join

Over the course of three decades, USAID has distributed funds in more than 40 countries. It spent US $130 million in 2022 to strengthen independent media. Olesia Gardner, USAID’s Civil Society and Media Advisor discusses challenges and partnerships, and highlights success stories, emphasising the need for dedication and local engagement in media development, as well as the vital role of media pluralism in upholding democratic values.

Why is it important for USAID to support the media?

Gardner: Media pluralism serves as a crucial tool for maintaining a robust media landscape and upholding democratic values. For over three decades, USAID has helped to fuel the growth of an independent media ecosystem across Europe and Eurasia. However, today the sector is facing unprecedented challenges to both a free press and to broader democratic progress: financial insecurity, technological change, eroding public trust, and threats from powerful political and business interests.

USAID support strengthens the competitiveness, credibility, capacity, and innovation of content creators, and equips journalists and media outlets, including investigative journalists, with the tools they need to confront these challenges. USAID programmes also foster demand for high-quality news and information and improve critical thinking skills among news consumers.

What kind of news organisations are eligible for support? In which countries does USAID fund media?

Gardner: USAID has been one of the world’s leading supporters of independent media for over three decades in over 40 countries. In the 2022 financial year alone, USAID spent approximately US$130 million to support media and the free flow of information. USAID’s comprehensive approach to supporting media systems globally focuses on supporting both the supply side, so content producers and distributors, and the demand side, audiences and the legal enabling environment.

Our programmes help support journalists to develop and grow their audiences, establish more sustainable sources of revenue, leverage digital tools and technology to broaden their audiences and strengthen engagement with them, and protect themselves from increasing digital, legal, psycho-social, and physical threats to their lives and livelihoods. USAID’s support seeks to strengthen journalistic professionalism, establish media management skills, and promote free and independent media. Among our partners are news publishers, investigative journalists, and media organisations.

Do you implement the programmes yourself, or do you involve other organisations? What is the advantage of your approach?

Gardner: At USAID, we achieve our mission by partnering with individuals and organisations around the world. Working together, we find innovative and cost-effective solutions to pressing global challenges. We have been experimenting and encouraging partnerships as these bring together various expertise, personalities, and resources to achieve the most impact. For example, the Central Europe Media programme is a partnership between Zinc Network and IREX. The Media Trends conference in Budapest [in December 2023] was a success due to partnership with the Center for Sustainable Media. In Bulgaria, we have organised two workshops for journalists in partnership with the Association of European Journalists (AEJ).

Thinking of media support programmes in Europe, what are the biggest challenges you have to face?

Gardner: The economic sustainability of media outlets continues to be a major challenge. The question arises how traditional and emerging media can maintain relevance and financial viability in this ever-evolving landscape where entertainment and information consumption patterns are rapidly changing. We operate in an environment where holding the powerful to account is increasingly difficult, and where state actors routinely interfere with the advertising market, starving independent media to favour those willing to toe the government line.

Through our media support programmes we aim to create space and opportunities for news organisations to access different experiences, tools and thinking. In Central Europe, for example, we conducted an audience research, which was presented broadly to independent media in five countries. The feedback we received showed that the research helped better understand the audiences and also the importance of data-driven technologies in reaching outside the audience bubble. The overwhelming response to the research also showed a big appetite among the journalism community to introduce surveys in their work.

What was the biggest success story among your projects?

Gardner: USAID has lots of success stories to share, but I will focus on the ones achieved by the Balkan Media Assistance programme (BMAP). USAID launched the first iteration of BMAP in September 2017 with the objective of enhancing the professionalism and sustainability of media in the Balkan region by working with renowned and promising news media outlets to improve their digital content quality, business processes, and collaboration. The success of BMAP, which closed in July 2022, led to the launch of a second iteration of the programme, entitled Balkan Media Assistance Programme to Foster Organisation Readiness While Advancing Resilient Development (BMAP Forward), which unfolded in February 2022.

BMAP was designed and implemented by 10 media outlets spanning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. The successes of the BMAP programmes have been multi-faceted and far-reaching. All of its key partners have seen marked increases in their programmatic advertising revenue, significantly boosting their financial sustainability. For example, Bosnia-based media outlet Oslobođenje saw an increase in monthly programmatic advertising revenue of 206 percent, going from $2,770 at the start of the programme to $5,680 by the end of the programme. Meanwhile, Vijesti, an outlet based in Montenegro, increased its advertising revenue by 1,300 percent going from US$1,100 in revenue per month to US$10,200. Media partners participating in BMAP also emerged with a more robust network and stronger relations with other media outlets.

