Two recent documentaries produced by Hungarian investigative newsroom Direkt36 represent a rare case of high-impact investigative journalism achieving mass audience reach in an increasingly captured media environment.

In Hungary, much of the mainstream media is aligned with the government, while independent outlets operate with limited access to traditional distribution channels. As András Pethő, Co-founder and Director of Direkt36, explains: “Already 5-6 years ago, we started discussing how to improve and expand. There were two main ideas: publishing more stories or being more ambitious and producing even deeper investigations. We chose the latter. We also saw the power of YouTube, the power of videos, so we decided to try them.” As the newsroom did not have the internal capacity, they turned to professional filmmakers.

Their first documentary, about hospital infections, was published in 2023 and has 120k views as of March 26, 2026, which is a respectable number in a country of around 9.6 million, where about 66% of the populationuses YouTube.

The breakthrough came last year with The Dynasty, a documentary detailing the business empire of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s family.

The film quickly became a viral phenomenon: it reached 800,000 views within 24 hours. Within one week, it surpassed 2.7 million views, and by March 2026, it had reached 4.1 million.

This scale is highly unusual for investigative journalism, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. The film became, by all available measures, the most watched Hungarian public affairs content on YouTube, far exceeding the reach of Direkt36’s written investigations.

Several factors explain this success. “First of all, it is a really strong story, and no one has told it in this format before. And it is a good movie, with some particularly powerful elements, for example the hidden camera footage,” Pethő argues.

Timing also played a crucial role. In February 2025, the Hungarian political system was already in turmoil after 15 years of authoritarian rule. Public interest in similar topics was high, and “the digital sphere really came alive, with several popular podcasts and video channels,” says Pethő. Published at the right moment, the documentary crossed traditional audience boundaries. Instead of reaching only politically engaged readers, it attracted a broader YouTube audience, including viewers less likely to consume investigative reporting.

Attacks by government propaganda further amplified reach. Even before the release of The Dynasty, government-aligned figures framed the documentary as “politically motivated disinformation.” Officials claimed the film was part of a “Ukrainian intelligence campaign” against Orbán, and these baseless accusations were widely circulated in pro-government media ecosystems. Paradoxically, these attacks generated additional public curiosity and media coverage, helping to drive viewership. This dynamic resembles the Streisand effect, where attempts to suppress information instead amplify it.

From Viral Moment to Sustainable Audience Growth

A year later, The Trap, which tells the story of Hungary’s missed economic opportunities during Orbán’s rule, built on the success of The Dynasty. Within a month, it reached 1.4 million views.

This sustained audience interest demonstrates that the success of The Dynasty was not a one-off viral moment. Together, the two films show that investigative outlets can build ongoing audience engagement through documentary storytelling, a model more commonly associated with streaming platforms than with non-profit journalism.

Nevertheless, the documentaries were not only editorial successes; they also contributed to financial sustainability, even though Direkt36 did not rely on commercial monetisation strategies such as paywalls or advertising.

Direkt36 operates primarily on reader-supported funding, and The Dynasty directly strengthened this model. According to Pethő, paid memberships increased from around 3,000 to 5,000 last year, and “most joined after the release of the film, or following the government’s campaign against independent media in the spring.”

This suggests that the documentary functioned as a conversion tool, turning passive viewers into paying supporters.

“The challenge was to keep these new supporters, because retention rate can be high: they forget about their subscription, their credit card expires and they don’t update it, and so on. So we had to show them that it is worth supporting us,” Pethő continues.

Producing The Trap was part of the response to this challenge, and it brought another increase in supporters. However, it was not the only motivation for making the film: “It is another very important story, and it also resonated with the audience,” says Pethő, adding that these two are currently the most watched Hungarian political documentaries on YouTube.

Beyond Monetisation: Reputation, Community, and Impact

Beyond direct memberships, the films contributed to Direkt36’s sustainability in other ways. In Hungary, the law allows anyone who has paid personal income tax to request that 1% of that amount be redirected to a qualified non-profit organisation. “We saw enormous growth in that last year,” says Pethő: tax donations to Direkt36 more than doubled compared to the previous year.

Furthermore, “these movies are really useful for audience building. It is much easier to organise meetups when you want to show a film instead of reading from articles,” Pethő explains. He adds that they do not monetise these meetings; even if there is an entrance fee, it only covers organisational costs. However, these events strengthen the outlet’s reputation.

The films also generated international recognition and awards. Their success has been widely covered in the international press, and The Dynasty has received several awards. This gives increased credibility and potential access to grant funding, while strengthening partnerships and cross-border collaborations. In this sense, monetisation is not purely transactional; it also includes reputational capital, which is crucial for non-profit investigative outlets.

“The films increased our audience and impact. Being a nonprofit, we cannot ask for more,” Pethő says.

In heavily restrictive media environments, shifting to video can dramatically expand reach and impact. These documentaries demonstrate how this can translate into financial support.

On the fifth birthday of the Limelight Foundation, its Director, Alinda Vermeer reflects on this critical moment for journalism in Europe, discusses the foundation’s focus on public interest journalism and the broader ecosystem, shares insights into its ambitious €150 million funding goal, and explains why a systemic, long-term approach is essential to sustaining independent journalism.

The foundation is relatively young, why was it important to establish it? What gap in the journalism funding landscape did it intend to fill?

This is a very timely interview, because we have just celebrated our five-year anniversary. The foundation was set up in 2021 to protect and strengthen independent journalism in Europe and its watchdog role in society, with the idea that democracy only works if you know what is going on and what those in power are doing, because then you can make informed decisions. Basically, it was inspired by the hard-hitting journalism of some of the organisations that are now grantee partners and the role that this work fulfils in society.

It happened to coincide with the moment where a number of funders were reconsidering their priorities and shifting focus away from, for instance, working in Europe or supporting European journalism. But that growing gap in the European funding landscape wasn’t necessarily the reason to set up Limelight, it was more inspired by the importance of this work and our founders’ sense of responsibility to protect it.

Even before that shift in focus by a number of foundations, there wasn’t enough funding. I remember, back then I was still working in the NGO sector and was so thrilled that a new funder was willing to support this work.

The foundation describes its mission as strengthening Europe’s information infrastructure. What does that mean in practical terms?

On one hand, we support public interest journalism. We support cross-border investigative networks and public interest newsrooms that focus on specific European countries, but also organisations that support journalists and newsrooms, for instance when they are in legal trouble or under digital attack. Then we also support targeted work to strengthen the enabling environment, for instance, countering SLAPPs.

