funders like Adessium Foundation who do not fund news outlets directly in the region. The network of our grantee partners will be affected and thus the entire ecosystem we aim to support,” notes Akgün.

According to the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the freeze affects dozens of news organisations in more than 30 countries. The announcement came as a shock to many of them. “The general feeling is panic. Panic is the only way to describe the situation,” Karol Luczka, Eastern Europe Advocacy Lead at the International Press Institute (IPI), told Voice of America.

Local, national, and international journalist organisations have all been affected. For example, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) received $7 million (EUR 6.7 million) from US government programs, which constitutes about 38% of its budget. “We are operating as if the reduction in funding will be permanent. Almost all grants have ended to our member centres, and global training, security, cloud computing, and country level programs have been affected,” says Drew Sullivan, OCCRP’s Co-Founder and Publisher. “82 percent of our partner subgrants were cut and almost all funding by OCCRP has stopped to our media member centres. Some of them lost most – or even all – of their funding and are struggling to continue operating,” he adds.

“The best-case scenario is that many organisations will have to downsize operations. Many of our contacts have commented that the freeze is a major blow for them. Dozens have already lost their jobs. There are outlets that will face closure,” explains Dragomir, adding that larger organisations with more diverse funding sources will be less affected, but many smaller ones “will face extinction.” Csaky agrees: “The freeze will cause the most problems for smaller, rural news organisations, especially in countries where diverse funding sources are not yet available.”

According to Reuters, Hungary is one of the countries most affected by the freeze. One of the most important projects to support independent media has been suspended, which amounted to HUF 173 million (EUR 430 thousand), affecting dozens of projects aimed at strengthening and sustaining independent local and national public-interest media, or at supporting media literacy and journalism training.

Other USAID-funded media programmes in the country have also been suspended. Tamás Bodoky, Managing Editor of Átlátszó, an investigative outlet, told Reuters that USAID indirectly funded 10-15% of their budget in 2023-2024. They will now seek new donors and expand crowdfunding efforts. Others will have to postpone planned projects, such as the weekly Magyar Hang, where USAID grants constituted 5% of the budget. As its Editor-in-Chief Zsombor György told Balkan Insight, the outlet had planned to invest in a studio and equipment but will now postpone the project.

Ágnes Urbán of Mérték Media Monitor, an NGO, warns that while larger outlets may endure, smaller regional media could suffer serious consequences, as they lack the resources to invest in their future. According to MJRC sources, for some rural outlets, where these grants made up nearly half their funding, survival itself is now in jeopardy.

There are serious consequences in other countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. In Moldova, Anastasia Condruc, Editor-in-Chief of Moldova.org, described the situation as ‘dire’. “Around 75% of our budget comes from European and American grants. For now, we have the budget for salaries for the month of February and a bit of March,” she said to The Fix. SDK in North Macedonia is also under severe threat. “[USAID-funded] projects contribute 25% of the newsroom’s budget,” Editor-in-Chief Goran Mihajlovski said. The uncertainty is forcing newsrooms like SDK to reconsider their financial strategies to ensure their survival.

The situation is even more critical in war-torn Ukraine, where media outlets heavily depend on international funding. “Almost 90% of Ukrainian media receives foreign funding,” notes Csaky. Bohdan Lohvynenko, founder of the online news portal Ukraïner, revealed to The Guardian that more than 80% of their funding came from the US, leaving them in a precarious position. “There is no viable advertising market for war reporting, leaving us with community support or a paywall model,” he explained. Raising funds in a country at war, however, remains a major challenge.

Other Ukrainian outlets are similarly affected. As Anna Babinets, Editor-in-Chief of Slidstvo.Info, stated, “80% of our financing is from US government money.” The uncertainty is already causing job losses across the sector. “Some will survive, but many will not,” said Katerina Sergatskova, co-founder of the 2402 Foundation, which supports and trains journalists.