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

Gardner: Media development is a fascinating area, but it also requires dedication, patience and financial commitment. Sound analysis of the media and its environment in a country is needed before planning a new media development intervention to map the media outlets and the operational environment, donors and what type of assistance they provide, to identify the gaps in technical assistance and funding.

Our experience has proven that local consultants are in most demand […] as they already understand the local context, speak the language, and most importantly because of trust. Finally, the media development programmes tend to be the most successful when guided by the principles of locally-led development where partners are involved in defining their own vision for success; whereas the donors remain flexible and attentive to the needs for the partners.

Miguel Castro, head of Global Media Partnerships at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, shares his thoughts about partnering with large, mainstream media organisations, what the foundation looks for in their partners, the biggest challenges when working with such outlets, and how they measure the success of their projects.

The Gates Foundation is one of the largest spenders on media partnerships among philanthropies. Why is this field so important for the Foundation?

Castro: I’m not really sure whether the foundation is among the largest philanthropic investors in media anymore, the data is always very difficult to crack. We are definitely a large funder, no question about it, but in the last few years there has been an increased investment by philanthropic organisations that have not been traditionally investing in the media space, and there is very little tracking about all of that. But we do have a significant portfolio.

Ever since 2011, when the Foundation decided to centralise its work with media organisations through grantmaking in this unit called the Global Media Partnerships, there have been a couple of elements that substantiate this strategy. One of them has to do with helping media organisations who care about global health, development, and gender equality.

We feel that, in a sense, there has been a market failure of really high quality journalism on these issues. It is assumed that it does not bring in large audiences, although these assumptions have been challenged over the years, and we felt, and we still feel that the overall share of journalism that touches the social issues that are important for underserved populations is very small. So we have always wanted to address that market failure, by subsidising good quality journalism with organisations that share the same values and objectives.

While many donors focus on supporting outlets in financial need, the Gates Foundation forged partnerships also with mainstream media organisations, such as The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Financial Times, or Al Jazeera, among others. What is the idea behind these partnerships?

Castro: Whether the organisations we work with are for profit, or not for profit – that’s not the key question. The media organisations we work with should be mission driven. Their mission cannot only be financial return. Of course, that is a legitimate quest by any media organisation, and we want them to succeed and be sustainable, but it is not our priority.

We work with organisations that are driven by a mission that has to do with the role that we believe journalism plays in societies in being a service to society by informing its citizens. How is this impacting the development of communities across the world? That’s what matters to us. And we work with the most effective partners that we find, and often they are commercial organisations that have larger audiences. They’re more sophisticated in their approaches, have a greater understanding of engagement strategies, care about impact in the same way as we do. We have done a significant amount of partnerships with mission driven commercial organisations and in many cases, the very first relationship that they ever had with philanthropy organisations was with us.

Philanthropy is not the solution for the sustainability problems of media organisations. The media sector continues to struggle financially. We, philanthropies, at our best are at the forefront of the quests for social justice, even if it is just defining conversations, informing political debates. It doesn’t matter too much what type of organisation it is, for profit, or not for profit, if there is a mission alignment on what the role of journalism is.

What is the scope of these grants for mainstream media: do they focus on certain projects, reporting about certain topics, skill-building, maybe organisational development?

Castro: We call these relationships partnerships for a reason. They are never one thing only. There is this debate about core funding versus project based support, but I think it’s never one thing or the other. You can do core support and be project led, by providing a great deal of support for the necessary infrastructure. It is more about the design of the grants and how the funding is utilized.

So even though we do have grants and relationships that focus on sustainable development goals, or global health security, or gender equality, within that, there is always support for organizational development, there is always capacity building. Many grants pay for improving the capacity of an organization to understand their impact and their engagement and their audience, sometimes even developing products. On a few occasions we have actually provided catalytic start-up funding for the creation of an organisation.

It is always a result of smart design, and it is an important factor that we have long term commitments to our partners. Since 2018. all our grants are for three years or longer. In three years, even if it is project based funding, there is a lot of organizational development that happens.

What was the biggest success story among these partnerships with mainstream media, and in general, how do you deem a project successful?

Castro: There are a lot of success stories, I could go in many directions. In terms of impact, we have a pretty high ratio of satisfaction and success, because we invest a lot of time in due diligence at the beginning of the conversation to get to know our partners and for our partners to get to know us. Then the grantees have the capacity to do what they do best: journalism.

We track impact jointly with our grantees. We have done a lot of work with a lot of people and a lot of grantees, and have piloted a lot of things to get to a pretty solid framework to understand the performance of our partners and for the partners to understand how their journalism is achieving what they want to or not. Among other tools, we work with the American Press Institute, which has a tool called Metrics for News, which we subsidise for grantees for their media analytics.

