Pierrick Judeaux, Director of Portfolio and EU representative at the International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM), explains the critical role of funding independent journalism in low and middle-income countries, and shares his insights into the Fund’s commitment to providing flexible, long-term financial support.
Why is it important for IFPIM to fund journalism? Which outlets are eligible for funding?
Judeaux: The Fund was created as a new multilateral and independent vehicle to fund journalism in low and middle income countries. We created this new vehicle because independent media globally are facing a major economic and financial crisis. The business models that have underpinned independent journalism in past decades have been under massive pressure. And the current level of support that is dedicated to independent media is not of the scale required to meet the challenge.
What we’re seeing globally, with even more acuteness in low and middle income countries, is a lot of outlets shutting down, or being captured by private or political interests. Perhaps more frequent and less visible, but extremely important, is a slow degradation of the capacity of media organisations working in the public interest to maintain their coverage and to hold power to account. That slow degradation is deeply worrying for the future of our information ecosystems and for democracy.
All of this is happening in the context of growing threats to information ecosystems and information integrity, including disinformation, misinformation, and various campaigns and operations led by a number of authoritarian actors. For all of these reasons, we created the Fund as a way to drastically scale up the amount of funding that is being made available to support public interest media in low and middle income countries.
How do you provide support? Are you cooperating with other donors?
Judeaux: Yes, we work very closely with other media funders. We’re very conscious that there are a number of other actors that have been doing really important work in terms of supporting journalists and media organisations for a long time. So we work extremely closely with other actors that fund journalism, and local market actors, journalists, researchers, and civil society actors that follow the information space closely. It’s a very important principle for us to fully acknowledge that we don’t operate in a vacuum, and we want to make sure we use the funds and financial capabilities to be complementary to the support that already exists.
In terms of how we provide support, we’re trying to be as driven as we can by both the local context and the needs of our partners, our grantees. So the types of grants we provide will be slightly different from one grantee to the next. There are, however, a couple of principles.
The first is that we strive to provide institutional support and mid- to long-term support. We’ve realised that the need for core funding or institutional funding is really acute. There is a lot of project funding, there is a lot of short-term funding. This kind of support is very important, of course, but it most often doesn’t allow organisations to cover their core costs and to invest in the future and future-proof their organisations at a time where markets are deeply changing. So we endeavour to provide relatively long term support that gives media outlets visibility. These are two- or three-year grants that can be renewed. In the vast majority of cases, it is core institutional funding rather than project-based.
The size of our grant varies, but because of the core funding and the long-term funding, they tend to be relatively large compared to other funders. We do pay a lot of attention, however, to the risk of being too large a source of revenue for a given outlet, and so we ensure that in almost all cases, with a few exceptions, we fund no more than 30 percent of the operating costs of an organisation.
Finally, how do we identify the organisations we support? We source future grantees through four complimentary channels. We run open calls for proposals. We do a lot of proactive engagements, within countries where we work, with a lot of market actors to identify potential partners. We have a system for referrals from trusted partners, such as other funders and development organisations, to suggest partners we should support. And finally, any media organisation that is interested in collaborating and working with us can submit an expression of interest on our website. So we have these four channels to identify potential partners and then all relevant independent media that meet our eligibility criteria (which are described on our website) go through the same assessment and due diligence process.
I’ll end with a very important point. When we created the Fund as a multilateral financing mechanism, we were extremely careful to strike the right balance between creating a partnership that would mobilise many government funders while ensuring the Fund would make funding decisions independently. None of our funders can direct or influence which media organisations the Fund supports. All funding decisions are made under the control of an independent board made of independent experts who don’t serve any specific organisation or government. This was always absolutely central and non-negotiable. It allows [us] to shield donors from allegations of interference. But most importantly, that’s the only way to guarantee the editorial integrity and independence of the media organisations we support.
You have just announced a new round of support in Latin America. Are you planning to expand your programme in Europe as well?
Judeaux: The mandate of the Fund is to work in low and middle income countries. We don’t work in high income countries. In Europe we currently operate in four countries, in the Eastern Partnership: Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. We’re currently finalising a number of additional grants and we’ll be supporting a new cohort of partners in those countries.
We will also be looking at potentially expanding the set of countries in which we work in the near future. The fund is currently in its first phase of operations, but later this month, we’re going to be launching a campaign for fundraising and replenishment of our financial resources for the next phase of our development. As we raise additional funds, we’ll be able to expand geographically as well.
Now, coming back to the four countries where we work, we’re currently finalising the selection of a new cohort of grantees based on the global open call that we’ve launched on World Press Freedom Day [3 May]. And so, relatively soon, within a month or two, we’ll be announcing a new set of grants across those countries.
What is the most important lesson you have learned since the launch of the Fund?
Judeaux: The one thing we are hearing constantly from almost all our partners is how important unrestricted institutional funding is and how critical it is for them to adapt to the future and survive in contexts where they are facing a lot of pressure. That’s true in all of the Eastern European countries that I just mentioned, and it’s true globally as well. It’s the single most frequent piece of feedback that we get from the partners we work with. The acknowledgement that there is really a market gap when it comes to providing that kind of unrestricted, flexible, long-term funding, is the most important lesson to date.
What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
Judeaux: We need to make difficult choices all the time. We have raised a significant amount of money for the first phase of operations, close to EUR 60 million, but this is a drop in the ocean compared to the needs. Independent journalism outlets that do really important work for society need funding, and hard decisions have to be made, because there are a lot more needs than actual funding available.
Yet the unmet need remains vast. Following the launch of two calls for proposals, the Fund received expressions of interest from over 600 organisations, requesting grant funding worth a total of US$ 120-130 million. These calls were limited in scope and applied to only a small subset of countries. Globally, the level of demand is many times higher. Scaling up the capital available for public interest media remains of paramount importance.
A second challenge, I think, has been that a lot of media organisations are now asking themselves questions around how to adjust their editorial practices to meet the audience where it’s going to consume content. That’s particularly true in case of younger audiences. We’ve tried to identify those actors that pay particular attention to trying to find ways to cater to the needs of younger audiences. This is part of a broader approach of the fund, to ensure that audience needs are at the core of how media organisations think about their work. We are trying to ensure we identify media organisations that do the best job possible to address the needs of younger and underserved audiences.
