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
Amidst a global rise in news avoidance, an increasing number of journalists and researchers map its implications and underlying causes. As a response, a number of strategies are being proposed to re-engage with audiences and reaffirm the value of professional journalism.
The global increase in news avoidance is causing concern among journalists and media researchers alike. To understand the phenomenon, it is important to distinguish between selective and consistent news avoidance, as each has its own reasons and consequences. Selective avoidance, often attributed to news fatigue and information overload, involves steering clear of specific topics or sources rather than entirely shunning the news. Consistent news avoidance is more concerning, indicating minimal engagement with news in general.
According to the 2023 Digital News Report by Reuters Institute, financed by Google, the proportion of those who avoid news, either consistently or occasionally, is close to all-time highs of 36% across various markets. Selective news avoiders follow various strategies, including avoiding news on certain channels such as the radio or social media, as well as more specific actions like reducing news checking frequency or avoiding certain topics like the conflict in Ukraine or national politics.
Benjamin Toff, assistant professor at the Hubbard School of Journalism & Mass Communication at the University of Minnesota, points out that there is less data on consistent news avoidance, which is a particularly concerning trend in countries like the UK and US where it has risen to 7%. “In anti-democratic countries there is also a correlation between lower press freedom and higher news avoidance, because news is perceived as less reliable and less trustworthy,” Toff said, adding that data about the phenomenon in highly autocratic countries are scarce.
There are various reasons behind the increase of news avoidance. Toff explained that selective news avoidance is a response to information overload and the complexities of today’s media landscape, reflecting a general disengagement from news. This phenomenon is closely intertwined with digital infrastructure and with people’s identities and ideological beliefs, shaping their perception of the world.
In a survey conducted in the Netherlands, researchers identified seven distinct profiles of news avoiders, each with its own set of characteristics and motivations. These profiles range from those who occasionally avoid news due to concerns about its quality or its negative impact on their emotions to those who prefer alternative media sources. Among these profiles are also those who feel indifferent towards news, or find it challenging to engage with. Additionally, there are those who hold negative sentiments toward news, often driven by political ideologies.
News avoidance is more prevalent among younger generations, Toff said, as well as among women and those with lower levels of education and socioeconomic status. There is no specific data linking the growing popularity of TikTok to the increasing tendency of younger audiences to access news through the platform, a trend that suggests a weakening connection to traditional news brands. Yet, there is a perception among these audiences that traditional news habits are outdated and a belief that news will naturally come to them.
News avoidance can have serious societal consequences. Toff noted a strong correlation between political engagement and news consumption. “Political coverage often requires a significant level of background knowledge, it is like tuning in to Episode 3 in Season 4 of Game of Thrones, without knowing what happened in the show before,” he said. Since news avoidance is particularly prevalent among disadvantaged groups in the society, it poses a risk of widening existing inequalities by further skewing mainstream journalism towards privileged audiences.
As publishers have recognised the urgency of the issue, many started to devise strategies to address it. Researchers have also proposed several research-backed steps that journalists and editors can take to effectively counteract news avoidance.
One crucial aspect involves responding to how news makes people feel emotionally, Toff said. News organisations should acknowledge common complaints about news being depressing, irrelevant, or overwhelming. By presenting uplifting, relevant, and accessible content that resonates with people’s lives, they may attract audiences who previously avoided news products. Additionally, efforts to engage news avoiders should prioritise representing and respecting diverse groups, fostering a sense of inclusion and relevance.
To make news more accessible for consistent avoiders, simplifying news content and formats is essential. Offering summary pieces, providing background and context for stories, and personalising news delivery based on individual interests and levels of background knowledge can help engage audiences who may feel overwhelmed by traditional news formats.
Furthermore, educating the public about the value of journalism and promoting innovative news formats are also important steps in countering news avoidance. Actively listening to audience feedback is a key component of successful engagement strategies.