We have regular conversations about how their journalism is doing, and its impact. And we learn from them how it is impacting their editorial approaches. I think impact should be an important question for every journalism organisation: understanding how your audiences consume your content, what they do with the knowledge that they acquire seems to me quite a fundamental question. So we have helped media organisations to do that in the most sophisticated way possible for quite a long time. And at the same time, it helped us to understand if we were using our resources in the most effective way.

If you had to mention one project as a flagship one, what would it be?

Castro: I was very happy with an unusual cooperation. In 2019, The Guardian, Spiegel, El Pais and Le Monde got together for a year-long series to examine the lives of refugees arriving to Western Europe. Migration was a really hard topic, and they came together with a project that included longform, multimedia, in-depth, amazing journalism from all four of them called The New Arrivals.

They shared resources, ideas, each of them produced a different output to their audiences in their own language. That was amazing to see. We facilitated it by providing funding, because at that time there was a lot of very domestically focused, highly political coverage and very little storytelling about what is happening to the individuals.

It was amazing for two reasons: for the quality of the journalism, for the storytelling, but also because these organizations demonstrated that they could work together. I think there should be a lot more like this, and it’s a shame that it’s 2024 and we do not see tens of projects like that.

What was the biggest challenge you encountered when working with these large organizations?

Castro: These organizations never had philanthropies on their radar. In Western Europe, and in the US. philanthropies are highly regulated. You are accountable to a strong regulatory environment for your tax status, etc. You develop these partnerships with editorial teams. But then it comes to a point when someone should develop  a proposal, and it stops being an editorial question. Someone in the building has to do that, to develop the administrative and accounting infrastructure. It is a struggle for media organizations because they are not used to it. So the first grant is always very hard. It is a bit of a cultural shift.

Also, if you are a journalist, you want to be fully, absolutely independent. There is always a healthy skepticism about funders. But as these partnerships evolve, you build trust, and then it becomes a normal and actually enriching relationship for everyone involved.

Do you have any advice for other funders?

Castro: One of the reasons why Journalism Funders Forum exists is to help foundations that are interested in working with journalism to do it in the most effective way. It can be incredibly effective. Stories are a commodity for both journalism and social organisations. Trust is a common currency. We want audiences and everyone to trust what we do, and we want to earn that trust by doing the right thing.

There are rules of the game, there are approaches that work, and approaches that work less. Journalism organizations that are new to philanthropy have to make an effort to understand what is at stake. And at the same time, philanthropic organisations that have been doing funding in other spaces for decades need to understand what is unique and what is different, and what are the rules of the game when working with media organizations. Ours are creative and editorial independence, the integrity of the journalism produced, and transparency from all parts involved.

And when that happens, it is beautiful. When journalism and philanthropies or civil society organisations with advocacy mandates come together, respecting the rules of the game of advocacy and philanthropy and policy and journalism, this is when everyone is most impactful and ultimately societies will benefit. So it is an invitation to organisations and the philanthropy space to consider journalism funding in the most mature and sophisticated way possible.

Patrice Schneider, the Chief Strategy Officer of the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), shares the lessons learned in the first two years of Pluralis, an impact investment vehicle for news companies led by MDIF. He also discusses how the investment has changed media organisations and offers advice to other funders.

In its first two years, Pluralis invested in Gremi Media, which publishes Rzeczpospolita in Poland, the publishing house Petit Press, publisher of SME in Slovakia, and the Croatian news platform Telegram. Do the three countries share any common challenges despite their different media landscapes?

Schneider: The media landscape in all these countries is indeed quite different. The similarity goes back to the challenge that Pluralis tries to address, which is media plurality. The one thing that unifies these three countries is that independent media companies are being purchased by actors that do not necessarily have an intention of providing more independent media, but rather controlling the narrative.

This is why Pluralis was created: for addressing this challenge. But we knew from the beginning that it is never a one size fits all approach, you cannot just do one transaction with Petit Press and SME and replicate it for Rzeczpospolita or for Telegram in Croatia. After doing this [work] for 28 years at MDIF, we knew there would be different things, but I think what really assembles these three markets is the problem of media plurality.

How do you cope with this challenge?

Schneider: In the world we now live in, it has become an opportunity for ill-intentioned people to buy media companies and turn the narrative in favor of their own interests or a political agenda that satisfies the new investors. So, the challenges were generally the same: finding an independent organization, assessing their capital and development needs, adjusting the capital to match their development plan, and so on.

So the modus operandi is pretty much the same as it was for MDIF for 28 years. The only difference was that we were taking positions in these companies to be able to maintain media plurality, but we were also making sure that there would be no interference.