We’ve learned a lot of lessons as a community, but it’s still very complex for many organisations, especially those that have existed for some time, to design and execute a strategy by which you not only think about your distribution and your marketing, but also about the types of formats, the topics you cover, also the composition of your newsroom, and make sure you have more diversity and representation within your newsroom.
The shift that’s required to make sure you talk to everyone and address all audiences is far bigger than just thinking about meeting people on social media. Identifying and supporting those organisations which try to go through that transformation has been a challenge, but it’s a very promising area of work.
Finally, in many markets it’s hard to see a future for sustainable independent media without deeper, more structural changes. That’s why we also invest in supporting initiatives that look to create new ways to finance journalism and change the rules of the games that shape the environment independent media operate in. For instance, we’re supporting the creation of several new National Journalism Funds, such as in Sierra Leone and Brazil. We’re also working closely with actors that design models and advocate for fairer value sharing between big tech and the media.
What was the biggest success story in your programme?
Judeaux: There have been a number of media organisations we’ve supported that have highlighted that we’ve allowed them to survive and continue to play a really important role for the community in difficult times, whether it is one of the oldest community radio stations in South Africa, called Bush Radio, or whether it is independent media in Georgia, Netgazeti, or Mtisambebi. We have a number of cases where our partners have highlighted how critical core flexible funding has been to maintaining the ability of these outlets to continue their work.
However, it is not only survival that the grants provide. We also have a number of, I would say, early success stories where we see media organisations that are able to pilot innovation and roll them out in a way that’s proven very successful. Let me share a few examples.
One area relates to the point I was making earlier around transforming newsrooms. For instance, Himalmedia in Nepal has improved its reach and coverage of underreported issues affecting marginalised communities, facilitated by a fellowship programme for young journalists from underrepresented backgrounds.
Experimentation with new revenue streams has been another area of transformation to support growth and independence. For example, in Colombia, Mutante launched its production arm, Mutante Estudio, which within a year has already generated about 10% of its revenue in 2023.
Finally, we’ve also seen several of the media we support experiment very successfully with new formats and distribution strategies and grow their audiences rapidly. In Eastern Ukraine, News of Donbas’ new tailored content for social media has quickly generated a significant increase in traffic. Videos on its YouTube channels were seen over 40 million times in the first three months of the year and their newly created TikTok channel has also rapidly accrued millions of views.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Judeaux: I have three pieces of advice. First: do it! Do it because the integrity of our information ecosystem and the existence of independent trusted voices in the countries where your foundation or your institution is working is critical for almost anything else you want to achieve, whether you’re working on issues like social justice or climate change, you name it. It’s certain that having a healthy information ecosystem is central to achieving your goals, so investing in stronger independent media is actually instrumental in advancing your objective as a foundation or an institution.
Second, there are lots of ways to do this. Maybe you don’t feel like you have the bandwidth or the desire to create an entire programme and to build the capacity to do this, because media funding is quite complex, in the sense that you need to understand not only media, but also the politics in a given country. You need to be very careful about media capture. So if you either want to protect yourself, or don’t want to build the entire infrastructure to do this, then there is an existing structure called the International Fund, a pooled global funding mechanism that allows for organisations that care about information integrity, but might not want to develop an entire programme on media funding to be able to do that very efficiently and quickly.
Then third, invest in local capacity. The field of media development and media support has evolved a lot over the past couple of decades, and the funders that are doing the best work are those which invest in local resources and local capacity, because media is so complex and so embedded in the fabric of society and politics. Being able to work and to be driven by people that live in these environments is extremely important.
In the summer of 2023, amidst ongoing debates on artificial intelligence’s cultural and economic impact, the American Journalism Project (AJP) announced a partnership with OpenAI. This collaboration aimed to provide funding for the innovative use of AI in local newsrooms. Although OpenAI’s donation of US$10 million was smaller than recent contributions from Meta and Google, it marked a significant moment where a leading technology company sought to support the news industry through philanthropy.
Sarabeth Berman, CEO of the American Journalism Project, emphasised the opportunity to involve local news organisations in shaping the implications of generative AI. She highlighted the dual role of venture philanthropists in both fostering innovation and mitigating the financial decline of local news. AJP is part of a broader movement of venture philanthropy programmes, including the Google News Initiative and Meta Journalism Project, which are increasingly influential in journalism. These organisations position themselves as key players in revitalising local journalism through entrepreneurial ideologies and market-oriented solutions.
Venture philanthropists frame the crisis in local news as an opportunity for innovation, portraying themselves as essential in matching financial resources with deserving organisations. They argue that their investments can achieve sustainability and growth in local news where market forces have failed. John Thornton, a co-founder of AJP, compared venture philanthropy to venture capital, suggesting that these funds are necessary to support mission-driven news organisations.
This approach links financial growth directly to the success of local journalism, positioning revenue generation as a critical measure of success. AJP’s impact report claims that their grantees generally grow significantly in revenue, suggesting that venture philanthropy can address market failures in local journalism. However, critics note that much of this funding tends to benefit already affluent communities, raising questions about the equitable distribution of resources.
Venture philanthropists also play a crucial role in disseminating practical knowledge and technical capabilities in journalism. They offer training, best practice guides, and case studies to help news organisations integrate new technologies and business strategies. For example, the Google News Initiative supports projects like the Post and Courier’s use of Google Analytics to develop paid newsletters, demonstrating how local newsrooms can adopt innovative practices to drive revenue growth.
The influence of venture philanthropy also extends beyond financial support, to shaping the discourse around journalism’s future. These organisations produce significant discussion about journalism, promoting their own role as arbiters of change and innovation. They position themselves as knowledgeable experts who understand how to best use available philanthropic capital to achieve sustainability in journalism.
The discourse of venture philanthropy often merges financial and public missions, suggesting that market-oriented strategies can serve the public interest. For instance, Elizabeth Green, co-founder of AJP, stressed the need for expert teams to raise diverse revenue and develop strategic leadership within local news organisations. This framing implies that financial sustainability and public mission are intertwined and that successful organisations must navigate market realities to fulfil their public roles.