But we focus on the information infrastructure more broadly, because we feel that you cannot focus exclusively on journalism if you want to support it properly.

The revenue model was broken by the loss of advertising revenue and audiences shifting to reading news on social media.

From the outset, we have looked at the wider ecosystem in which journalism functions. Producing honest, reliable information is one thing, but it must also reach people. This has become increasingly difficult through big tech platforms, which have at the same time become instrumental in rising authoritarianism around the world.

In practice, it means that we look also at the role of tech, for instance supporting the enforcement of EU laws against big tech companies to ensure that they respect fundamental rights, including our right to information, or bringing accountability and transparency to the tech sector in other ways.

So our program has two pillars. On the one hand, the public interest journalism pillar, which is by far the biggest part of our work. On the other hand, there is what we call the tech and information ecosystem pillar, which focuses on the role of tech platforms through the public interest journalism lens: what the whole infrastructure should look like for public interest journalism to flourish.

Why Journalism Funding Needs a Scale Change

Limelight has ambitious plans to build a €150 million fund for journalism. How did you arrive at that number and how do you plan to raise it?

 I’ll take you back to a year and a half ago, when we started thinking about what the strategy for the next couple of years should be. We realised that we had become the leading journalism fund in Europe, but also that we had a very modest budget of less than EUR 7 million per year. That made no sense, or at least not to us.

We also thought about the context in which we operate, and we know that our societies are confronted with so many crises: rising authoritarianism, climate crisis, geopolitical instability, technological disruption. A healthy information infrastructure plays a key role in confronting these issues.

At the same time, we saw so much funding for journalism disappear from Europe. The revenue that the sector itself can generate can never close that gap. And then think about the amount big tech companies invest, for instance, in AI. The Guardian reported that last year alone they jointly invested 155 billion.

This is the context in which we operate.

To secure journalism’s future, the whole scale must change. We have to stop thinking short term and look at much longer term, at least the next 10 years.

What do we want to be able to support? What should we be supporting to help this sector survive and thrive? This is how we started thinking, and then we looked at our portfolio and thought that the way we have structured works, and the organisations we fund do fantastic work and we can see the impact of that. So what else can we do? How much can we grow?

It is not to say that 150 million invested over 10 years is all that is needed. Philanthropic funding should be a catalyst. In that sense, we also hope that it will unlock larger funding pools from public and private sectors that recognise the fundamental importance of this work.

To answer the question of how we plan to raise it, let me first say what we plan not to do. We don’t want to coordinate existing funding or take it away from others. We regularly encounter a “scarcity mindset.” I don’t think that this mindset serves this work at all, especially not at this critical time for the sector. It focuses too much on the short term rather than more systemic changes, and it holds back long-term impact.

Instead, it is about encouraging funders who are new to this field to join this mission by making them see the fundamental importance of public interest journalism and healthy information infrastructure to all the things they care about, be it climate, health, or whatever mission they have.

It is our hope that we can look beyond the usual suspects, funders who are already on board with supporting democracy, and look to funders who do not yet have that as part of their portfolio. If you look at the climate sector, it can be done, but it is indeed very ambitious.

Flexible Funding and a Targeted Approach

In what forms do you support journalism?

 We mainly give financial support, typically for three years. Our preferred way of working is giving unrestricted funding, and we provide this where we can. We don’t work with open calls, but when we scope new partners, we speak with a lot of people in the sector, whether they are grantee partners or experts in the field. We call them referees. On the basis of their inputs, we make a decision on what to prioritise next.

We don’t accept unsolicited applications, simply because our team is too small and we don’t want organisations to waste time drafting fantastic proposals that we cannot support, even though we want to, because our budget is already allocated for the year. Potential grantee partners can fill out a form on our website giving information about their organisation and how they align with our strategy, and we do respond to all these requests. We don’t want to be a fully closed organisation that is impossible to approach, and I don’t exclude the possibility that we will do open calls at some point.

This is our preferred way of working. With the traditional business models collapsing, you just can’t do your best work as a journalist if you constantly have to fundraise, report, or work in a big jigsaw puzzle, figuring out what funding goes where. You just need to be able to pay rent, retain talent, and strengthen your team or your digital security. You need to be able to innovate, if necessary. Core funding enables you to do that. We also feel that it’s the best way to guarantee editorial independence.

Do you provide any other assistance beyond funding?

Where it is helpful to our grantee partners, we are happy to act as sparring partners. We really enjoy doing that, connecting with them on the organisational challenges they face. We also connect them to others in our network, for instance, journalism support organisations.

Building a successful revenue model is very important with the amount of funding that has left the field, and we don’t want to pretend that we are the ones with that expertise. It requires hyper-local expertise, and we don’t have that in-house. There are better ways to approach it, for instance through peer learning or having a dedicated consultant who knows the specific local context.

We are one of the donors behind the Revenue Axis run by OCCRP, which helps investigative journalism outlets navigate the changing funding landscape and achieve long-term financial sustainability by figuring out new ways to monetise the work, not with a one-size-fits-all approach, but with a view to what works in that specific local context.

We try to be realistic about what we can provide in-house and keep our team quite small so the overhead remains low and as much funding as possible goes into the field.

Which organisations are eligible for your support?

 When we look at our public interest journalism portfolio, geographically it is focused on Council of Europe countries. We try to support organisations in countries where press freedom is under pressure or where there is hardly any funding available for journalism. That is, of course, a very long list of countries.

We fund a mix of smaller and larger organisations.

We look at the financial dependence that organisations would have on us, and we try to spread the risk there.

So we support, for instance, some larger, cross-border investigative networks, or newsrooms that have very diversified income and are in a relatively strong position, or small newsrooms that may just be starting out or may only have one other funder. So we balance that. We don’t want to say that we don’t support organisations at all if they have a certain level of dependence on us, because we think that you have to be realistic. It’s very difficult to find funding in certain countries.

Some of the organisations that we support have a global focus, for instance, cross-border investigative networks or support organisations like Media Defence, which gives legal support to journalists around the world. But when it comes to newsrooms, they often have a focus on their specific country.

Why an Ecosystem Approach Matters More Than Ever

What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?

Before I started working at Limelight three years ago, I had worked for nearly a decade in legal representation of journalists. I think the most important lesson now is still the same: journalism is under threat from every angle, and I have only seen it increase over the past 10 years.

There is a financial threat, with the advertising revenue being absorbed by big tech companies and the change in news consumption, but also a legal threat, especially SLAPPs. When I started representing journalists as a lawyer, it was typically articles with a mistake that would get you into legal trouble. Now it is often the really good journalism that gets you into trouble, especially because it is so effective.