How do we cope with this? We have the ethics to say that we do not intervene. I mean we do play a role in terms of the development of the company because we do not just do it for press freedom. The company has to survive. And that means that we have to get involved in the business development, helping them where we can. And that is very different whether you are Rzeczpospolita, SME or Telegram. They have totally different needs.

The investment in Croatia is a relatively new one, but the other two took place two years ago. How did your investments change those two organizations?

Schneider: In the case of SME, they had a majority ownership from an investment group called Penta Holding, which was involved in too many things in Slovakia, and they were starting to intervene in content, which is for us a red line. If you are an investor, you do not do this.

The moment when Pluralis bought the shares of Penta Holding, that pressure stopped immediately. I regularly see [chief editor] Beata Balogova from SME being quoted as saying that every three months she is asked about the stories she is proud of. Before that she was being asked about why they covered this story, or why they did not cover that one, and their editorial choices [were] challenged. Now she is only asked about which stories she is proud of. We talk with the business people. Business-wise, Petit Presse is a very sophisticated organization, a profitable organization. It is extraordinarily well run.

Rzeczpospolita, the number one conservative business newspaper in Poland, was going to be potentially purchased by Orlen, the state-owned oil company. That was dangerous in itself. But we also saw that even if they had made progress, they had work to be done on digital subscriptions. If you are a business newspaper in a country the size of Poland, […] they should have been the country’s leader in terms of digital subscription for the information they provide.

At Pluralis we put the capital in to preserve media plurality, but then we bring experts to help them [the organizations we invest in]. So Pluralis has been supplying massive training to Rzeczpospolita. Not on press freedom, not on editorial issues, but on how to increase digital subscriptions. And the first numbers are looking really good. Instead of sending a journalist from Western Europe to talk about press freedom, we sent [them] people from some reputable companies in Europe who have been leaders in digital subscriptions for 15 years, who know exactly how to do it, which means that, in effect, the business manager who has been doing this becomes the press freedom hero. Increasing digital subscriptions makes them more profitable. If they are more profitable, they will have more impact.

The second thing is that Pluralis managed, I think, to maintain pluralist views. Our role is to make sure that people hear different voices and then they can make their decisions.

If there was one lesson that could be considered the most important one learned from investing in these three countries and these three organizations, what would that be?

Schneider: I think that the main lesson is that Pluralis’ hypotheses work, meaning that there is a need for a new type of capital provider for independent media. Linked to that lesson is the fact that there is appetite for a new type of capital provider. And that is critical because you are asking me about the lesson [learned] from investing [in these organizations]. So, it is  not solely about investing in them, but it has taught us that there is a need for a new type of capital provider that aligns with the social value of independent media. There is an appetite for patient capital to fulfill this role of capital provider.

What do you consider Pluralis’ biggest success in its first two years?

Schneider: I think what I mentioned is also our biggest success: finding patient capital that believes in the value of independent media. By now we have raised €50 million. A lot of people thought we would not raise [the targeted] €100 million, but now we are halfway ahead of time. I think there is capital and there are places to invest, and then there is an impact on society. What do you want more?

I mean, really, that is for us the biggest success. But I think I would just tone this down by saying that the real heroes here are not MDIF, it is not Pluralis, it is not even the business people in these companies. It is really the journalists who are doing that work. And all we do is to enable them to do it in the right conditions.

Knowing what you know today, is there anything that you would do differently related to the Pluralis’ investments?

Schneider: On the investment side, not really. The only thing that we would have done differently is the pipeline, to better understand that we are not an investment fund, we are a solution. An investment fund works in a way where you have money coming in and then you ensure that you have money going out. This also means that you raise capital and then already know where you are going to invest it, and it has to be driven by the investors. In the case of Pluralis, we have capital, but we are not going to invest that money anywhere. It has to be under the right conditions of media capture, a media plurality situation. They have to be profitable and so forth.

So the one thing we could have done differently is to go out there much quicker, saying that we exist, and we are here to bring you the right capital for your needs. Hungary is a beautiful example. I wish we had done this there earlier.

Based on the experience gained in the past two years, is there any advice that you would like to share with funders who consider funding media in the region?

Schneider: Pluralis has now raised €50 million [available] for independent media and media plurality. There are many types of funders in that €50 million, but there are some, like foundations, that provided a grant in the capital structure, €5 million out of the €50 [million], and they do not expect the money back. It helps you de-risk the other €45 million, but I think the problem that Pluralis and other organizations are trying to solve is that we need to reach out to other sectors, like banks. We have the Erste Stiftung and GLS Bank, but we also need to reach out to high net worth individuals, people who have never invested in independent media. They don’t know about independent media, but you have to approach them with a product which looks risk-adjusted, and safe.