Venture philanthropy organisations also respond to journalism critiques, such as the need for diversity and equity, by framing these issues as mission and business goals. They highlight successful examples of integrating diversity into their product and audience development strategies, suggesting that these efforts can attract philanthropic funding.
According to this study, venture philanthropy’s blending of financial concerns with public mission creates a powerful discourse that shapes how resources are directed in journalism. While some critics argue for increased public and government support for local journalism, venture philanthropists present a compelling alternative by leveraging market-driven innovation and philanthropic capital to address the ongoing crises that the industry has been facing for more than a decade.
Creech, B. (2024). Venture Philanthropy, Local News, and the Murky Promise of Innovation. Media and Communication, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7496
Reaching young people has become a strategic priority for Public Service Media (PSM) in many Western countries, as these organisations face challenges in engaging those audiences with the news. To expand their reach, PSM organisations often rely on social media platforms. However, this reliance creates dependencies on platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat. These platforms are driven by commercial interests, leading to datafication and algorithmic filtering, which do not align with the values driving PSM, such as universality, independence, diversity, and accountability. As gatekeepers, these platforms significantly influence news dissemination, posing challenges to journalistic integrity and PSM’s core ideals. These concerns are particularly relevant given the central role of digital intermediaries in reaching youth.
This study focuses on the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK), Norway’s public service media (PSM) organisation, and its efforts to target young audiences on Snapchat. Despite the global popularity of TikTok, Snapchat remains a major platform in Norway, particularly among young adults. As scholarly research on how newsrooms navigate Snapchat’s rules and metrics for disseminating news is limited, this study aims to fill that gap by exploring how journalists produce news for Snapchat, while adhering to PSM obligations and examining the implications for content dissemination and audience reach.
The research uncovers complex gatekeeping processes throughout the publication process, referred to as “dynamic gatekeeping,” in which journalists navigate Snapchat’s algorithmic gatekeeping. This involves interpreting audience metrics, adhering to Snapchat’s guidelines, and responding to audience reactions as seen in analytics. NRK’s news flow on Snapchat involves a reciprocal relationship between journalistic decisions and platform algorithms. The study identifies three key gate-keeping stages: pre-publication, publication-stage, and post-publication.
In the pre-publication phase, journalists at NRK UNG (NRK Youth) use Snapchat metrics from the Story Studio to prioritise and produce news stories. This data provides detailed information about the audience and influences decisions on news topic selection and presentation. The goal is to maximise engagement from the target youth demographic. The newsroom monitors metrics such as click-through rates, reading times, and audience demographics. They adjust the content to align with audience preferences and algorithmic influences. Despite relying on these metrics, journalists argue that they prioritise independent editorial decisions based on news values and ethics.
During the publication stage, Snapchat’s algorithms directly influence the selection of “tiles” (front page visuals for Snapchat editions) through ABCD testing. This testing helps determine which tile will engage the audience most effectively, influencing the prominence of specific stories. The newsroom creates multiple tiles for each story and uses algorithmic feedback to improve future editions. This process highlights the interplay between the platform’s algorithmic decisions and journalistic content creation.
Post-publication, Snapchat’s flagging system enforces community guidelines by restricting the dissemination of content deemed inappropriate. This flagging often frustrates journalists, as it limits the reach of what they believe to be important stories. Violations, such as those related to graphic content or commercial elements, result in flagged stories that only reach existing subscribers. Journalists adapt by modifying content to avoid flagging but express concerns about the inconsistent enforcement of guidelines and its impact on editorial integrity.
The study examines the complex and ever-changing relationship between PSM journalists and Snapchat’s algorithmic gatekeeping. It underscores the difficulties of upholding journalistic independence while reaching out to younger audiences on external platforms. These findings call for careful consideration of the implications for PSM’s editorial autonomy and the credibility of their news coverage. As PSM organisations grapple with these challenges, the study recommends additional research into the broader effects of platform algorithms on journalistic methods.
Røsok-Dahl, H., & Kristine Olsen, R. (2024). Snapping the news: Dynamic gatekeeping in a public service media newsroom reaching young people with news on Snapchat. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241255701
Joanna Krawczyk, Member of the Management Committee at the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF), talks about the importance of supporting fact-checking and media literacy to combat disinformation, which can disrupt democratic processes and societal stability. EMIF focuses on funding diverse, collaborative projects across Europe to strengthen these efforts.
EMIF focuses on fact-checking and media literacy initiatives. Why do you think it is important to support such initiatives in Europe?
Krawczyk: We do pay special attention to fact-checking and media literacy in Europe, and I believe that these two areas are especially crucial due to the very pervasive nature of disinformation in general. Disinformation can, and does, impact public opinion. It can disrupt democratic processes and, in turn, it can undermine societal stability. We have many geopolitical crises right now; the invasion of Russia in Ukraine; the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza; and we also have a full cycle of elections across the world. With this kind of accumulation of crucial geopolitical moments, there is an urgent need to empower citizens with the skills to read and evaluate information critically.
We believe in EMIF that the right to be informed is a human right, and being able to evaluate information, to be critical towards information that surrounds us, is also one of the skills that adds to being able to execute this human right. So, yes, fact-checking and media literacy are the areas providing us with skills that are crucial in managing the complexities of our geopolitical surroundings and circumstances.
On which regions do you focus? What kind of organisations do you support?
Krawczyk: As the very name of our fund suggests, we are a European pooled fund, which means that we have a regional focus, we do focus on European Union and EFTA [European Free Trade Association] countries and the UK. But we also extend the scope of our activities towards other countries, in the sense that we support organisations that are based in eligible European countries; however, in their projects, the scope of analysing or countering disinformation is broader. This is important to understand that we do not focus just on disinformation happening only here in Europe; we look at it on a wider scale, since disinformation disregards any geographical borders.
When it comes to the type of organisations we are supporting, they are really diverse. We support, first and foremost, independent fact-checking organisations and media literacy groups, mostly NGOs. Because we also fund research, so obviously we support academic institutions and research-focused entities. We also support independent quality media outlets.
It is important for us to value collaboration: the majority, if not all, of our funded projects are collaborative projects of at least two entities. And then, they are also very often cross-border. It is our preference to make sure that the project supported by us is addressing the challenges of not only one community, and also that the solutions designed and implemented in the project are the result of different approaches presented by different organisations. This produces an added value of joint work of different organisations from different backgrounds and with varied experiences. In short, EMIF is a European fund funding different types of independent entities.