Digital threats have also increased, blocking of websites, spyware infections, you name it. Online violence has also become a massive threat, and it can also spill offline. And then an insight that comes more from my days at Limelight: reaching audiences is increasingly difficult because of the big tech platforms.

Journalists have an incredibly challenging job, and their resilience has amazed me again and again. It also makes me hopeful, because they keep going even if their work comes at a high personal cost. But the sector can’t thrive under so much threat, and I think the main lesson for me is that the philanthropic sector has a role to play, giving them the backing that they deserve. Yeah, this is a slightly depressing lesson.

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

 Over the past couple of years, it has been a very big challenge: how to allocate a limited budget when there are so many organisations that deserve support. Even if we grow, I think it will continue to be the case. Making these decisions is difficult.

But I think that an even bigger challenge is the fundraising target. We do think that it is critical to have a flourishing media sector to keep our democracy strong and our society stable, and we urgently need that support at a much bigger scale.

After the USAID funding cuts last year, when so much funding for journalism disappeared overnight, and US democracy is being dismantled bit by bit, you would think it would be very easy to make a case for new allies and new funders. That has not yet been the case. I don’t know whether it is complacency, or a feeling that we are immune from this level of democratic backsliding, or a sense of this problem being too big for us to take on.

Our biggest challenge now is driving home the message that we do need to act now and at a much bigger scale, and the response needs to come from a much bigger group of people and donors than just existing journalism funders.

How do you assess the success of your programs? Can you share a particular success story?

 We have an impact framework that helps us keep track of our grant-making and our own organisational development. The main goal of this framework, and of our own monitoring and reporting, is to make sure that we work in line with our strategy.

When it comes to journalism, it is quite hard, because you can have all these KPIs about supporting this many newsrooms that published this many investigations and this many people have read those, but this tells only a very small part of the story. When it comes to measuring the impact of journalism, we work with change stories. We zoom in on a newsroom to see what our multi-year support has enabled them to do, whether it is on the organisational side, strengthening their team, bringing new skills on board, improving their financial sustainability, or on the journalism side, what it meant in terms of accountability, or connecting a global crisis to a local context, or amplifying voices that might otherwise not have been heard. We try to look at all the various forms of impact over the course of years.

In terms of one single success story, it is really hard, because we come across so many fantastic success stories on a daily basis. On the other hand, we have only been around for five years, and some of this impact materialises over the course of, say, a decade.

What is interesting to see, though, is the reporting from some of our grantee partners on the impact of important investigations that have happened even before we were set up. This also informs our own way of looking at the impact of the journalism we support now.

The Panama Papers investigation is a good example. It is coming up to its 10 year anniversary and we see the impact from recovered public funds to resignations or convictions of political figures, to legal reforms, to the impact on journalism itself in normalising large-scale, cross-border collaboration or secure data sharing. It really helps you understand what to look for and how much patience to have.

But it is also a success that the newsrooms that we support help 500 million Europeans to access independent news, or that some newsrooms are still going, but without our support they may have had to close doors. This is great to see.

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

Consider an ecosystem approach. It is important to fund the cross-border network that you know from the headlines, but which is made up of local journalists and local newsrooms. You also need to look at each of these newsrooms individually, and they often struggle to get funding. Maybe there is no government funding available in their country, or private funding potentially comes with strings attached. So consider looking beyond those networks to the smaller players as well.

Then, as the next step, look at the support that will be needed when journalism is published because it may get people into legal trouble, or it may result in a digital attack. What happens then? How do you ensure that you set your partners up for success in the long term? How can they keep going beyond that investigation and survive these attacks?

Finally, look at the role of tech. Producing information is one thing, but it has to reach people. What do you need to support to make sure that information reaches the audiences?

I get that, as a first piece of advice, it is a bit daunting, because budgets are typically far too small to do all of that in a way that makes sense from a strategic point of view. So the second piece of advice is: don’t hesitate to team up with others. Together, you can work at a larger scale and achieve meaningful impact.

So these are the two things: take an ecosystem approach and team up with others.

The Journalism Funders Forum has published “Journalism and Media Funding in Europe”, a new report offering a snapshot of how philanthropic organisations are funding journalism and media in Europe.

The field of journalism and media is widely recognised by funders as essential for democracy, accountability and countering misinformation, but it still receives only a tiny slice of philanthropic budgets. Despite this, there is growing urgency, a slow but visible increase in investment, and a shift toward more flexible, long‑term funding, as the field grapples with a rapidly changing media landscape, unstable business models, and rising threats to independent journalism. The data from this study underlines this context, showing a field that is crucial yet under‑resourced.

Bringing together key findings on funding patterns, priorities and emerging challenges, the report helps build a clearer picture of how philanthropy is supporting journalism and media in a fast-changing environment.

Based on a sample of 36 philanthropic organisations from 12 countries, the report shows that while funding for the field remains relatively limited, it is diverse, evolving and increasingly shaped by concerns around democracy, misinformation and the long-term sustainability of independent journalism. The report highlights a journalism and media field that is varied across different types of actors, content and geographies but accounts for just 3.2% of the total budget of the funders surveyed.

Key takeaways:

• Funding for journalism and media is relatively limited but highly diverse.
• Support is spread widely across different types of actors, content and geographies.
• Protecting democracy and countering misinformation are core motivations for funding.
• The sector is undergoing major changes, creating new challenges for funders and grantees

Read here: “Journalism and Media Funding in Europe”

In a research article in Journalism Practice, Simone Benazzo, Florence Le Cam, David Domingo, and Marie Fierens look at Germany, Croatia, and North Macedonia and analyse Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as instruments for media capture. SLAPPs undermine not only individual journalists but the sustainability, independence, and impact of the media ecosystems journalism funders seek to strengthen.

SLAPPs are legal actions used to harass or intimidate people who speak on matters of public interest. Because they rely on legal tools rather than open threats or violence, they are often hard for journalists to fight. While countries such as the United States, Canada, and Australia have had laws against SLAPPs for years, Europe has only recently taken steps in this direction following pressure from civil society and media groups.

Most academic work has focused on the legal structures that enable SLAPPs and on legal reforms that could stop them. Fewer studies have looked at their wider effects. The authors’ research seeks to understand the complexity of SLAPPs in Europe and the range of reactions to them. They view SLAPPs as a form of media capture, where governments or political and business interests try to control the media. In this sense, SLAPPs can contribute to autocratisation, a process in which countries become more autocratic even if they are still considered democracies.