In Belarus, where the independent press already faces harsh repression, the freeze could be catastrophic. Natalia Belikova of Press Club Belarus noted that 70% of their funding comes from US federal sources. “They are at risk of fading away and gradually disappearing,” she warned, emphasising that without independent media, state propaganda would dominate public discourse.

The funding freeze has hit exiled media outlets even harder, and they may need drastic measures to stay afloat. Katerina Abramova, Communications Director for Meduza, a leading exiled Russian outlet, told Reporters Without Borders (RSF) that funding reviews could drag on indefinitely. “We can’t monetise our audience, and crowdfunding has limits—especially when donating to Meduza is a crime in Russia,” she said.

Csaky warns of another consequence of the freeze: many news organisations supported by USAID also received EU grants, which usually require co-financing. However, for some, these two were essentially the only sources of funding, meaning they could now lose both, as they will no longer be able to co-finance EU-supported projects.

The Dangerous Ripple Effect of the Freeze

The freeze on funding could have far-reaching consequences beyond financial constraints. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has reshaped the media landscape by capturing the regulatory body and the public service broadcaster and forcing private media outlets to close or fall into the hands of pro-government owners, has quickly stated his intention to eliminate “foreign networks” of NGOs and media critical of his regime. According to news reports, at a party meeting he specifically mentioned that those organisations that received funding from USAID should be “banned from Hungary.”

This has raised concerns that the freeze will encourage other illiberal governments to crack down on media deemed unfriendly, as autocratic leaders now feel empowered, says Csaky. Similar measures, such as imposing “foreign agent laws,” will make the financial situation of independent media even more difficult. “Even if new donors emerge, actually accessing their grants will be very difficult in such environments,” she argues.

Dragomir also warns that similar trends are likely to emerge elsewhere. In countries with a high level of media capture and limited space for independent journalism, the situation will worsen, leading to a “growing dominance of the government-funded media model” and further damaging the news ecosystem.

The decline in independent news outlets could also lead to an increase in misinformation, Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of RSF US argued to The Guardian. “When you pull reliable sources of information, that vacuum will be filled with less reliable sources [such as] state propagandists,” he said. Babinets added that, since the funding freeze, fake stories have already started to circulate on anonymous Telegram channels and websites, echoing Russian disinformation narratives.

What Donors, Governments, and the Public Can Do

According to Sullivan, affected news organisations “should explore any revenue generating option that they have not pursued yet, including donations from readership, fees for service programs, and advertisement. Donors are likely overwhelmed with requests for support, but they could look toward local philanthropy first for commitments. They should also consider changing their business models and starting to publish on some of the platforms that offer revenue from readership such as Substack.”

The funding freeze has indeed forced some news organisations to turn to their audience for financial support. For example, Moldova.org launched a crowdfunding campaign on Patreon and sought new revenue sources. SDK in North Macedonia also relies on donations, but the impact has been minimal, covering only 3–5% of the budget. Meanwhile, the Kyiv Independent, itself unaffected by the freeze, has fundraised to support struggling outlets. Slidstvo.Info has also launched an online campaign, hoping to secure additional funding. However, with the ongoing war, donation appeals are easily overlooked.

Dragomir offers a pessimistic view, emphasising that there is little to be done in the short term. “For many organisations, it took years to build their business model, and grants were a major source. This dependency is not ideal, of course, and some were aware of it, but nobody thought that something like this would happen,” he says. “New revenue takes time to develop and is not an instant solution. We are trying to help them as much as possible, and we have set up a regranting mechanism to assist them in their transition. Any donations are welcome,” Sullivan notes, adding that “realistically, the opportunity for local funding is minimal. Some local audiences have little or no disposable income. In some cases, some organisations will close.”

While media outlets must diversify their revenue streams, many have already been attempting to do so for years, with limited success. In the short term, “mobilisation across Europe is needed,” Dragomir argues.