What does the support look like? Do you provide grants, do you offer training, knowledge-sharing among grantees, etc.?
Krawczyk: In general, we were designed as a grant-making mechanism, which means that we provide financial support for projects focused on fact-checking, media literacy, and disinformation research. Since we began our operations, we have approved grants up to almost €12.5 million, and we have funded 87 projects in 26 countries. The scale of our grant-making is quite substantial on the background of European media and information funding. We believe this, and our evaluations prove we do have a big impact on the disinformation countering field. And our support is something that organisations active in this field are looking forward to.
Grant-making is the core of our activities. However, we have a few other satellite activities. We do knowledge-sharing in the form of conventions organised twice a year: EMIF conferences, usually one in the autumn and one in late spring or summer. Actually, there’s going to be one in Lisbon on the 15th and 16th of July [2024]. These are the conventions to which we’re inviting our current and past grantees, so that they can exchange knowledge and experiences and share good practices. So, we do invest in these networking and knowledge-sharing opportunities.
And, of course, EMIF is active in its expert role and we participate in different types of conferences, workshops, and seminars, speaking about our experience in disinformation countering activities. But, and this is the least visible part of our work, we also support research. We work very closely with the European University Institute (EUI) in Florence, and we support academic courses and research done there by young researchers and students. The array of our activities is vast, with grant-making at the centre of it, but we want to be, and we are, active in other areas as well.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from this programme?
Krawczyk: It is something we have been discussing a lot in the previous year: global threats and more local conflicts, the pandemic, elections disruption – all the turmoil we have witnessed and experienced in the last years has showed us that the biggest challenge that we had to face was the need for rapid responses to very quickly developing or changing circumstances. It is all about the ability to react swiftly to approaching change, challenge, or threat.
We learned, and we did it the hard way, that what is really needed in funds like ours is flexibility and adaptability in responding to this fast-evolving nature of disinformation. Thus, last year, we adjusted our funding strategies for building project support, adding rapid response grant-making to address these emerging threats as well as possible. We want to ensure that the initiatives that we fund stay relevant and effective in responding to these abrupt changes in our reality.
Our revised approach allows us now for a swift mobilisation of funding and targeted interventions during critical periods, such as election cycles and some geopolitical crises.
In general, how do you assess the success of your programme? What do you deem as the biggest success story?
Krawczyk: After funding over 80 different disinformation-countering projects, it’s difficult to name just one success story. There are plenty. We generally believe that it is the big impact the projects funded by EMIF make on their communities and broader society that is our biggest success story. And every success story of our grantees is a success story of EMIF.
Of course, I have my favourite projects. There is, for example, the FRAME project, which is very timely because it has developed an AI tool transcribing and fact-checking political statements in real-time, a resource that is acutely important and needed today amidst this election cycle. There is also an amazing project from Poland that is taking emotions as the departure point for working with youth in recognising disinformation. This is a very interesting approach, quite new, I suppose, to turn to the emotional side of a human being when faced with disinformation.
And then there are also projects whose deliverables have a broader political impact. One of them is Information Laundromat, which was designed and implemented by the Alliance for Securing Democracy: their tool detecting banned Russian propaganda across hundreds of websites has been used by many think tanks, and the results of the Laundromat activity have very broadly discussed, for example, in the American Congress, and are of interest to Polish policy-makers as well.
Our impact is visible and growing, but again, I want to highlight that EMIF’s impact and our success story is always the success story of our grantees.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Krawczyk: The first thing I would say: don’t be afraid of it. Funding journalism, funding quality media, funding organisations that are making sure that our societies are well informed and immune to propaganda and disinformation, are all really the key to sustaining democracy, across our countries and continents. I firmly believe that this is one of our main responsibilities as citizens, but also as funders, to make sure that members of our communities well understand the disinformation processes that are happening around them, and they are equipped with tools and skilled enough to be able to respond to them adequately.
There is a great opportunity for new funders, for organisations that are new to funding journalism, to join dedicated funds like EMIF. When I analyse the philanthropic scene of Europe, I see how many shared goals and shared values EMIF has with organisations that, at first sight, have not got much in common with journalism. They do care about backsliding of democracy, equality, justice or environmental issues, and these are the areas where disinformation and propaganda are often very active; these issues are also addressed by EMIF-supporting projects countering disinformation in their fields. We believe that by supporting quality journalism and projects that are fighting disinformation, malign foreign interference and propaganda spreading, such organisations will also support their own goals.
In my view, we haven’t explored the whole potential of cross-cutting goals of EMIF and philanthropic organisations, multilaterals, corporates and government funding. The time to start joining forces is now.
In this study, published in Journalism, the authors explore the difficulties that news organisations encounter in generating revenue, especially in the digital age. Journalism plays a vital role in democratic societies by providing crucial information and promoting accountability. Despite this, people are generally hesitant to pay for news, so with declining advertising income and low subscription rates, news organisations are struggling to sustain their operations. This study investigates the reasons behind this reluctance, focusing on motivation for news consumption and the perception of news as a public good.
The research is conducted in Singapore, a technologically advanced and economically prosperous nation with a unique media landscape. Singapore’s media is tightly regulated and mostly state-owned but generally trusted by its citizens. This context offers a fertile setting to examine the interplay between motivations, the perceived importance of news, and public willingness to pay. The study used a national online survey of 818 Singapore residents to ensure a representative sample.
The survey measures various motivations for consuming news, including surveillance (staying informed), socialisation (discussing news with others), and seeking entertainment. It also assesses participants’ perceived importance of news, both personally and socially, as well as their willingness to pay for news. The findings reveal that motivations related to socialisation and entertainment are positively associated with the willingness to pay for news. However, despite being highly rated, the motivation for staying informed does not directly correlate with a willingness to pay. Additionally, perceiving news as personally important increases the willingness to pay, while perceiving news as socially important does not have the same effect.