They examined Germany, Croatia, and North Macedonia, three democracies with different recent trends in autocratisation and different levels of SLAPP activity. Through interviews and focus groups with journalists, lawyers, and activists, the authors explored the actors involved and the strategies they use. Their analysis shows five key dimensions of this struggle: juridical, political, professional, financial, and social.

Looking at the juridical dimension, focus group participants saw SLAPPs as an abuse of the court system that restricts freedom of expression. The independence of the judiciary influenced how often SLAPPs occurred. In Croatia, where trust in judicial independence is low, SLAPPs are frequent, and some judges even file cases against journalists. In Germany, the courts generally defend press freedom, but participants warned that this could create complacency and allow cases to go unnoticed. In North Macedonia, past SLAPPs were marked by arbitrary decisions before defamation was decriminalised. Today, judges tend to protect journalists, partly due to training and pressure from professional associations. Across countries, participants debated whether training judges is enough, noting that the main issue is sometimes not knowledge but attitudes towards journalism.

Political actors also play a central role in shaping SLAPPs. In Croatia, both national and local politicians often initiate lawsuits, supported by close ties with judges. In North Macedonia, the fall of the autocratic government in 2017 reduced SLAPPs, though other political pressures remain. Regulatory bodies and major broadcasters still reflect older power structures. In Germany, SLAPPs by politicians are less common, but the rise of the AfD party has increased hostility towards the press, leading to long and costly disputes. Some focus group participants argued that these pressures shape the wider public sphere. In North Macedonia, joint declarations between political and media actors have been used as a tool to prevent legal action against journalists.

Professional bodies play an important role in resisting SLAPPs. Journalists’ associations in all three countries collect data, offer support, and advocate for better protection. Croatian associations run rapid-response systems and annual surveys. North Macedonia’s association works to secure free legal aid and contributes to national and international monitoring tools. In Germany, focus group participants stressed self-regulation and the need for the profession to defend itself. Press councils, however, were seen as limited in their ability to help, except in North Macedonia where their opinions influence court cases. External actors, such as European media organisations, also support journalists through training, advocacy, and insurance schemes.

SLAPPs also have severe financial consequences. In Croatia, high damages and “serial plaintiffs” place heavy burdens on journalists and media outlets. Some lawsuits appear motivated by profit rather than reputation. Law firms also benefit by specialising in these cases. In North Macedonia, legal reforms have reduced fines, easing some pressure. Participants described how SLAPPs can drain resources, force media into crowdfunding, or even bankrupt people. This financial fear can lead to self-censorship, as editors may stop investigations to avoid costly cases. In Germany, some in the focus group suggested joint funds as a way to help journalists face legal costs.

Public awareness of SLAPPs is low in all three countries. Many people distrust journalists, which weakens sympathy for those targeted. Focus group participants in Croatia and North Macedonia described widespread suspicion of the media, while German participants stressed the need to report on SLAPPs openly to build understanding. Awareness campaigns were seen as essential, led by civil society or journalists’ associations. Croatian participants felt that public knowledge had improved thanks to their efforts, though others in Germany and North Macedonia were less optimistic.

The authors created a multi-dimensional model to show the links among all five dimensions. Journalists and media sit at the centre, while political actors, business figures, and legal actors use SLAPPs to pressure or silence them. The model also highlights how different forms of media capture connect to the wider processes of autocratisation.

The three countries studied show important differences. In all of them, politicians have filed SLAPPs, but only in Croatia and North Macedonia did these cases come from politicians close to the ruling parties. In these contexts, SLAPPs act as tools of autocratisation, used by those in power to weaken dissent. In Germany, the rise of the AfD suggests that similar pressures may appear in the future. Another striking finding concerns Croatia, where some judges themselves use SLAPPs. This shows how legal actors can sometimes reinforce autocratising trends instead of blocking them. The findings also confirm that financial actors, including law firms that specialise in SLAPPs, now play a major role.

The study also highlights that SLAPPs can be resisted. Journalists, professional groups, civil society, and some judges use different strategies, such as public awareness, legal support, and political pressure. These efforts differ from country to country and depend on local power relations, resources, and traditions of cooperation.

Benazzo, S., Le Cam, F., Domingo, D., & Fierens, M. (2025). Journalism Facing Autocratization: Analyzing Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as Instruments for Media Capture. Journalism Practice, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2025.2598376

In a research article published in Digital Journalism, Bernadette Uth shows that audiences in Germany are rather reserved when it comes to using participatory features in journalism, despite believing that they are an important element in building trust. These findings show that even modest investments in audience engagement can strengthen trust and loyalty, key foundations for the long-term sustainability and public value of independent media.

Journalism has long relied on sales and advertising. In recent years, this model has become harder to sustain, therefore, many newsrooms now look for new ways to earn money and keep their audiences. One growing approach is to focus on a smaller group of loyal readers rather than the general public.

Digital media have changed what audiences expect from news. People can now respond to stories, share their views, or take part in discussions. Researchers have begun to study how users engage with these options, but most work has focused on simple actions such as liking or sharing articles. We still know little about deeper forms of engagement, such as taking part in the reporting process or offering ideas and feedback. This paper, however, introduces a way to classify digital engagement based on how much involvement it requires. It uses survey data from Germany to explore which engagement options people use and how important they find them, and examines how these perceptions relate to trust in journalism.

Trust is vital for journalism in democratic societies. Without it, audiences may avoid the news or question its purpose. Studies show that trust is shaped by personal experiences, emotions, and whether people feel represented. Many groups say they do not feel heard by the media, which has led to calls for closer and more open relationships between journalists and the public. Yet levels of trust vary, and some groups remain deeply sceptical. Local journalism often enjoys higher trust than national outlets, partly due to closer contact with communities.

Audience engagement is often seen as a promising way to strengthen trust, but actual participation remains low. This paper therefore explores how often people use various options, how important they find them, and whether seeing journalism as open and audience-focused is linked to greater trust.

As a first step, the author looked at how people use different ways to take part in digital journalism. Overall, all options are used, but to very different degrees. Simple actions, including user comments, liking or sharing articles, or joining quick polls, are the most common. Options that demand more effort, such as sending photos or videos or producing material for journalists, are used far less. Many read comments weekly or monthly, but only a small number write comments themselves. Even for the most popular option, a significant number of people rarely or never engage.

When the author compared the actual use of these options with their perceived importance, an interesting gap appeared. Many respondents do not use participatory features, yet they still say these features matter. People tend to value tools that help them express their views or follow others’ opinions, even if they do not use them themselves. Surveys and polls are rated as most important, followed by sharing articles and reading comments. High-involvement options such as sending topic suggestions or writing e-mails are also seen as fairly important, even though few people use them. The least important option is writing one’s own articles. Overall, people seem to value the idea of engagement more than the act itself.