Akgün highlights the responsibility of funders in ensuring the survival of independent media. “As funders, we need to collaborate to make sure that the infrastructure that has been built for decades can continue to do the crucial work that is needed to protect and foster democracy,” she notes. The European Federation of Journalists echoes this sentiment, with President Maja Sever calling on European institutions and foundations to coordinate efforts in safeguarding media pluralism and supporting independent journalism. “The European Union and other donors cannot abandon to their fate journalists who are the best bulwark for defending the rule of law and democracy in countries where they are under threat,” she wrote in a statement.

The Global Forum for Media Development has also issued an urgent call for action, urging governments, donors, and stakeholders to respond immediately. They advocate for unrestricting existing grants to allow greater flexibility in fund allocation, establishing emergency budget lines for public interest media, and increasing funding while streamlining administrative processes. They also stress the need for better donor coordination and the importance of addressing long-term structural challenges to build resilience within the sector.

A quick reaction is most important, says Csaky: “These outlets need the money now, within the next couple of months; otherwise, they may have to shut down.” She believes that now is the time for new donors to step up, as rebuilding the news ecosystem after a collapse would be much more difficult. “Governments that recognise the importance of independent media could introduce incentives to make supporting it worthwhile, which would add significant value,” she continues, adding that pooled funds could also offer a viable solution, as they ensure that grants do not depend on a single donor.

Nevertheless, Dragomir thinks that in the long term, “news organisations need to start to understand their public better. They need to try to start a dialogue with them, but also to engage more with the private sector beyond advertising.” As he argues, there are businesses that understand the importance of independent media, but “a more proactive approach is needed from media outlets to make them more aware of the situation,” and understand why supporting independent media would be mutually beneficial.

Marit Fagnastøl, Head of Communications at Sparebankstiftelsen DNB explains how in an era of rampant misinformation, Norway’s Amediastiftelsen showcases how foundation-owned media can safeguard independent journalism. By fostering editorial freedom, supporting local newspapers, and addressing challenges like engaging younger audiences, it offers a model for strengthening democracy through philanthropy.

In early 2024, Sparebankstiftelsen DNB (the Savings Bank Foundation DNB) allocated NOK 388.5 million to the Amedia Foundation to develop it as an independent, non-profit foundation that will support projects of significance for journalism, democracy and freedom of expression.

This significant grant builds on a decision made in 2016, when Sparebankstiftelsen DNB purchased Amedia, Norway’s largest local newspaper publisher, and established the Amediastiftelsen (the Amedia Foundation) as the owner of the group.

This somewhat unusual move by a non-profit foundation brings attention to the role of foundations in supporting editor-led media.

Why support local newspapers? 

When Sparebankstiftelsen DNB purchased Amedia in 2016, the goal was to secure long-term, stable ownership for local newspapers that are vital to communities across Norway. Local newspapers play a critical role in keeping residents informed, supporting local culture, and fostering public debate.

For Sparebankstiftelsen DNB, these goals aligned well with their mission of strengthening local communities, especially initiatives supporting children and young people. 

Local newspapers do more than report the news – they help shape the identity and cohesion of communities. By covering a broad range of local issues, they provide residents with a shared understanding of what’s happening in their area. This helps prevent siloed thinking and builds connections across different groups within a community. 

As André Støylen, former CEO of Sparebankstiftelsen DNB, noted at the time of the Amedia purchase: “Local newspapers are essential to their communities, to democracy, culture, and organisational life. The goal of this acquisition is to help newspapers continue to develop for the benefit of their local environments.” 

The decision to establish a foundation as the owner of Amedia, would enable the media group to operate with a long-term perspective, ensuring independence and editorial freedom.

It was, nevertheless, an unexpected move and a surprise that a non-profit foundation would acquire a media company.

Independent media in the age of misinformation 

Editor-led journalism plays an essential role in countering misinformation. Research by The Norwegian Media Authority (Medietilsynet) in late 2023 found that 69% of respondents had encountered news stories online they suspected were false within the past six months. The majority of this content was found on social media. 