Ultimately, countering news avoidance requires an all-purpose approach involving news organisations, especially public service media, non-profits, and even civic organisations and universities that can offer media literacy training, according to Toff. By making news content more visible and relevant to everyday life, reaching audiences on their preferred platforms and in preferred formats, and emphasising the social benefits of news consumption, publishers can attempt to re-engage audiences and reaffirm the importance of professional journalism.
Robert Brestan, Editor-in-Chief of HlidaciPes.org explains why independent news organisations need donor funding, and shares insights about how grantees think about such projects.
Let’s not kid ourselves. Quality, responsible and independent journalism cannot be done without money. The fact that a journalist is well (i.e. adequately) paid also determines the degree of his or her self-confidence, assertiveness and control vis-à-vis the powerful and often the rich.
This is just to begin with, to clarify our positions. Money is simply crucial, and it is impossible not to see that the crisis of media funding is being addressed practically all over the world. Advertising is declining, readers have gotten used to not paying for content, they often make do with just “information” from social media, or they don’t really want to bother with news anymore.
But what to do about it then? In our project HlidaciPes.org, a Czech independent analytical-investigative website, we decided that we don’t want to go the way of the paywall. Although for some media it is a legitimate and functional way, we feel that writing for a narrow circle of subscribers only, persuading the already convinced and addressing only like-minded people is not the right journalistic approach.
Nevertheless, internet advertising generates only a small income for a medium of our size, just like direct support, such as voluntary donations, from readers, however much we appreciate it. That leaves only two relevant sources of income: the first is a generous and enlightened donor and philanthropist who ideally supports the medium selflessly and asks for nothing in return, let alone has any say in its content. Fortunately, such an endangered species still exists, even if it is on the verge of extinction. I am pleased to say that our project has one such supporter, covering about a third of our annual budget.
And then there are various grants. I dare to say that their importance is growing, and without them many media would have disappeared. I am therefore pleased to be able to describe and explain one thought here: many grants to support journalism actually make practical life in newsrooms quite complicated. It may sound strange, but it is true. Topics just for grants are invented, editorial offices guess whether the evaluator will be interested in this or that story, they try to fit within the boundaries of the grant, and often end up spending time on something they didn’t really want to write about.
And then there are all those beautiful, and certainly well-intentioned, ideas of grant providers that the best thing about journalism is sharing experiences, organising various conferences, talks, and cross-border cooperation – it sounds quite nice, but believe me, it has little to do with real journalism. It takes away human, mental, and financial capacities and time from real work. It may be fine, but it’s just something extra – after the basic needs have been met.
What journalists of independent media really and acutely need is simply money to operate. In our case, for example, that means only one thing – money dedicated to a regular income for our writers and contributors to do what they do best: come up with original topics and write about important issues.
So if the grants are really to be precisely targeted and to support journalists and journalism, they should be grants for the day-to-day journalistic work: researching topics, verifying information, meeting the actors of important events, investigating and then writing articles, interviews, reports, analyses, etc.
If you want to support journalism – and if you do, we appreciate it immensely – you can help it most by simplifying things along the lines of the following:
- We (the donors) see/we know/we’ve verified that you’re doing honest and responsible journalistic work, and you meet the other conditions.
- Tell us which topics you cover/want to cover, maybe even through international cooperation.
- If you meet our criteria, we will send you money – not for sandwiches and coffee, not for conferences, not for sharing experiences, but for work.
If all grants looked like this, life would be much better. But not just for journalists. Everyone who understands the importance of independent media in a democratic and free society would be better off.
In an era where the value of journalism is increasingly scrutinised, understanding its impact presents a complex puzzle. From traditional metrics to innovative methodologies, the quest to measure impact evolves, with new tools emerging.
Both journalists and donors recognise that the media operates within a larger ecosystem, making it difficult to isolate and measure the precise impact of journalism. Furthermore, impact can vary significantly depending on the goals and priorities of different journalists and newsrooms. For instance, while one news organisation might prioritise educating its audience and measure impact by assessing changes in public opinion on contentious issues, other outlets may focus on different indicators.