I would tell the funders: consider the word “leverage”. It is not a bad word in the financial world. I think we need to bring it to the impact investment world. Five million [euros] in grants allows you to get €45 million more for the ecosystem of independent media in emerging democracies. We need grants in many places, but also a different way of using capital, which could be either an investment, or a grant [used] simply to de-risk. I think that one, grants aimed to de-risk, is a big call for action because we are going to need more money.

The vague and undefined concepts in the new Hungarian “sovereignty bill” aimed at countering “foreign interference,” and the powers of a new authority present a threat to independent media.

On December 12, the Hungarian Parliament approved a new bill focused on “protecting national sovereignty.” Although the ruling party, Fidesz, claims that the law aims to prevent “undue political interference” by foreign agents, a closer examination reveals potential threats to press freedom and concerns over undefined parameters within the legislation.

A central feature of the bill is the establishment of a Sovereignty Protection Authority (SPA), which is empowered to investigate “foreign interference,” including acts of disinformation that influence democratic debates. Notably, the law lacks explicit clarification on the definition of “foreign interference,” leaving the interpretation to the discretion of the authority. This ambiguity raises concerns about the potential inclusion of independent media organizations as targets, particularly given the government’s historical hostility towards such entities that receive foreign grants. These organizations have long been targeted by the government’s propaganda machine, which labels them as “dollarmedia” for accepting foreign funding.

Hungarian experts say that intentionally vague definitions and the inclusion of undefined concepts in the legislation serve a deterrent purpose. Drawing parallels with the media law, one of the first major legislations passed after Fidesz had regained power in 2010, the broad interpretation possibilities granted to the SPA could lead to an atmosphere of uncertainty, similar to the effects observed when the new media authority was established.

The legislation provides unclear guidance on potential sanctions, which range from publishing investigation results to initiating criminal proceedings. The SPA is granted sweeping powers, enabling it to interrogate any individual, scrutinize all data of the targeted organization (including confidential contracts and tax files), and summon its head before the Parliament’s National Security Committee. The alarming aspect is that the SPA operates outside the judicial system and lacks any form of oversight, which raises concerns about the potential misuse of power. Furthermore, it has also been revealed that a loyal Fidesz cadre has been nominated as the head of the SPA. This individual is also known for having served as the editor-in-chief of a government-friendly weekly a few years ago. During his tenure, the publication caused a scandal by publishing a list of “agents of George Soros” in Hungary.

The broad investigative authority of the SPA, coupled with the lack of oversight, could have a chilling effect on media organizations, especially smaller ones heavily reliant on foreign grants. The fear of investigations disrupting their operations may lead such organizations to reconsider applying for foreign funding, further challenging their sustainability within Hungary’s captured media landscape.

In an unprecedented move, ten independent Hungarian news organizations issued a joint statement a day after the passage of the bill. They argue that the legislation severely restricts press freedom, potentially making it difficult or even impossible for independent newsrooms, journalists, and media companies to operate effectively.

While some government officials had previously downplayed that the new bill would target free press, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban confirmed this in a recent statement on national radio. “The Sovereignty Protection Act makes it clear that loopholes will be closed, dollars cannot roll into the coffers of the left and the left’s media. It’s not fair that foreign money is used to influence people’s political decisions according to the interests of their sponsors,” he said.

As a worrisome development, Hungary is not the only country exhibiting increased scrutiny of foreign funding for independent media lately. In November, Azerbaijan, where President Ilham Aliyev is an ally of Orban, summoned U.S., German, and French envoys to protest against what it calls “illegal financial operations” targeting investigative news outlet Abzas Media. Three journalists from Abzas Media have been detained, and the charges against them include smuggling. During the raid on the outlet’s office, police claim to have found €40,000. Similar to Hungary, the crackdown was accompanied by a campaign in the government’s propaganda machine, accusing Abzas Media of illegally bringing undeclared foreign grants into the country.

These developments may mean that some donors will have to reconsider their grantmaking strategy, either out of caution or because grantees may urge them to do so to avoid unwanted repercussions. Hungarian media organizations receiving foreign funding will most likely be under scrutiny in the upcoming months, prompting some donors and implementers to find “innovative” solutions to continue operating in the country, development that we will document in the Journalism Funders Forum newsletter.

A new study by Maria Latos, Frank Lobigs, and Holger Wormer, TU Dortmund, attempts to systematically transfer established funding models in research to journalism, where the state is involved in funding, but peer review models reduce funding bias. Using the example of the German Research Foundation (GRF), the authors developed a concept for a German Journalism Foundation, which awards funding to journalists and cooperative projects based on a peer review process.