In contrast, 51% of Norwegians view editor-led media to be credible and reliable sources of information, compared to only 8% for social media platforms. These findings highlight the importance of supporting journalism that adheres to clear editorial standards and accountability mechanisms. 

In a time when misinformation can spread rapidly, editor-led media offer an essential counterbalance. By providing verified information, they help maintain public trust and enable citizens to make informed decisions as well as being an arena for the exchange of opinions.

Defining Amediastiftelsen’s priorities 

With the recent funding from Sparebankstiftelsen DNB, the board of the Amedia Foundation has during the year defined its priorities. These include: 

The first grant made by the foundation is an example of the latter and it went to the Center for Investigative Journalism (SUJO) to develop a “Democracy Database.” This searchable archive of political documents from municipalities and county councils will be accessible to journalists and the public, enabling greater transparency and accountability. 

Challenges in reaching younger audiences 

A significant challenge for the media industry is engaging young readers. While 78% of Norwegians read at least one newspaper daily, according to a recent Kantar survey, younger people are less likely to access traditional news sources. 

Amediastiftelsen aims to address this by supporting projects that explore methods to reach young audiences. For instance, creating content by and for young people or make editorial content more accessible to young audiences.

This work is especially important given findings from a 2024 survey by the Norwegian Media Authority, which showed that 66% of 13 to 18-year-olds had come across news stories they suspected were false or inaccurate in the past six months. Teaching media literacy and making reliable news accessible to this group are critical steps in building trust and awareness. 

The significance of foundation-owned media

The Amediastiftelsen model offers insights into how foundations can play a role in strengthening the media sector. By investing in journalism, they contribute to a more informed and resilient society. 

Editor-led media remain a cornerstone of democratic societies, and their future should matter to all who value informed and engaged communities. 

As the foundation continues its work, it will undoubtedly provide valuable lessons for others interested in the intersection of philanthropy and journalism.

Facts about Amediastiftelsen

The rise of generative AI, particularly since the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022, has revolutionised journalism by making AI tools accessible to the general public, including journalists. However, it does not only reshape journalism workflows but also presents a critical opportunity for journalism funders to support innovation and ethical AI adoption, ensuring that newsrooms are equipped to navigate this transformation responsibly and effectively.

While earlier research focused on automated journalism, the mainstream adoption of generative AI has prompted fresh ethical debates and newsroom discussions about oversight and guidelines. However, many journalists have independently experimented with these tools, using them to simplify and enhance their work without compromising journalistic values.

Based on interviews with journalists in Singapore, an AI-forward global hub, generative AI has introduced a cultural shift, enabling journalists to adopt new technologies despite challenges like limited resources, ethical concerns, and structural misalignments. The findings propose a “value-motivated use” perspective, emphasising how AI can support good journalism without replacing its core principles. Journalists have a role as active participants in reshaping the field, offering insights for educators, scholars, and practitioners.

Journalists are increasingly integrating AI tools into their work, using them across various stages of news production. AI proves especially helpful in gathering information by suggesting potential answers, locating sources, and identifying trends. Tools such as ChatGPT allow journalists to quickly narrow down reliable information, which they verify through traditional methods like cross-checking with trusted sources. AI assists in generating interview questions and transcribing interviews, often improving accuracy over time through machine learning.

When it comes to writing and presenting news, journalists often use AI to create drafts of straightforward stories, based on press releases or weather announcements, among others, and to simplify or translate complex ideas. Applications like Hemingway Editor refine text by improving clarity and conciseness. AI also helps generate headlines and summaries tailored for online engagement, though journalists generally edit these outputs to ensure quality and alignment with their style. Beyond text, AI supports creating visuals and coding assistance, offering suggestions for graphics or blocks of code to speed up production. However, journalists maintain creative control, ensuring AI-generated content aligns with their editorial vision.