The analysis in the study reveals an indirect effect, where the motivation for surveillance leads to a willingness to pay, due to the perceived personal importance. This implies that individuals may not pay directly for news to stay informed, but they might be willing to do so if they consider it personally relevant. These findings show that it is important for news organisations to emphasise the personal relevance of their content to encourage subscriptions.
Additionally, the research reveals a difference in how individuals value news compared to its importance in society. People may consider news as a public good when it provides information, but as a private good when it serves entertainment or socialisation purposes. This influences their willingness to pay for news accordingly. This dual nature of news creates challenges for news organisations in monetising their content, as the traditional role of news in society does not generate financial support.
The study also acknowledges limitations, including the use of self-reported data and the specific context of Singapore, which may not apply to other countries. Future research could investigate similar questions in various contexts and analyse factors such as trust in media, current news consumption habits, and the potential market among younger audiences.
In conclusion, the article offers valuable insights into the complex connection between importance and economic viability. These findings indicate that news organisations should broaden their content strategies to appeal to a broader range of motivations and highlight the personal relevance of their journalism to encourage greater financial support. This approach can assist news outlets in navigating the ever-changing media landscape and establishing more sustainable revenue models.
Tandoc, E. C., & Seet, S. (2024). News you can refuse: If news is important, why aren’t more people willing to pay for it? Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241253143
Mia Vukojević, Program Director for the Western Balkans at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, emphasises the crucial role of supporting independent media in fostering democracy. The Fund aims to strengthen democratic governance, accountability, and transparency in a region marked by political fragility, in part through investigative journalism.
Why is it important for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to support media in Europe?
Vukojević: The Rockefeller Brothers Fund identified the Western Balkans as one of the regions we consider a pivotal place for our focus areas: democracy, peace and climate. We believe that there cannot be true democracy without strong independent media. In situations where democracy is as weak or fragile as it is in the Balkans, supporting independent media, investigative journalists, and other media organisations is absolutely critical to strengthening democracy.
What kind of news organisations do you support?
Vukojević: We mostly support investigative media organisations and independent media that cover the topics we focus on, such as democracy, governance, accountability, transparency, peace, and climate, […] around 15 organisations in four countries in the Balkans. They are all reasonably small organisations. In addition to that, we support two of their networks: Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).
Are you in touch directly with your grantees or do you work with implementers? What do you think are the advantages of these approaches?
Vukojević: We’re not that big of a funder; our budget for the Balkans is USD 4.15 million a year. Given that, we see the value in direct relationships with the organisations. We mostly support them directly, give them very flexible general support grants over a longer period of time and build direct relationships. We rarely fund projects and we don’t ask for project proposals—we support organisations for all of their work.
This is partly a question of capacity. If we had a lot more money, we would likely also contribute to some of the pooled funds. In addition to direct grants to organisations, we do provide a grant to Slaviko Curuvija Foundation, a national foundation in Serbia that funds super-small local media and individual journalists, which we would not be able to fund directly. I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. I think the biggest advantage of working directly is that, as a funder, you get to know the people at the media organisations you fund, you build relationships, you trust each other. Then it’s much easier to give general support grants, which are much more flexible than it would be through the intermediaries. I think the advantage of working through intermediaries would be that you can process much more funding and give more grants. You can reach organisations that would normally be too small for you.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from this program?
Vukojević: I think it’s the importance of long-term support. Not expecting that things will change overnight, not expecting that investigative journalism will yield results in changing the system and making it more accountable immediately. The need for funders to stay for the longer term and be flexible is very important. Journalists need to be able to work on stories, however long it takes. They need to be able to own the stories and be responsive. If we are truly good practice funders, we should fund them that way: flexible, long-term. This brings the best results.
What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far? How do you respond to these challenges?
Vukojević: One of the challenges is that the funding is generally quite scarce for independent investigative journalism work, so there is always far more need than available funding. This makes choosing who you fund, and why and how, more difficult.
There is also [the issue of] dealing with the consequences of this work for grantees. Investigative and independent journalism often puts journalists in danger. Some of them work in extremely difficult environments. They get exposed to SLAPPs [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation]. Their reputation is slandered. Some get physically attacked. Sometimes even being connected to us may expose them to challenges because we are an American foundation, and foreign funding is increasingly villainised.
It is very hard to do much about that as a funder. Our grantees are independent organisations. They realise what they’re getting themselves into and take these risks consciously. Sometimes, they need help beyond what we can provide. It is especially difficult when our grantees and their partners are personally attacked. In many of these organisations, the majority of journalists are women, and the attacks they suffer are unconscionable.
On a more positive note, what was the biggest success story? In general, how do you assess the success or impact of your programs?
Vukojević: The Balkans region is full of irresponsible, corrupt politicians. The people working in investigative media have, over the last 10 years, exposed the actions of many of those people. These journalists have worked so hard that now every citizen in the Western Balkans region has easily accessible information about properties their politicians own, buy, and hold; the big corruptive deals they’ve made on public procurement and infrastructure; their connections to organised crime. These politicians would deny it, but it is now well-evidenced and indisputable.
There are many examples of public officials, including ministers, having to resign or being prosecuted after being exposed for doing something that they should not have done.
This is a really big success in terms of the big picture and long-term thinking. The change is slow. It often takes a long time, and there are difficulties with the institutions that don’t always act or prosecute quickly, but it is happening. I’m very proud of our grantees for everything they have achieved so far. And there is still, of course, so much more to do. I am looking forward to seeing where they take it.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not yet funded journalism but are considering doing so?
Vukojević: I usually start by saying “you can’t be serious about working for democracy if you are not supporting independent journalism.” That’s number one. Number two, if you do fund journalism, please do not do projects, log frames, six-month funding. These journalists are experts and they need general support to their organisations so that they can make decisions, take action, and pivot as they see necessary. Trust them. You will be amazed to see what they can achieve.
The role of AI in journalism offers both benefits and risks. Whilst it enhances efficiency for tasks such as transcription and data analysis, it also poses ethical concerns, propagates misinformation, and causes dependency on tech companies. Responsible AI use, editorial oversight, and robust training are crucial to navigating these growing challenges. Support from donors is essential for building capacity and fostering innovation in newsrooms.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) refers to: “a collection of ideas, technologies, and techniques that relate to a computer system’s capacity to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence.”