Next, the author asked how people judge journalism’s efforts to engage its audience. Many respondents hold a neutral view, and a significant number say they cannot judge these aspects at all. People are more likely to agree that journalists allow the public to express opinions or discuss current topics with them. They are less convinced that journalists moderate discussions or build a sense of community with the public.

Finally, the author examined whether the perception of journalism as audience-oriented shapes trust. The results show a clear link: trust is higher among people who feel that journalism listens and engages. Age and political views also matter: older respondents tend to show lower trust, and supporters of some political parties express far more distrust. Media habits play a role too: those who follow traditional news show higher trust, while heavy users of social or alternative media tend to trust less. Showing an interest in dialogue and community-building can support trust. At the same time, outlets face the challenge of creating engagement opportunities that audiences will actually use.

Uth, B. (2025). Hardly Used, But Highly Appreciated? Use, Importance and Effects of Engagement-Oriented Journalism. Digital Journalism, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2025.2605489

Based on interviews with journalists, content producers, and former journalists in Austria, Uta Russmann, Sabine Einwiller, Jens Seiffert-Brockmann, Lina Stürmer, and Gisela Reiter produced an article in Journalism which found that the use of social media and the lack of financial and human resources in journalism are the main reasons for these blurring lines. This undermines journalistic independence, ethics, and public trust: areas where targeted funding and capacity-building can make a difference.

Since the rise of the Internet, journalism in Europe has faced a deep crisis. Long-held lines between journalism, PR, and advertising have become blurred, and at times seem to disappear. Traditional media business models have weakened, forcing news outlets to change how they work. Many now rely on advertorials, sponsored content, and other paid forms of communication. This has made news outlets less dependent on one source of income, but it has also pushed many journalists to move into PR or marketing. Austria reflects this wider trend. The number of full-time journalists fell sharply between 2007 and 2019, and many former journalists are now working entirely in PR or advertising.

This study explores how people in the profession view these blurred boundaries. In semi-structured interviews, the authors asked how journalists, hybrid journalists/content producers, and former journalists now working in PR or advertising understand journalism today. They also looked at the challenges they see in their daily work.

The paper places these views within the wider changes caused by digitalisation. New platforms, new formats, and economic pressures have transformed how media content is produced and shared. The overlap in skills demanded in journalism, PR, and marketing has grown. As a result, journalism is under pressure to protect its identity, values, and independence, while also adapting to fast-moving technological and market shifts.

The interviews showed that most respondents agree that the boundaries between journalism, PR, and advertising have become blurred. Many said these boundaries have almost disappeared and continue to fade, especially because of social media. Journalists and some former journalists viewed this trend very critically. They feel that economic pressure and limited resources have weakened the profession and also pointed to stronger influence from advertisers and the rise of media cooperations, where coverage forms part of a paid package. Some spoke of surreptitious advertising and the routine use of press releases. Former journalists now working in PR admitted that it is easy to place polished material in the media, but they also described this as ethically troubling. Several interviewees warned that trust in journalism may decline if these problems continue.

Others, especially journalists/content producers and some former journalists, had a more neutral or positive view. They argued that the blurred boundaries are simply a reality and cannot be reversed. They also noted that PR and advertising can offer well-prepared information with more time and resources, although this content lacks journalistic independence.

Social media plays a major role in these changes. Interviewees said it has increased the overlap between professions and created new pressures. Journalists now have to promote their own work online and master skills once associated with PR and marketing. As a result, the definition of journalism has become less clear. Many struggle to describe their own role, especially when working across different fields. The question of what journalism is, and who counts as a journalist, remains open.

The interviews showed that blurred boundaries between journalism, PR, and advertising are now normal. Digital change and media convergence have caused these fields to overlap, and interviewees believe this trend will continue. Journalism has lost much of its old identity. Although journalists stress the importance of keeping clear boundaries, in practice, the lines are becoming harder to protect. PR, advertisers, and influencers all play a growing role in shaping information, and journalists struggle to keep their work separate. At the same time, journalists now use tools and skills once linked to PR and marketing, such as SEO and audience tracking. They also produce content for platforms like TikTok to reach younger audiences. This helps them adapt, but it also reduces their autonomy.

These changes raise ethical concerns. When journalism, PR, and advertising look alike, audiences may not recognise content that serves commercial or political interests. This can weaken trust and limit the depth of information available. It can also create conflicts of interest when media rely on commercial revenue. Clear labelling of paid content and strong ethical standards are essential to protect trust.

Although journalism has never been fixed, the current shifts have wide consequences. The profession must define proper practices and protect independence, as trust in journalism is vital for public debate and democratic life.

Russmann, U., Einwiller, S., Seiffert-Brockmann, J., Stürmer, L., & Reiter, G. (2025). Journalism in times of blurring boundaries between journalism, PR and advertising. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849251406152

Media freedom in 2026 is once again set to face pressure from various political, financial, technological, and regulatory sources. Elections in the EU’s increasingly fraught democratic landscape, high-stakes debates over the shape and enforcement of digital regulation, and the use of AI will all profoundly influence the state of media freedom. As journalism funders play a crucial role in sustaining independent media, these developments may also directly or indirectly impact their work.

Digital Regulation: Debates Around the Digital Services Act (DSA)

The Digital Services Act (DSA), introduced to create a safer and more transparent online ecosystem, will remain a central point of debate both for its enforcement and its implications for freedom of expression. As the EU pushes forward with stringent platform obligations, the United States is pushing back, arguing that some elements could undermine free speech and impose extraterritorial burdens on US companies.

The DSA mandates algorithmic transparency, content moderation, and risk-mitigation measures. The US government argues, however, that these run counter to the American constitutional tradition, which generally prioritises minimal state involvement in speech regulation. As the European Commission ramps up enforcement, Big Tech companies such as Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and Google argue that the DSA’s risk-mitigation obligations will force them to make judgments that may appear political, especially during sensitive elections.

The outcome of this standoff will not only shape future platform governance but also the information environment surrounding upcoming elections.

Hungary’s 2026 Election

One of the most consequential events for media freedom in Europe this year will be the Hungarian parliamentary election on April 12, 2026, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s illiberal regime faces its most serious challenge in over a decade. Orbán has been criticised for over a decade for controlling much of Hungary’s media landscape, characterised by pro-government propaganda networks and economic pressure on independent outlets, but his system remains a blueprint for other authoritarian leaders around the world.