AI is also employed in editing by identifying gaps or biases in stories, helping reporters consider perspectives that might otherwise be overlooked, and checking facts. It streamlines grammar corrections and word count adjustments, although the final phase of editing is always done by humans. In news promotion, AI helps locate related articles for cross-promotion and generates social media captions, though these often require further human refinement to match professional standards.

While AI boosts efficiency and productivity, journalists remain cautious about its limitations. Many stress the importance of verifying AI output, as it can omit key information, hallucinate false facts, or present biased perspectives. The opacity of AI processes, such as the sources it relies on, adds to this scepticism. Journalists also voice concerns about ethical considerations, such as whether AI compromises their integrity when contributing to their work. They believe human oversight is crucial to maintain the core values of journalism, including truthfulness, accuracy, transparency, balance, and integrity. Without this oversight, there is a risk of spreading misinformation or perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

Despite these reservations, journalists recognise AI’s potential to enhance their work when used responsibly. They emphasise that AI should complement, not replace, human decision-making and creativity. Ultimately, journalists prioritise their professional values when deciding how to integrate AI into their workflows.

Wu, S. (2024). Journalists as individual users of artificial intelligence: Examining journalists’ “value-motivated use” of ChatGPT and other AI tools within and without the newsroom. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241303047

Local journalism faces significant challenges around the world, resulting in the decline of newspapers in various regions, often referred to as “news deserts.” These areas suffer from a lack of reliable news sources, resulting in diminished access to important information that citizens need to participate actively in their communities.

This trend is also alarming for journalism funders, as local journalism plays a critical role in maintaining a well-informed public. With fewer reporters covering city councils, school boards, and local events, citizens are left with limited information about issues affecting their lives. This lack of coverage can create a vacuum of knowledge, undermining democratic processes at the local level.

There are several factors contributing to the rise of news deserts. The digital age has brought about immense changes in how people consume news, with many turning to social media and online platforms for information. Traditional newspapers have struggled to adapt to this new environment, leading to declining subscriptions and advertising revenue. Furthermore, the consolidation of media ownership has resulted in fewer local voices and a focus on profit over community service. As large corporations buy up local papers, they often slash staff and resources, further weakening local journalism’s capacity to serve its community.

Depopulation is another significant factor. As younger generations move to urban centres seeking better opportunities, remaining populations often consist of older residents who may have different news consumption habits or limited access to digital media. This demographic shift creates a cycle where diminished local engagement leads to reduced journalistic coverage, which in turn accelerates depopulation, as residents feel less connected and informed about their communities.

The Castile-La Mancha region in Spain serves as an example of how depopulation can lead to news deserts, as it has seen significant population decline, and with it, the local media landscape has dramatically changed. Fewer people means less advertising revenue, which newspapers rely on, ultimately resulting in cuts to staff and resources. Like many areas suffering from similar trends, Castile-La Mancha faces a decline, not just in quantity, but also in the quality of news coverage.

Local media distribution mirrors the region’s polycentric demographic patterns, with outlets clustered in urban centres while rural zones remain underserved. Demographic indicators such as low population density, aging communities, and the absence of younger populations strongly correlate with the lack of media presence, while factors like business activity or income levels show limited influence.

Public services in depopulated areas, such as healthcare and education, remain relatively intact due to public efforts. However, media access heavily relies on private investment, as third-sector media remain underdeveloped. Future research should explore the potential of municipal broadcasters and public communication policies in these regions. Distance and territorial structure further exacerbate media absence, with logistical and administrative barriers isolating peripheral zones.

The complex relationship between depopulation and media absence suggests the need for further exploration, including how media might attract or retain populations. Local journalism’s ability to fulfil grassroots values is critical, alongside the role of civil society and social media in filling informational voids. Emphasising community resilience may offer new perspectives on addressing these challenges.