Large language models (LLMs), able to comprehend and generate human language text, became widely accessible in late 2022, with OpenAI’s ChatGPT pioneering these efforts. Following its launch, companies like Google, Meta, and Microsoft released their own generative AI products, integrating the technology into existing systems.
The role of AI in journalism emerges as a double-edged sword. Whilst it has already inflicted much harm through social media algorithms and surveillance practices, it also holds promise for enhancing efficiency in the media. Journalists can harness AI to mitigate risks through informed adoption, leveraging its capabilities to increase the speed of monotonous tasks, track malign government funding, and identify deepfakes, particularly benefiting data journalists. However, it is imperative to maintain awareness of the risks posed by AI, especially considering past mistakes with social media and the tendency towards overreliance on it for audience reach.
AI Usage in Newsrooms
Media professionals are increasingly making use of AI tools. A May 2024 global survey conducted by the public relations firm Cision found that 47% of journalists used tools like ChatGPT or Bard. At the same time, in an AP report published in April, 70% of respondents, journalists and editors worldwide indicated that their organisation had, at some point, used various AI tools.
However, geographical differences in AI usage in newsrooms can also be observed. According to a new report by the Thomson Foundation and Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), focusing on the Visegrad countries (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary), “AI adoption is slower and marked by ethical concerns, highlighting the need for careful management and collaboration.”
At the same time, journalists have been using AI tools for longer and on a much broader spectrum than most would think, says Damian Radcliffe, a professor at the School of Journalism at the University of Oregon.
In a recent survey by the Oxford-based Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (RISJ), media professionals mentioned back-end automation, such as transcription and copyediting, where AI tools are the most helpful in the media industry. This was followed by recommender systems, content production, and commercial applications. Another common example of AI application in newsrooms includes data analysis and automating repetitive tasks. This helps improve efficiency and frees up journalists to focus on more complex stories, whilst simultaneously increasing the speed and decreasing the costs of content production and distribution. Nowadays, “it is almost impossible to work without AI tools, especially if one works with large datasets,” says Willem Lenders, Program Manager at Limelight Foundation.
AI tools are used in newsrooms for various other purposes as well. According to Radcliffe, one significant use is in programmatic advertising: over 90% of US ads are handled this way. Another innovative application is dynamic paywalls, which adjust based on user-specific factors such as location, device, and visit frequency. This approach, employed by larger outlets like The Atlantic and The Wall Street Journal, allows organisations to tailor the number of free articles and subscription offers to individual users. Additionally, AI is used for predictive analytics, helping newsrooms identify trending stories, influence article placement, devise social media strategies, and plan follow-up stories.
AI-Associated Risks
The use of AI in journalism also presents significant concerns, as the usage of AI poses substantial risks related to reliability, ethics, and the dissemination of misinformation. AI’s ability to “hallucinate” facts, or generate plausible but incorrect information, makes its use in information gathering problematic. Therefore, experts argue that news organisations should implement ethical guidelines and robust training to navigate these challenges.
Limelight’s Lenders emphasises that responsible AI use depends not just on its application but on who owns the tool, drawing parallels to the influence of big tech on content distribution. He advocates for a balanced use that includes human oversight, to prevent the exclusion of critical editorial judgment. Radcliffe also identifies the most significant risk as removing human oversight in newsrooms. He thinks there are topics where AI tools can be helpful, for example in sports coverage, which can often be quite formulaic. However, other beats might require more nuance, and AI cannot provide that yet. An example of this risk is the insensitive headline generated by AI in an MSN obituary of a basketball player, underscoring the need for editorial supervision to avoid catastrophic mistakes. Furthermore, Lenders argues that LLMs regurgitate what has been written before, which can lead to reproducing harmful stereotypes.
The current function of generative AI jeopardises access to trustworthy information. It does not distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources and often fails to disclose its primary source of information, making verification difficult. This amplifies misinformation and public confusion, emphasising users’ need for digital and media literacy.
Accountability is another critical issue. Unlike human-generated content, AI lacks clear attribution, undermining public trust in journalism. Journalists’ intellectual property can even be compromised this way, as AI often uses information from journalistic articles without credit, exacerbating existing viability issues in journalism.
Radcliffe notes that smaller newsrooms might embrace AI as a cost-saving measure, reducing the number of reporters. Those roles will never come back. He warns of the dangers of dependency on platforms, highlighting the lessons from social media where algorithm shifts have impacted reach, and the control has always remained with tech companies. “It is not a partnership; all power lies with the tech companies,” he argues.
Lenders echoes this concern, pointing out that the primary aim of tech companies is profit, not public interest or quality information. He suggests developing independent tools and technologies, like those by OCCRP, ICIJ, Bellingcat, Independent Tech Alliance, AI Forensics, and others. However, these require significant investment and user support from the journalism sector.
Radcliffe further cautions that news organisations risk becoming redundant if users turn to chatbots for information. To mitigate this, he advises preventing chatbots from scraping content and looking to the newsrooms to create unique content that adds value beyond what AI can offer. He believes fostering trust, and educating the audience on why journalism matters, are crucial. Lenders concurs that AI cannot replace the relationship with the audience, highlighting trust as the main issue. He also believes smaller independent newsrooms will recognise that they cannot maintain quality by relying solely on AI.
The debate about AI in journalism often polarises into two extremes, Lenders adds that it will either save or ruin the industry. “We don’t need to worry about the robots, we have to look at the reality,” he argues. A realistic perspective acknowledges the harm algorithms have already caused, such as in ad distribution and spreading disinformation. An AI Forensics study showed how Meta allowed pro-Russia propaganda ads to flood the EU, illustrating the potential for AI misuse.
Reporters Without Borders (RSF) also raises alarms about AI-generated websites that mimic real media sites and siphon ad revenue from legitimate news outlets. Research by NewsGuard identified numerous sites predominantly written by AI, aiming solely for profit by maximising clicks with minimal effort. This approach eliminates ethical journalism, floods the market with questionable articles, and diminishes access to reliable information. These AI-generated articles also sometimes contain harmful falsehoods, underscoring the moral necessity to disclose AI-generated content and ensure transparency, so readers can critically evaluate the information.