The peer-based journalism funding model aims to address the challenges faced by media organizations by promoting excellence in journalistic projects through a competitive peer review process. It suggests awarding funding to projects in areas that are often neglected due to time and cost constraints, such as investigative journalism and fact-checking. The proposed funding areas also include innovations, infrastructure, technology, training, and in-depth journalism.

The concept involves creating an association under private law, similar to GRF, that would allow journalists, editorial teams, and cooperative projects to organize independently. The review process for funding proposals involves a combination of methods, including written statements for individual funding and group decision-making for coordinated programs. It is suggested to have interdisciplinary review groups, which include non-journalists from foundations, NGOs, and communication scientists, to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. Emphasis is placed on clear criteria for reviewer selection and application evaluation.

The study highlights the need for alternative measures to determine eligibility for journalism funding, suggesting certification or registration procedures that are aligned with journalistic principles. Funding sources could include a combination of reallocating funds from public media, direct financing from the government, and contributions from foundations and private donors.

The proposed funding amount is conceptualized with a gradual approach, initially starting with smaller amounts and eventually reaching a maximum estimate of approximately €700 million per year in Germany, which falls within the same range as the annual VAT reduction for newspapers in the country. This funding model aims to compensate for the economic challenges faced by journalism, ensuring a more targeted and sustainable approach to supporting the industry.

Latos, M., Lobigs, F., & Wormer, H. (2023). Peer-based research funding as a model for journalism funding. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231215662

As the world gears up for what has been touted by The Economist as “the biggest election year in history”, with a staggering 76 countries set to hold elections, the implications for media freedom loom large. Here are six key elections that will likely have a major impact on media freedom, some of them with clear implications for independent media in Europe.

US Presidential Elections: Will Trump Make a Comeback?

The upcoming US presidential elections pose the pivotal question: Will Donald Trump stage a return to the White House? Amidst the challenge of winning the Republican primaries, polls indicate a favorable chance for Trump. If he emerges victorious, concerns arise over a potential surge in disinformation, smear campaigns against the media, and cuts in funding for independent media. These issues could impact global perceptions and bolster populist leaders worldwide. According to data collected by the Media and Journalism Research Center, Trump’s return to power is likely to have a significant impact on the funds of American development agencies dedicated to supporting media and journalism, which are active in many European countries.

European Parliament: Rise of the Populist Far-Right

In early June, citizens of the 27 EU Member States will cast their votes for the European Parliament. The pressing question is whether the rise of far-right parties in certain countries will reverberate within the EU elections. Polls suggest gains for Eurosceptics and populists, raising uncertainties about their influence on EU policymaking, including media regulation and support for independent press. As in the United States, millions of euros in funding  now earmarked for support of independent media and journalism could be jeopardized.

India: Will the Democratic Decline Continue?

India, the world’s most populous democracy, is facing the prospect of President Narendra Modi securing a third consecutive term. The last few years of his reign have been marked by ongoing campaigns against the Muslim minority as well as numerous attacks on critics and news media, including tax raids, arrests of journalists, and targeting them with the Pegasus spyware. Modi’s government has curbed press freedom through legislation and regulation, giving the government increasing control over the information space. In elections, he will face a coalition of 28 parties, led by Rahul Gandhi.

Romania: Surge of the Far-Right

Romania is bracing itself for presidential and parliamentary elections amidst the rise of the far-right party AUR, which has surpassed 20% in recent polls. AUR is characterized by Christian fundamentalism, sovereignism, and anti-scientific sentiments. The sympathy of AUR’s leader George Simion towards Hungary’s Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party, as well as the shared disinformation narratives between the two parties, hint at the potential direction Romania may take with Simion in charge. According to data from local journalists, AUR is believed to have strong financial backing from Russia. Its narrative is blatantly supportive of Russia and its war against Ukraine. AUR’s win is expected to have negative consequences on the independent media in Romania. The party has been building its own media in recent years and has been lashing out against critical journalists. AUR is also known as one of the country’s main sources of disinformation.

Austria: Far-Right Resurgence

Austrians will also head to the polls this year, and the parliamentary elections may bolster far-right populist parties, according to analysts. The Freedom Party (FPÖ) was shaken by the so-called Ibiza scandal four years ago. The party’s President, Heinz-Christian Strache, was recorded talking about corrupt political practices, including references to their wish to build a media landscape like Viktor Orban did. Now, the FPÖ is the most popular party in the country, signaling potential challenges for media freedom in Austria.