The election will not only determine Hungary’s domestic media environment but may also have an influence on democratic resilience in other EU Member States where populist and illiberal actors are gaining ground. The result and the agenda of the next government will also influence the EU’s infringement procedures against Hungary for, among others, failing to comply with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), meaning a test for EU legal mechanisms to uphold democratic standards.

The Use of AI and Deepfakes in Election Campaigns

Artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI capable of producing deepfakes, has moved from sci-fi speculation into becoming a serious factor in electoral politics. In 2026, this trend will be inseparable from broader debates about media freedom, electoral integrity, and digital regulation, including the EU’s forthcoming AI Act.

Deepfakes are AI-generated or AI-altered videos, images, or audio that mimic reality. They have already proliferated and influenced global elections. A study published last summer found that 38 countries have experienced election-related deepfake incidents in recent years.

The impact of deepfakes is not only important because of their reach, but because they damage public trust. By lowering the cost of producing convincing fake media, AI enhances what researchers call the “liar’s dividend,” where real footage can be dismissed as fake and real media loses credibility. For example, the upcoming Hungarian election is already being shaped by AI-generated political content, and the European Parliament voiced its concern over unlabelled AI-generated political videos published on social media channels tied to political parties.

While some governments are attempting to mitigate these risks by employing tools to detect deepfakes, technology alone cannot solve the problem: legal mechanisms and their enforcement are needed.

Harassment of Journalists and Self-Censorship

One of the most worrying recent global trends is the increase in physical and digital threats to journalists, which goes hand in hand with rising self-censorship and negatively affects media freedom.

According to the latest UNESCO World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development report, freedom of expression has declined significantly worldwide, accompanied by a steep rise in attacks on journalists. Governments and powerful actors have tightened control over traditional and digital media channels. Reporters are not only facing physical violence, but also surveillance, legal intimidation, and online harassment that undermines independent reporting and forces many to avoid sensitive topics altogether.

Economic Fragility

Another structural challenge that will undoubtedly shape media ecosystems in 2026 is the economic fragility of independent journalism. The 2025 World Press Freedom Index shows that the financial environment for journalism is at a historic low point: in 160 out of 180 countries, with media outlets struggling to sustain basic operations. Advertising revenue has shifted dramatically toward large tech platforms, leaving news organisations starved for funds. Newsrooms are shutting down worldwide, especially where political pressure compounds economic vulnerabilities, leading to news deserts where access to reliable news is severely limited.

The domination of global digital advertising by tech giants has not only diverted revenue but also amplified disinformation and manipulated online information environments, further destabilising independent media. In 2026, economic viability will be a defining battlefield for media freedom.

Journalism is the “oxygen of the political system,” says Riccardo Ramacci, Head of the Media Programme at the Mercator Foundation Switzerland. In this interview, he reflects on why a healthy and pluralistic information ecosystem is essential for democracy and discusses the foundation’s approach to supporting journalism.

Why does Mercator Switzerland support journalism? How does this align with your broader organisational mission?

 Journalism, and the broader information ecosystem, are vital cornerstones of democracy. We consider the two to be strongly dependent on one another. This is especially true in a country such as Switzerland, where there are a lot of elements of direct democracy and political rights give citizens a lot of power to make important decisions. Democratic decision-making requires trustworthy and reliable information. Journalism is the oxygen of a democratically organized political system. In our philanthropic work, the topic of journalism aligns with all the other fields we are involved in, such as climate change and education. A healthy and critical information system, as well as strong and pluralistic media, are important to have constructive discussions about an equitable and ecologically sustainable future.

Has the focus of your journalism programme changed since it began?

 Yes. We started pretty organically through two of our thematic funding areas, democracy and digital transformation. In a democracy, the transformational crisis of media is a really important issue and a challenge for democracy itself. That’s why we’ve launched several media related projects and also some studies to look at the challenges of, for example, local journalism.

Similarly, we realised that the evolution of the digital public sphere was one of the most important aspects of the digital transformation society. That’s why we’ve launched some media literacy projects. We realised that through these two approaches, we could achieve a lot more impact if we combined them under one journalism program. As such, all the media related projects are now coherently bundled up together within one portfolio.

What kind of support do you provide within this portfolio?

It really depends on the needs of the grantees. We provide financial support: everything from bigger tickets, like long-term core funding and organisational development, through smaller project-related financing. In addition, we offer tailored capacity-building through our “coaching pool”. External experts provide advice or consultation on issues that concern our grantees. This can range from questions around the organisational structures, leadership, and strategy development to financial planning, fundraising, and communication concepts, et cetera. We also provide a professional analysis of the organisations themselves to identify the next steps they should take to develop further and strengthen themselves for the future.

Who is eligible for your support?

Our primary focus is within Switzerland, but we have an increasing European perspective with some projects and networks. This stems from the conviction that we cannot solve the societal challenges we currently face within national borders.

The focus of our support for the media and journalism funding is on what we call “information ecosystem organisations”. We focus on projects which typically serve more than one news outlet and strengthen the entire sector itself. This can mean legal aid or capacity-building with physical or technical infrastructure, but also networks, knowledge transfer, et cetera.

We also promote certain forms of new collaboration, because we believe that interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration is a key approach to the development of the media sector, which is currently in the midst of a transformation crisis. We pool different resources while still maintaining, of course, the plurality of the system.

But we do not provide direct media support. We only contribute through pooled funds, such as the Media Forward Fund or Civitates, to maintain arm’s length, which is a really important aspect for us when it comes to journalism funding.

We also support media literacy projects in order to improve the perception of news and journalism and stimulate the demand for information. So organisations which complement the education system, are also eligible for our funding.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?

When we entered the field, we didn’t realise how complex and unique it is. Journalism is a commercial product which can be monetised, but it is also a common good which serves the higher purpose of informing society within a democratic system. Maintaining the balance between these two logics is not an easy task. For a philanthropic organisation it can be challenging to assess where it should and can be active, in collaboration with which actors. It is important to determine where philanthropy has a role within the media sector.

Another lesson was that you need patience and a long-term perspective for the funding and capacity-building, because it takes time to reach the public or build up a wider audience.

How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story you can share?

In the journalism program,  we work with a theory of change. In addition, we develop an impact framework with specific goals for each project, in close collaboration with the grantees. One of the crucial aspects for success is the key impact on one target group. This could be an audience or other journalists. Although to record a measurable change is sometimes tricky in this field.

The other aspect is the financial stability and health of the organisations, which is probably one of the most crucial and important questions in the field of media and journalism. You can measure this quickly and easily when you look at the budgets, the financial planning, the resources, and also potential new revenue streams.