The Potential Role of Funders
In this evolving landscape, donors could play a crucial role, not by providing direct solutions but by supporting organisations which, together, form an ecosystem that nurtures innovation. Their involvement could bridge the gap between technology and policy, particularly in journalism. For example, donors can invite experts with a high level of tech knowledge to critically assess potential pitfalls and ensure they are well-informed, in order to avoid simplistic utopian or dystopian narratives.
Lenders highlights the importance of donors informing themselves about the possible harms and risks of AI and encouraging grantees to improve their technology knowledge profoundly. He emphasises the need for good core funding to avoid reliance on cheaper, riskier solutions. Lenders argues that, given the rapid pace of technological change, it is crucial to have robust organisations that can anticipate risks and support journalists in connecting with these entities or conducting their analyses. Rather than shifting funding every few years, building capacity within newsrooms and CSOs to keep up with AI advancements is a more sustainable strategy.
Conversely, Radcliffe underscores the necessity of AI training, particularly for smaller news organisations. Whilst large organisations are well-resourced and capable of developing in-house AI solutions, smaller ones often lack the resources to follow or contribute to debates on AI. These smaller newsrooms are also less able to engage in legal battles against tech companies. Thus, donors should support them in lobbying for their needs and amplifying their voices. Training surrounding the uses and dangers of AI, especially increasing revenue through methods like dynamic paywalls and facilitating connections among smaller newsrooms to share their AI experiences and use cases, are crucial steps donors can take. “But I would encourage all donors to ask newsrooms what they need,” he adds. “Don’t dictate the training and funding, ask the outlets you want to support how you can best help them in this space.”
Smaller publishers often turn to third-party AI solutions from platform companies due to the high costs and challenges of independent development, such as the need for extensive computing power, competition for tech talent, and the scarcity of large datasets. These platform solutions offer convenience, scalability, and cost-effectiveness, allowing publishers to leverage AI capabilities without the financial burden of in-house development. However, Lenders points out the risks associated with cheaper solutions. “We need newsrooms that have the capacity to be critical of what they use,” he argues, adding that it is not a question of utopia versus dystopia: understanding how AI tools can help newsrooms requires a realistic analysis of its benefits and risks.
Despite an abundance of narratives pushing for green and just transitions, many fail to engage those capable of instigating real change. Laudes Foundation aims to disrupt this status quo by determining and disseminating compelling narratives grounded in solutions, tailored to spark meaningful action among key decision-makers across business, finance and government. Megan McGill, Senior Programme Manager explains how supporting journalism contributes to these goals, and what the most important lessons they have learned so far are.
Why did the Laudes Foundation start supporting media?
McGill: The Laudes Foundation is focused on inspiring and challenging industry to deliver a green, fair and inclusive transition. We apply system change principles in how we work, which means we also work at the level of mindset shift. In other words, if the stakeholders we are trying to influence don’t hold the right mindsets about what needs to change, why and how, then there is an intrinsic motivation entirely missing to move on the solutions we have at hand.
With this in mind, we designed a grant programme called “Narrative” of which journalism plays an important role. Journalism is a field with the reach to hold decision-makers accountable and highlight through evidence-based arguments where industry needs to and can move with more urgency and more ambition on a green, fair and inclusive transition. What this looks like in practice in our grant-making is helping newsrooms and staff (either directly or indirectly via capacity-building programmes) increase coverage of climate reporting across all beats of the newsroom – more evidence-based stories highlighting greenwashing or green-delay to hold laggards accountable, more solutions-driven stories to inspire other decision-makers to act, and more stories from workers and communities illustrating the intersection of climate and labour to show why industry action on climate must be just and how it can be. And media is an industry itself with investors and business leaders making decisions about media companies. So, in that respect, journalism is certainly an actor, not just a channel.
It was in early 2023 where we intentionally decided to increase our focus on this aspect of our Narrative grant programme. This was in some part due to what we saw as an increase in polarised reporting on climate, where progress is being undermined through mis- and disinformation, and also through headlines climate-related creating a sense of paralysis on what to do about the crisis. This means fact-based journalism is losing out, making it harder for progressive players to see that momentum is on their side or getting the laggards to feel like they need to start moving.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from this programme?
McGill: It is difficult to know if the news media grants are getting cut through with a broad swath of decision-makers. I think that the field of narrative shift relies significantly on metrics related to reach or even sometimes just a belief that the more a story is told, the more people who read it, it’s just going to change someone’s way of thinking. We can definitely agree that if something is not being talked about, then for sure it won’t be acted upon. But we are taking for granted that when something is talked about that it will get acted on.
I think my biggest learning is we’ve got a lot more work to do as a field, both the funders and the organisations that we fund to show the impact of narrative work. For sure with journalism, you can find cases where a reporting project has led to a policy change. That kind of pathway of impact is easy to explain, but I think the mindset shift, where you really start to get people to internalise a problem and to feel responsible for acting on it, which is what we need for wide scale action on the climate crisis, we haven’t started yet to systematically measure that kind of mindset shift. To get more effective at funding this kind of work, we have got to get better at measuring impact.
What kind of other challenges did you encounter?
McGill: The main challenge is that stories catalysed by Laudes-funded grants on just transition most often are not specific to the industries Laudes is trying to shift: built environment, finance, fashion and food. There are some, but not that many, and often they are not explaining what to do about just transitions. I think to motivate the private sector to move on just transition, we need more solutions-driven storytelling, because, in the absence of strong legislation to bring up the laggards, we will rely heavily on inspiration and a sense of a race to the top to move more progressive actors.
So, it has been a challenge to show that an increase in reporting on just transition more broadly will support the transition of industries Laudes is focused on.
What was the biggest success story? In general, how do you assess the success of your programs?
McGill: One of the things we can highlight as progress is that our partners have contributed to just transition entering mainstream news coverage. Evidence we are using is still focused on reach, but it’s certainly acting as a strong complement to the advocacy of other organisations on just transition.
Three years ago, when Laudes made its first grants in the space, just transition did not feature in mainstream news. I think it’s great progress to build, but again, there is still a push needed on measuring the real influence of this reporting on the mindsets of people with influence to act on the political, finance and business solutions to a just transition.
In which regions are you supporting media, and what kind of media do you work with?