Mexico: Disinformation on the Rise

Mexico is poised to witness a historic moment in June, as it is likely to elect its first female president. Analysts describe Claudia Sheinbaum, the candidate of the ruling party, as less populist than the current president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. However, concerns have arisen over online, state-sponsored disinformation targeting the opposition candidate, Xochitl Galvez, as well as the electoral authority. During Lopez Obrador’s regime, media outlets, especially state-controlled ones, saw their independence dwindling as a result of attacks and interference with their editorial agenda.

The outcome of these elections will have a significant influence on media freedom in the respective countries, with some of them expected to have worldwide implications as well. The media will also be scrutinized during the campaigns as elections are expected to be heavily influenced by both traditional and social media. While numerous studies focus on social media content during election periods, less attention is given to the influence of the media market’s structural conditions on election fairness and outcomes. Therefore, the Media and Journalism Research Center has launched a new project focusing on media ownership and political finance, and it will collect data about media, spending, and political parties in around 40 countries in 2024. The research will be used to issue a comparative study in 2025, yet some of the data will be shared in the upcoming JFF newsletters.

Philanthropic support for media and journalism has been growing in recent years and is seen as a way to strengthen democracy and civic engagement. However, there are still many challenges and opportunities for both funders and recipients of this support.

On 28 April Philea, in collaboration with GFMD, organised the 13th edition of “Philanthropy for Ukraine” sessions with a focus on journalism in the context of the war. During the session, four Ukrainian media experts shared their insights on the challenges and opportunities for international donors to support the media.

Ievgeniia Oliinyk, Program Director of the Media Development Foundation, shared about the MDF’s experience of collaborating with local media outlets by presenting the main findings of their new annual research on the state of local news outlets in Ukraine. The report shows that regional media have survived and resisted the war, despite the massive staff turnover, the constant threat of violence, the propaganda and misinformation, and the lack of resources. The MDF report also praises the role of regional journalists in documenting war crimes, debunking fake news, telling human stories, and helping Ukrainians stay sane and informed. It calls for more support and solidarity from the international community, the government, and civil society to protect and empower regional media as a vital pillar of democracy and peace. Ievgeniia also highlighted the importance of avoiding news deserts in Ukraine and providing additional support to the regions with such a tendency.

Discussing the state of the media at a national scale, Andrey Boborykin, Executive Director of Ukrainska Pravda, shared the newspaper’s experience. He noted that advertising spending across Ukraine has declined due to the economic crisis and the war, and this has forced Ukrainska Pravda to fundraise with the international donor community, which was not something that they were actively involved in before the war.

The media viability concept has to be rethought in the context of Ukraine, where media outlets face economic hardships and need to adapt to a changing and challenging environment, noted Olga Myrovych, the CEO of Lviv Media Forum. She argued that supporting the Ukrainian media is vital for the country’s recovery and justice and that the international community should recognize and amplify the voice of Ukrainian journalists and editors. Olga also addresses the issue of mental health among journalists in Ukraine, who have been exposed to trauma due to the ongoing war. In particular, Lviv Media Forum has offered psychological support to more than 150 media professionals to help them cope and restore their psychological resilience.

Continuing the discussion on the main issues that affect the media industry in Ukraine, Jakub Parusinski, Co-founder and Editor of The Fix Media, and CFO of The Kyiv Independent, highlighted that one of the main problems that media organizations in Ukraine encounter is the lack of qualified journalists, editors, project managers, sales managers and other media professionals. The current generation of journalists has suffered a significant attrition rate due to psychological breakdown, volunteering causes, frontline work, and the inability to work in the sector. This problem is exacerbated by a demographic problem in Ukraine, with only a quarter of a million graduates a year, down by half from over half a million in 2010. How can media organizations overcome this shortage? Jakub suggests that shared service centres could be a solution. He also argues that the media themselves should invest in training programs, work with universities, and create career development opportunities for their staff.

Another challenge that media organizations face is how to reintegrate veterans as content creators, audiences, and workers. Jakub Parusinski believes that media can play a vital role in helping veterans reintegrate into society. A third issue that media organisations have to deal with is how to connect with the millions of Ukrainians who had to flee abroad. Parusinski argues that the media has a significant responsibility to preserve Ukrainian culture and ties within Ukrainian communities and fight against Russia’s attempt to destroy it.

Based on their experience of being a recipient of media support, speakers shared their ideas and advice on how philanthropic or foundation support for media and journalism could be improved:

Get in touch

A reflection on the Journalism Funders Forum’s in-person event, 16 February, Brussels
By Are We Europe

On 16 February, Philea and the Journalism Funders Forum (JFF) held their first ever in-person event together, bringing together representatives of foundations to discuss their mission of supporting public interest journalism in Europe.