Saiz-Echezarreta, V., Galletero-Campos, B., & Arias Molinares, D. (2024). From news deserts to news resilience: Analysis of media in depopulated areas. Journalism, 25(12), 2641-2660. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231218818

Václav Muchna, Co-Founder and CEO of Y Soft, and Board Member of the Czech Endowment Fund for Independent Journalism, highlights the importance of supporting democracy through independent journalism, shares insights into the Fund’s operation, and emphasises the need for transparency among donors while cautioning against grant dependency.

What was the main reason behind creating the Endowment Fund for Independent Journalism?

Václav: It was started by a group of philanthropists who shared a view that our country, the Czech Republic, requires strong democracy for our businesses to thrive. And we have seen in surrounding countries, especially in the post-Soviet bloc, that democracy is under attack by various groups of people, and we just thought we have to take care of our democracy. That democracy is not a given, we have to nurture it. We have launched a number of initiatives to support democracy in our country, and one of them was around protecting independent journalism as a watchdog, which we consider to be a critical ingredient for any democracy.

Another reason was what we called the “oligarchisation” of media. That was more than 10 years ago, when Western owners of Czech media started to pull back from their investments as new challenges arose: the rise of social networks and the way we consume information. Because the market is small, it was easier for them to pull back; and then very rich businesspeople who made their fortunes through privatisation, i.e. business typically connected with the state, captured these media so that they could impact and alter public meaning in areas important to them. Our democracy was challenged, missing independent and balanced information sources.

One of the co-founders had this statement: that without independent media, we do not know who we depend on. And thus, the fund has been created.

Is it open for new players to join?

Yes, absolutely. It is open. I have been with the fund for over 10 years or so. I am not a co-founder, but I’ve been here from a very early time. I serve on the Board of Directors currently, I am also one of the major donors, and I’m representing the donors on the board. It has always been open, and we have had a lot of new members recently. But we have also had a transition. In the past we did not require consent to transparently publish larger donors. This has changed. And of course there is an approval process, as we want to protect the fund from getting money from questionable sources. We only want to accept what we would consider really clean money. So it is not for absolutely everyone, but it is open.

How do you provide support to journalists and news organisations? Who is eligible for support?

We have five key areas of focus. The first one is, how do we limit the impact of media that are not trustworthy? Connected to that is, how do we improve education around how to consume media and news? That is one area. The next one we are focusing on is to keep investigative journalism on “life support,” because we see the trend that it is very expensive, and without external money it is almost not able to survive. We are also focusing on how we can help journalists to improve the quality of journalism in general. The fourth area is the regional media. We consider it one of the newest additions. Last, but not least, how to provide sustainable funding for independent media.

We work differently in these five different areas. So, for example, in the first one, how do we decrease or lower the impact of not so trustworthy media? We have products that map our media market, and we qualify media based on objective parameters, for example, whether they show who the owner is, do they mark their articles properly, do they mark advertorial articles properly, do they link sources, and so on. Based on that, we rate them, we publish that rating, and some other organisations take our rating, and for example, limit access for advertisements in the lowest graded media.

In investigative journalism, it is about subsidies or grants. They apply twice a year. In the quality of journalism field, we run a number of things, for example a journalist forum where we try to link journalists together so that they can exchange experiences. We also have some grants for solutions journalism, analytical and data journalism, and geopolitical threats. So we have three sub-areas here. We also have grants for young journalists who are starting up, or for women, because they have a much more difficult situation. We see that not many women return to journalism after maternity leave and we hope to address this.

In the sustainability field, we co-funded an organisation that collectively represents a number of small media, and they are selling their advertisement space. If they go ahead and sell individually, there is a challenge: for a significant player like a big company, the small media do not have enough impressions, so you would need to combine the campaign with other sources. Companies are not going to do that. So that is why there is this initiative, Courage Media. It is an agency that is also relatively new, and it sells advertising space for smaller media, because this would be considered sustainable, right? We do not want to develop dependency. I, for example, have very ambivalent feelings on grants, because on one hand you support them, on the other, you make them completely dependent on one organisation, and that is not very sustainable.