McGill: We haven’t had a specific geographical scope in our grant making. We share with our partners the geographies of importance to Laudes Foundation, but it’s not a requirement to focus on these regions.
The media organisations that we work with and want to continue working with are nonprofit media organisations. Those who write and publish themselves, but we also work with organisations that are trying to enable the news industry to increase reporting on climate and just transitions like the Oxford Climate Journalism Network, Arena for Journalism in Europe and most recently, Solutions Journalism Network.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so? How should they prepare for such a programme?
McGill: What we quickly learned is that it was smart to focus on news media rather than any media. Given we are trying to reach decision-makers more directly with compelling narratives on just transitions, news is a good place to start rather than trying to also work on, for example, social media, film and entertainment. Where we could create more clarity is whether we as a funder should also start to address the more structural issues of the news industry rather than simply building the capacity of the industry to report more on climate and just transition. Can we do the latter without doing the former?
So my advice would be to create a clear scope boundary for working in journalism, to learn, and then grow from there.
Launched in 2018, the Google News Initiative (GNI) aimed to strengthen journalism through collaboration with news institutions through financial and training support paid for by Google. The initiative claimed to focus on elevating quality journalism, evolving business models for sustainability, and empowering news organisations through technology. Initially targeting European newsrooms, the programme later expanded globally, supporting hundreds of media organisations with over US$ 300 million. Amidst journalism’s institutional crisis due to digitisation and declining ad revenue, the GNI provided crucial funding, especially in regions like the Middle East and Africa.
Innovation in journalism, essential for survival, encompasses incremental and radical changes driven by technological advancements like AI and data practices. Responsible innovation emphasises anticipating and mitigating potential harms, ensuring innovations align with societal values. However, challenges include power imbalances and the risk of infrastructural capture, where news organisations depend heavily on tech platforms for innovation, potentially compromising editorial autonomy. As digital platforms shape news content distribution, news publishers increasingly rely on them, raising concerns about platform power and editorial autonomy. The concepts of media capture and infrastructural autonomy shed light on the implications of the financial support given by digital platforms to news organisations to cover costs related to innovation projects.
The GNI Innovation Challenge, analysed in this academic article, has supported 43 projects in Africa and the Middle East until 2021, with a significant concentration in 2019 and 2021. Projects primarily focused on technological innovation, audience building, and business model development, with a notable emphasis on AI solutions in newsrooms. The study shows that this support has been unevenly distributed across the region. Middle Eastern countries like Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon have attracted more projects involving emerging technologies compared to other countries.
Yet, as the study found, the implementation of technological innovations in these regions has been faced with several challenges, including the lack of skilled professionals, high hiring costs, and reliance on third-party vendors. Moreover, many projects have not led to viable products due to funding limitations and a lack of ongoing support. Additionally, the co-funding requirement imposed by Google on the media outlets requiring this support has added a financial strain on news organisations, further hurting their sustainability.
While some projects strove for inclusiveness by engaging diverse stakeholders, others were developed primarily by organisations outside Africa and the Middle East, limiting their impact on local development. Generally, the reliance on platforms like Google for infrastructure and funding creates dependencies that can hinder the autonomy of news organisations.
In conclusion, while the GNI Innovation Challenge has provided valuable support for technological innovation in Africa and the Middle East, there are significant challenges that need to be addressed to ensure the sustainability and inclusivity of these projects.
de-Lima-Santos, M., Munoriyarwa, A., Elega, A., & Papaevangelou, C. (2023). Google News Initiative’s Influence on Technological Media Innovation in Africa and the Middle East. Media and Communication, 11(2), 330-343. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v11i2.6400
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) represent a growing threat to press freedom, as powerful entities abuse legal systems to silence criticism and investigative reporting. While overt threats like physical violence also persist, legal intimidation has become increasingly prevalent, aiming to suppress independent voices and shield the powerful from scrutiny.
These lawsuits, primarily aimed to intimidate, target journalists and media outlets, alongside activists and NGOs. Perpetrators, often well-resourced individuals or institutions, exploit their advantage to exhaust their targets financially and emotionally. While some SLAPPs are eventually dismissed, the prolonged litigation process inflicts significant harm on journalists, distracting them from work and causing reputational damage. Even news organisations that win these lawsuits face pyrrhic victories, as the ordeal exacts a toll on their resources and wellbeing.
SLAPPs have become a tool to suppress dissent even in democratic countries. The European Commission has responded with an anti-SLAPP Directive adopted by the European Parliament in February 2024. The directive aims to safeguard public participation against legal abuse. However, the complex nature of SLAPPs requires ongoing research and concerted efforts to protect press freedom and democratic values.
The rise of SLAPPs has led to a shrinkage of investigative journalism, with media owners and editors often pressuring for simpler stories due to the financial burden of lawsuits. Journalists face self-censorship and editorial pressure, prompting many of them to become more reluctant when pursuing investigations. While some journalists continue their work unabated, others become more cautious and seek approval from their legal department before publication.
SLAPPs also impose significant restrictions on press freedom in general, with journalists facing economic intimidation and the fear of job loss. Therefore, self-censorship becomes prevalent as journalists weigh the consequences of their reporting, affecting both their professional practices and willingness to cover sensitive issues.
SLAPPs also impact journalists’ professional and personal lives on multiple levels. Concerns about future employment, the time-consuming nature of legal proceedings, and the psychological toll on journalists and their families are all significant factors. Lack of support from employers and colleagues exacerbates the situation although international press freedom organisations often provide practical assistance.
Participants of the survey conducted for the research presented in this study emphasised the need for legal reforms to address SLAPPs and protect media professionals. Press unions are called upon to provide economic, legal, and psychological support, as well as to raise awareness about the impact of SLAPPs on press freedom.
Despite the study’s limitations, including a small sample size and country-specific experiences (journalists from Greece and Cyprus participated in the survey), its findings shed light on the hidden costs of SLAPPs and the urgent need for comprehensive legal frameworks and institutional support to protect press freedom. Ultimately, SLAPPs represent a sophisticated form of censorship that undermines democracy and journalism’s role as a watchdog.
Papadopoulou, L., & Maniou, T. A. (2024). “SLAPPed” and censored? Legal threats and challenges to press freedom and investigative reporting. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241242181