Still, journalists and media organisations worldwide are engaged in assessing the impact of their work, driven by a dual motivation of self-evaluation and the need to demonstrate value to donors, investors, and the public. Increasingly, media outlets recognise that communicating the positive outcomes of their work not only boosts trust and loyalty among audiences but also holds potential for revenue growth.
This shift reflects a common belief among funders that investing in journalism requires tangible evidence of impact, moving beyond viewing it solely as a public good. Such recognition underscores the need for donors to evaluate their investments in media and journalism programmes thoroughly.
Insights into measuring impact, such as those outlined by the International Journalists’ Network, highlight its multifaceted nature, encompassing not only the dissemination of information but also its broader societal effects. From shaping public opinion and encouraging public discourse to driving policy change, the impact of journalism spans various phases, often defying simple cost-benefit analyses. Moreover, methodologies for measuring impact extend beyond traditional metrics like online engagement, with a broad range of tools developed by academics. Add to that cross-border collaborations, or even negative consequences, such as potential backlash against journalists.
To analyse impact, there are a lot of different studies across various fields like economics and political science, focusing on topics from government spending and corruption to voter behaviour, argues Anya Schiffrin, director of the media, technology, and communications specialisation at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), adding that these “measurement tools are becoming more and more sophisticated.”
The Impact Dashboard, developed by Pluralis in collaboration with the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC), is one of such tools. It evaluates supported media organisations across three key dimensions: long-term sustainability, plurality, and accessibility to information, analysing impact on three levels. On the micro level, it tracks how supported organisations change in terms of revenues and audience reach over the course of working with the funder. On the meso level, the Dashboard collects evidence to measure the level of media plurality in the country. Finally, on the macro level, it examines the impact on society, searching for evidence such as potential policy changes resulting from coverage by the media receiving the grant.
Another approach is proposed by Schiffrin, who, with Andre Correa d’Almeida, Lindsay Green-Barber, Adelina Yankova, and Dylan W. Groves developed a multi-faceted metric system to analyse media impact. As they argue, three primary research strands contribute to understanding media impact: social scientists focus on identifying causal effects, often related to citizen knowledge, attitudes, and government responses; media researchers offer accounts of causal processes and diverse media effects; and media practitioners provide an insider’s view, highlighting the impact on journalists and media organisations. These approaches can complement each other, hence their proposed taxonomy that can unify measures of media impact, and inform decisions by practitioners and donors.
The taxonomy comprises three levels of impact. At the individual level, media reports influence beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. The network/organisation level involves the collective impact on social networks, norms, and actions, including effects within media organisations and journalist communities. The institution level pertains to long-term effects on institutions and culture. The taxonomy also distinguishes between external impact on society and internal impact within the journalism community, providing a framework that can be adapted to different objectives, acknowledging the diverse goals of donors, activists, journalists, and media outlets. “One can look at the table and then measure those metrics their organisation cares about,” Schiffrin said.
In evaluating the impact of journalism, it is important to recognise that some news organisations have smaller audiences rendering metrics like pageviews or listenership alone inadequate. Furthermore, while one traditional measure of journalism’s impact involves influencing government policy or prompting officials to address issues, achieving such outcomes often demands sustained reporting over an extended period.
Furthermore, in countries with more autocratic rulers and intensified attacks on journalism, government responses to policy concerns or official misconduct exposed by investigative reporting cannot be expected. In fact, in such landscapes if donor funding contributes to the survival of a news organisation, it can already be perceived as having a significant impact. “It is important to keep the flame alive,” Schiffrin said. “You don’t want these outlets to die.” She added that, when measuring impact, journalism donors should avoid burdening grantees with overly demanding reporting requirements, focusing instead on listening to their feedback.