But we are looking into grants that are for sustainable development. These are not for content, like the previous grants I talked about. For example, an outlet wants to research its readership, or wants to improve its billing engine, something like that. Maybe it is self-sufficient but does not have resources to bring itself to the next level. That is where we would support them. We consider it sustainable. I always say, either you give them fish, or you teach them fishing.

So, do you support projects, and don’t provide core funding?

Correct. We are looking into investigative journalism, and there, we are looking into providing some core funding as well. But that would be an exception.

What is the most important lesson you have learned since creating the Fund?

From my standpoint, as a businessperson, not a media expert, it was about how we balance different actors and learn that journalism is not “one journalism.” There are publishers and there are journalists, and they are a completely different set of stakeholders with completely different agendas. Then you have media owners, you have their clients, and then you can even have some activist groups, you have governments and regulatory frameworks. So you have different stakeholders with different agendas and interests, and we have to understand the complexity of it.

In some areas we are supporting the journalists, in others the publishers. If you build your editorial system, that’s publisher support, if you give a grant to a specific journalistic project, that is supporting a journalist. How do you balance that? What are the needs across the industry? This would be the number one lesson for me.

What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?

The biggest challenge is that the Czech media market is super fragmented. We have a lot of small media outlets, and they have, from my point of view, a lot of emotions from the past, which prevents them from cooperating. And it is a small country, so the media market is small anyway. If you take a small market and you fragment that economically, it is just a disaster. You see that from a business standpoint, but that is not the way the journalists would feel about it, and they have their reasons. But this results in lower sustainability and impact, because if you are a small media house with a readership of ten thousand or twenty thousand, then your impact is very limited. Funding any grants for investigative projects or solutions journalism is also very questionable, because the effectiveness of your investment is very limited. We are incentivising them to reunite and build some bigger impact outlets, but it is a real challenge.

What do you consider your biggest success story?

Once again this will be my personal perspective, but it is building civic society. It is not related directly to journalism, but we have successes there. The Endowment Fund and some other activities help us build a community of donors, which today consists of more than thirty people. We are also looking into how we can go beyond these rich persons, and how we can actually build a community of people who really care about democracy and who are willing to fund it.

The reason why I consider this the biggest success story is because, if I look at surrounding countries in Eastern Europe, I can’t see a single country with such a strong civic society, and vehicles such as the Endowment Fund actually help build that community. Whenever you have any pressure on democracy, and we face them incrementally more and more, active civic society will be ever more important.

Then you obviously have all the support we’ve built into it. We helped to create some media, and we helped to sustain some other media, that’s all great. But number one would be building an active civic society, building a group of people who understand that they need to take care of democracy, and it will cost money and time.

You mentioned that you helped create media, do you also invest in organisations?

No, we don’t invest directly. If there is an opportunity, we would broker investors, we would give grants, but we don’t invest ourselves. We think that investing in certain media would have a dramatic impact on our independence. One of our missions is that we support media pluralism. We would lose that if we invest.

Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?

First of all, it is really good that you are even thinking about that. That’s important. Journalism is an important part of democracy. The second thing is: think through a strategy, because starting to give money away just for interesting projects is not going to make your segment resilient. Do it systematically and in a way that, if you look back in a year or two, you can articulate your impact, things that would not be there without you.

We have a lot of different stakeholders. Of course, from me, coming from business, you would expect an impact focused behaviour. For me, it is always a question whether what we are doing will strengthen or weaken democracy. I would also advise you to challenge your thought process, and think about how different your country would be, how democracy would suffer, if you were not there.

The last thing is how you do this sustainably. What would happen to organisations that you support if you cannot operate anymore? If you make organisations completely dependent on you, then you end up concentrating power. This is super dangerous in terms of independent journalism. You must be avoiding the concentration of power, you need to support plurality.