Both aspects are vital to assess success. There needs to be a clear value for the target groups, but it is also crucial to maintain financial stability.

As far as success stories go: The first grantees of the Media Forward Fund, which received funding in the beginning of 2025, already show promising signs of growth thanks to philanthropic investment. One grantee could more than double its newsletter subscribers and gain more than 30% paying members within a couple of months.

What were the biggest challenges that you have had to face within the journalism programme?

The dynamic and constant change of the field and the sector. Many of the premises we originally had were quickly overhauled by technological or political developments. There is far more demand for funding than there is supply. Consequently, a lot of great and fundable ideas remain unfinanced. Resources and knowledge are leaving the ecosystem a lot quicker than new funding comes in. In this situation, prioritising what to fund remains a constant challenge for us.

And I already touched upon this earlier, but it also remains a challenge to precisely define what constitutes public interest journalism, what is the public value of journalism, and what this definition means for our work.

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

One piece of advice might be obvious, but I would really recommend it: seek the advice of actors and organisations which already work in the field, such as the JFF. There are also other great organisations which provide a lot of insights. This was immensely helpful when we started the programme. Reach out to all these actors but also listen to the grantees and the field itself. Be courageous and start somewhere. It does not have to be perfect right away. To have an actionable approach and not to get lost within theoretical frameworks is also very important.

Collaboration is not only key for the grantees, but also for funders. My advice would be to collaborate with them as much as possible to strengthen impact, but also to navigate the complex question of what public interest journalism really means.

The Journalism Science Alliance pairs journalists with scientists and backs their work with grants, mentoring, training, and cross-border collaboration to support public interest investigations. In its first cycle, it supported 24 teams from 15 countries, awarding nearly 1 million euros in funding.

The idea for the Journalism Science Alliance (JSA) emerged during early conversations between the European Journalism Centre (EJC) and NOVA University in Lisbon. As Vera Penêda, Director of Programmes & Impact at the EJC, recalls, “we realised that it was a good moment in time to create a joint programme, at a time when journalism and science are both under pressure from rising authoritarianism and mis- and disinformation.” This shared urgency laid the groundwork for a pan-European initiative designed to bridge two fields that rarely collaborate in a structured way.

JSA is built around a simple premise: meaningful investigative journalism can be strengthened when it draws on scientific methods, and research can reach deeper into public life when communicated through strong, evidence-based reporting. The programme supports this idea through grant funding, training, mentoring, and networking opportunities that bring journalists and researchers together. With these resources, participating teams are expected to uncover stories of public interest, experiment with new approaches, and produce investigations capable of engaging audiences across Europe.

The concept is not entirely new. Over the past few decades, several initiatives have shown what can happen when academics and media professionals combine their skills. A collaborative study of the 1967 Detroit riots, carried out by the Detroit Free Press and Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, became an early demonstration of how joint inquiry can shape public understanding. “Reading the Riots,” a landmark project following the 2011 unrest in the UK, revealed how much impact such partnerships can have when journalists and scholars examine social crises together. More recently, the Center for Media, Data and Society at the Central European University ran the Black Waters project with Atlatszo and BIRN, assembling an interdisciplinary team to investigate environmental corruption along the Danube in Hungary and Romania.

What sets JSA apart is its scale and ambition. Co-funded by the European Union’s Creative Europe programme, it will run across Europe for two years, distributing €2 million in grants to support science-based investigative journalism projects, and will provide additional assistance in the form of mentoring and training. As Penêda explains, it will help participants strengthen skills such as visibility and dissemination: “Journalists learn how to apply elements of the scientific method, such as hypothesis-driven inquiry and data scrutiny. Scientists, in turn, learn how to share their work in ways that resonate with wider audiences.”

The scope of the calls has been intentionally kept broad to encourage a wide range of ideas and partnerships. The aim is to empower journalists and researchers to explore stories that matter to their communities and to the wider public sphere.

To support this ambition, the programme awards three types of grants: €10,000, €20,000, and €50,000. Eligibility criteria mirror the programme’s commitment to collaboration and cross-border exchange. Participating organisations must be based in countries that take part in the full cross-sectoral strand of the Creative Europe programme. This includes all 27 EU member states as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, and Ukraine. Partners from outside these countries can also participate, provided the core team includes one eligible media outlet and one eligible research institution.

The first call, closed this summer, revealed how strongly the sector has been waiting for such a structure. JSA received 162 proposals, more than double the total number of grants it will award across its two-year run. Applicants came from 54 countries, and most teams applied for the largest Tier 3 grants of €50,000. For Penêda, this level of interest sends a clear signal: “This shows that there is enormous demand for a space where journalists and scientists can work together.”

From this pool, the independent jury selected 24 teams from 15 countries, awarding €1 million in total. The successful applicants come from a wide geographic spread and will now have eight months to complete their investigations. While many of the chosen projects focus on environmental questions, topics also range across health, justice, inequality, disinformation, and more. Penêda notes that some of the partnerships themselves are pioneering, bringing together experts who would rarely collaborate otherwise, “for example with psychologists.”

One of the recurring questions during this process was how to balance the very different working cultures and interests of science and journalism. Penêda explains that the JSA “is not about translating research into journalism, it’s about co-creating the investigation from the start, with both disciplines shaping the story.” Teams receive tailored mentoring for both sectors, and evaluators prioritised projects promising equal impact and mutual benefit for both.

Balance does not come without challenges. Penêda identifies time and alignment as the first hurdle: “They operate on a different schedule and vocabulary.” The second was ensuring that applicants clearly understood the scope, as “it is not a science journalism programme. We support any topic as long as scientific experience improves the story.” A third difficulty lies in funding: as a co-funded EU programme, the remaining financing is hard to secure. “While some foundations have stepped back from investigative journalism, others simply don’t have the schemes in place to co-fund ongoing initiatives,” Penêda notes, adding that, “we need a funding ecosystem that supports shared ownership.”

Looking ahead, Penêda is clear about the ambition: “We’d love to renew it.” The next call is set for early 2026, and the long-term vision is expansive: “it could be a template for a collaborative truth-telling model that could grow into a global alliance”, provided the right partners come on board. “It’s not just a grant scheme. It’s a way of testing how journalism and science can work together, as two truth-based fields, by building a shared structure of support.”

Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director of the Public Interest News Foundation, explains how the organisation is tackling the current crisis in public interest journalism and its focus on regenerating local news in the UK. He outlines their three pillars, shares insights into how they support news media, and reflects on the balance between vision and reality in supporting journalism.

Why was it important to establish the Public Interest News Foundation? What is your mission?