The role of independent journalism in society has never been more important than in the current moment. It is what builds a bridge between communities and ensures balanced information is available to all. Over the past decade, media oppression has been on the rise in both authoritarian states and open societies in Europe. Media organisations and freelance journalists alike increasingly turn to philanthropic funders for support to continue their work despite increasingly difficult conditions.

JFF aims to support the funding landscape for journalism in Europe through three strands of work. Firstly, by improving learning opportunities and knowledge about journalism funding across the continent. Secondly, the forum works to diversify and increase the number of journalism funders in Europe, as well as foster connections between them. Thirdly, the forum strives to help build a more effective, transparent and equitable funding environment for journalism in Europe.

At the event in Brussels, funders had the opportunity to share successful strategies, learnings and challenges that they face in supporting public interest journalism. Openly sharing one’s challenges and hopes is the only way to entice other funders that are not yet active in journalism to do so. Just like in journalism, honesty is key.

A pillar of democracy

While many would hope that quality journalism can fund itself, the past few decades have irreversibly damaged most media outlets’ business models. The internet is the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back, paving the way for higher outreach but also forcing many publications to put their content behind a paywall in order to remain sustainable. Some would say the latter hinders journalism’s duty to contribute to public discourse.

Throughout the day, an ever-present topic on the discussions was democracy. After all, journalists and their work are essential contributors to informed communities. While many foundations do not explicitly name journalism in their mission statements, it is through their commitment to upholding democracy that they, too, should support this field. Independent, quality journalism contributes to a healthy democracy. And journalism should be free from any influence that may impact their editorial output. Protecting this independence plays a crucial role in what philanthropic funding can do for journalism today. But how can this work be funded sustainably? 

The challenges to funding independent journalism are not unheard of. Funders, of course, need to find quality journalism to support. In turn, many journalists would argue that they simply do not know the relevant funding organisations to contact. The interdependence between journalists and their funders is evident, but it is discussions around the type of funding needed, and how funders can work together to maximise impact, that made the gathering in Brussels so uniquely impactful.

Stability is key

When investigating the ways in which philanthropy can support media organisations, core funding is of great importance. Core funding allows for the necessary breathing room between projects that contributes to better journalistic output. It furthers the creation of sustainable structures within a media outlet and offers opportunities for professional development. It also removes the incentive some might receive from project-based grants to just “go for the money” to survive. Simply put, not worrying about whether they can break even next month allows journalists to thrive. Stability is key. 

This very stability is the one that can allow for the time and resources for journalists to tackle extensive or sensitive topics that can often be more labour-intensive. Unrestricted support from a funding body can help to bring out the best of what journalism can do, speaking truth to power and contributing to societal change. 

The case for pluralism and funder collaboration

As much as cross-border journalism is becoming a reality in newsrooms today, collaboration should be of equal importance among funders. Like most things in life, it’s a two-way street. Pluralism in funding is essential to a system in which pluriform media thrives. And media diversity is vital. When funders act as a group, they send a clear message of support.

While stability is vital to journalists, it is equally important to funds. But there are solutions. Pooled funds are aggregated funds that allow interested parties to fund journalism without being experts on the topic. As the idiom goes, there is safety in numbers. Pooled funding creates quality assurance among funders who may not have the requisite knowledge to select suitable projects. It essentially creates a comfort zone for those who would otherwise hesitate to begin funding journalism. The hope however is that in the future more funders will become comfortable enough to begin funding journalism outside of the access point of a pooled fund.

However, this is not the only way in which funders can collaborate. In sharing knowledge and expertise across the European funding landscape, philanthropic organisations can work together to co-create new projects and grantmaking initiatives. In this sense, funders can co-fund projects independently but work side by side collaboratively. This kind of collaborative decision-making also accounts for the disparate geographic landscape of funding. For example, a country like the Netherlands is comparatively well-funded compared to other regions in Europe like Italy or Spain. Through collaborative processes, funders can contribute to journalistic diversity in landscapes and languages they might not be familiar with. It is a matter of shared trust. 

Looking forward

The first in-person meeting of the Journalism Funders Forum, since it found its new home with Philea, clearly showed that foundations are eager to connect more often. There is a drive to have funders communicate with one another in a casual setting, but also to facilitate communication between funders and potential grantees and partners. The repeated mentions of how difficult it is to communicate, match the need for better understanding between those who support journalism and those who create it. Both JFF and Philea are strengthened in their resolve to keep building connections between journalism funders in Europe and to advocate for the crucial role that philanthropy plays in safeguarding independent media.

Speaker list

Get in touch