 It was important to establish the foundation back in 2019-2020, for the simple reason that there was a crisis in public interest journalism. In the UK, there had been a government-backed review of public interest journalism, which simply said there is a huge market failure, applied both at national and local levels, and in relation to investigative journalism. We established the foundation to address that whole crisis in all its forms.

But the mission has evolved over the five years. Now we are much more tightly focused on the crisis in local news, because we feel like that’s where the crisis is sharpest, and also there are the most exciting opportunities to build something new. Our mission is now to regenerate local news in the UK and we have set ourselves a deadline: we want to do that by 2035.

How do you define “public interest news”? Who is eligible for your support?

 We actually have a definition in our constitution. It really boils down to ethical, accurate, impartial news that informs and empowers people on matters that are relevant to us as citizens or as members of our community. That is the broad definition.

The one part of this which is sometimes controversial is where we stay impartial. Certainly in the UK there is a tradition of quite vigorous partisan journalism, some of which I think is undeniably in the public interest. But for our purposes as a charity, we had to narrow the definition slightly so we can only legally support outlets which are impartial.

And now, do you focus only on local media?

In practice. That’s a shift and we have been around for five years doing a range of activities, and we have a little bit of carryover, so some of our activities still apply to non-local media, but the vast majority is now local in practice.

In what forms do you support journalism?

 The simplest element is the financial, but actually it is a quite small part of what we do. We are technically an intermediary foundation, so we do not have an endowment or a living donor providing us with unrestricted funding. We have to fundraise in order to fund. So, what we can then do with the money depends a little bit on the motivation of the people funding us.

In the UK there is only a small number of funders who have given us money. In order for us to make grants directly to news organisations, we are still working at that. It is growing, and we are aiming to build a much more significant, multimillion pound fund to invest in capacity building for local journalism.

That’s still the dream. But in practice, quite a large part of what we do is not financial. It is more about advocacy. We work to try to change the law or with big stakeholders like the BBC or Google, Facebook, et cetera, to try to create a more enabling environment for public interest, local journalism. That’s working with news providers to understand their needs and challenges and aims, but it is not directly providing them with money. It is trying to use other tools at our disposal to create an environment in which they can thrive.

Then we also have our Local News Futures programme, which is more about bringing local news providers and other people together to really imagine what the future might look like and to celebrate innovation, to explore completely different ways of doing journalism, to think about in-person journalism and live journalism: anything which seems to put the needs of the local community first and foremost. So essentially, we have three pillars of activity. One is financial support, one is advocacy, and one is what we call futures, which is mainly about convening, networking, and imagining.

When it comes to financial support, what do you fund? Can organisations come to you directly for grants, or do you have calls?

Again, it varies, because in each case it depends on our relationship with whoever is providing us with the funding. One example is that we now run an annual programme, the Tenacious Journalist Award, where there is an open call every year and we invite news providers to come to us with a vision for a really impactful piece of journalism that they otherwise can’t afford to produce. We select up to 10 people to win the financial award. That’s very tight project funding that we then give them, and we work quite closely with them to provide non-financial support, to keep them focused on how to achieve the greatest impact.

But we also have a very different type of support where we can act as a fiscal host or a fiscal sponsor to a news provider. In this case, we can provide much more unrestricted operating support. We play a much more hands-off role. We have taken an administration fee like any other fiscal host and then let the news organisation do what they want to do. So we can really operate in very different ways, depending on the relationship.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?

 I think it’s the constant negotiation between the ideal and the real, between what you want to do and what’s actually possible right now. That applies in so many different ways. We can go to conferences, and we are inspired by amazing visions of the future of journalism. People want to turn journalism on its head and do it in new, amazing ways. We come away thinking that this is fantastic. And then we meet some actual journalists, who are actually doing it day by day, and they do not have time or head space to think about these big, amazing new visions.

It is not how they were trained or how they have worked, if they have been in the industry for 10, 20, or 30 years or more. So you have to negotiate. You don’t want go to them and say, throw out everything you know, and explore this new, innovative, exciting model of journalism. You need to work with them where they are now and just try to create capacity for them to start to lift their heads up and look around, be inspired, and think about what’s possible.

But it is the same with the funders. As I said, we are an intermediary. We have relationships on one side with newsrooms, on the other side with funders. In the UK, very few funders have ever funded journalism. It is still a very small and very new field. We think that any funder who cares about democracy, community justice, the environment should fund journalism as part of their portfolios. We think they should be funding it with large, unrestricted capacity building grants. We absolutely believe that is the right thing for them to do, but they are not there yet. So we have to work with them slowly.

If they are curious but would rather work with a small project-based initiative, then we will do that to try to build trust and familiarity, and then over time we try to move towards something bigger and bolder. This is the constant negotiation between what we want to do, what we think is ideal, and what is actually possible in the real world.

What were the main challenges you have had to face so far?

Fundraising. For us as an intermediary foundation, simply the fact that journalism is a new, embryonic field in the UK. Intermediary foundations sit in a strange place in the ecosystem, in some ways a really wonderful place. We get the best of both worlds, but sometimes it can also be slightly awkward. Are we a funder or aren’t we? Are we in the room with other funders sharing our experience as a funder or are we in the room as a fundraiser, in which case the funders feel more cautious about being open with us?

Again, just navigating some of those tensions and trying to build the trust that we are here primarily to support funders, to support journalism, and that we think we can add value to that. But it takes time to change a culture.

How do you assess the success of your programmes? Can you share a particular success story?

We don’t have a single overarching impact framework. We would like to manage a multimillion-pound capacity building fund, and then we would have much clearer success measures. But at present, because we work in so many different ways, it does not feel right to try to create a unified theory of change.

But, as an example, there is the Tenacious Journalist Award, where we have given ten grants to ten different newsrooms to pursue ten different investigations. It has led to some really great journalism. I was talking to one of the journalists the other day who has been investigating the use of synthetic opioids in East London, where a particularly toxic type of synthetic opioid has hit the streets. It seems from her investigation that it has led to a very large number of deaths. But also, as a result of her investigation – and because she was talking to the local authority, local charities, and the local medical providers – there is an increase in the availability of the antidote, which could actually save people’s lives. The antidote was not widely available because the problem was not well known. This has changed. So I genuinely think that the journalist saved lives. It is an amazing impact.

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

 The advice is really simple. It is the advice you would give to funders in any context: Go and find an organisation that you really like, that you think is well led, that has a good, clear vision and is making a difference, and give them as much money as you can afford with as much freedom as you can allow, and sit back and see what happens. I guarantee that it will at least be interesting.