Penelope Winterhager, Managing Director of the European Fund for Journalism in Exile (JX Fund) explains how the Fund helps independent media outlets forced into exile quickly restart operations and reach audiences back home, and provides insights into how they support emergency needs, foster sustainability, and fill gaps in the funding landscape.

The JX Fund has a very special mission: supporting media in exile. Why was it important to launch such an initiative?

We were initiated in 2022 by two foundations, the Schöpflin Foundation and the Rudolf Augstein Foundation, who joined forces with Reporters Without Borders. What we had seen was that not only more and more journalists needed to leave their countries, but whole media outlets. Especially when the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine started, whole editorial teams had to leave the country due to repressive measures.

What was missing in the funding space was quick and unbureaucratic support to get back on their feet and reestablish in exile. We saw that if you don’t support them right after they go into exile, it’s getting more difficult to reconfigure, and we said, OK, we try to change that: Let’s create a pooled fund to help those media.

What you have to consider is that most outlets that go into exile don’t leave with a business plan, with what they want to do. If you were, for example, a TV station before, it’s not necessarily the same as what you do in exile. You need time to arrive personally, and you also need time professionally. The area medium faces fundamental questions like: What is our editorial offer? What channels do we serve? How do we keep in touch with sources and colleagues who are still in the country?

So, you have this first period of emergency support, and then if exile continues, the medium arrives at a second period in which they try to become more self-sustainable.

How do you define media in exile? Who is eligible for your support?

That’s an interesting question that we were asking ourselves as well. To define media these days is quite challenging. Is every YouTube channel a medium or not? And we had two more challenges. We support independent media in exile, so we created definitions for all three categories, which can change due to circumstances. In the beginning, when you just arrive in a country, there are different criteria than later on.

Being independent means you don’t have a connection to political parties, actors, or to a politically exposed person, and are not state funded. Those media would not be eligible.

To identify as media, you have to publish journalistic, non-fictional content on a regular basis – not, for example, a book once a year. The published content must cover current affairs and be socially relevant.

Finally, exile means to report for people who are still in the country, mostly with some colleagues and sources still there. But a significant part of the team is located outside.  We support media that still want to serve audiences in the country, not diaspora media. We are supporting media from countries where press freedom is suppressed, and media must leave to continue their work.

How do you support these organisations? Do you offer grants only, or do you also provide other forms of support?

We support on three levels. First, we continuously map all offerings that exist so as not to duplicate anything. We have a database and if somebody turns to us, we try to match them with these offerings. By collecting these existing opportunities, we also see gaps, not only financially but also structurally. Secondly, we give grants, and we try to do this with open calls, wherever possible, so as to not only give chances to selected organisations that we know.

And third, we saw a need for structural support. For example, we initiated a media incubator when the outlets first arrived in exile and had to reestablish themselves as an organisation, to support immediate challenges, such as what is the right legal entity, what channels, what technology to use, how to communicate safely, etc.

Over time, when the basic editorial structure is set up, new questions arise. We are about to start a programme on entrepreneurial skills for exiled media, on how to further build audiences, generate money, and thus become more self-sustainable when funding declines.

Do you focus more on emergency support or long-term sustainability?

It depends on the situation. Right after or during a crisis, we focus on the emergency. After 6-12 months, plans for medium- and longer-term need support. We do fund media in times of transition into exile – but not for 10 years. We aim to help in the emergency and medium term.

 You mentioned that the Fund has existed for three years. How many organisations have you supported so far?

 We have supported around 85 media outlets in exile by now, with around 132 grants. Additionally, we have implemented around 36 projects, like those incubators.

We always try to understand the media landscape of a country to best support single outlets. We have been supporting media from Russia, Belarus, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. I believe we have quite a good overview over those landscapes – something that was missing in the field. We continuously assess how many media outlets are in exile, what channels they use, what topics they serve, which audiences  they reach, what their budgets look like, and what funding they need. We publish the results in the form of studies or country profiles to provide a better understanding of the landscapes and potential funding gaps for the media but also for other funders and supporters.

What is the most important lesson you have learned?

 I think one of the most important lessons is that rebuilding media in exile is not a linear thing. It’s not that you go into exile, you start something and build on it with a fixed plan. There are new challenges constantly, and you need to be innovative and reconfigure your media. Channels can be closed because of repressive measures. Security needs to be rethought. Colleagues may be imprisoned back home. These are things that you cannot plan for. I think exiled media are often the most innovative because they reinvent themselves constantly.

Not new but ever prominent is the dependency on visas to continue reporting in exile. Often visas and residence permits are connected to your income. If for some reasons a medium loses its funding and has to terminate work contracts, then these colleagues also lose their right to stay in the country. It is a huge issue. At the same time, we see autocratic governments worldwide on the rise and more and more media under pressure to leave these countries to continue their work. But financial support for those media is not growing at the same pace. This is one of the biggest challenges.

What other significant challenges have you had to face so far?

 An organisation like ours needs to be extremely flexible. We continuously assess the needs of the community, assess what everybody else in the field is doing, and quickly fill the gaps with tailor-made programmes.

Challenges can come from autocratic governments, such as new legislation that criminalises consuming reporting or blocks access to the content of the medium in the country. But it can also come from the funders themselves, such as the funding freeze of USAID, or from big tech who take apps from the app store or deprioritise content. You need to find the right way forward in a constantly changing environment.

Is there a particular success story you can share? In general, how do you assess the success of the programme?

Success can be measured on different levels. For me, it means diversity and impact. There are 64 media outlets in exile from Russia. They cover different regions, different channels, different topics. We helped to keep this diversity of voices alive. This is the only way to ensure that there is an informed audience or civil society.

We know that these media still reach a substantial audience back home. Due to the use of VPNs, this is not an easy task to measure. But there are ways, and we can say, sticking to Russian media in exile, that they still reach between six to nine percent of the Russian speaking adult population. I think this is a great success. Especially if you take into account that about 48 times as much money is being spent on propaganda and censorship in Russia than on exiled media.

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

Always look at the media landscape. Don’t just look at the prominent media, or the famous outlets. There are many important regional media, or those focusing on certain topics. Look into these, because in times of news fatigue and rising repressions, they are often more capable of reaching audiences and being relevant than the larger ones. Always look at the whole set of voices that continue their work in exile.

A second hint would be: look at the innovations of those media in exile. I think we can learn a lot from them as they are some of the most innovative in the field: how to circumvent censorship, how to deal with platforms that don’t always treat content evenly, and how to reach audiences with news fatigue. We should see them as partners, learn from them, and interact with them.

Maribel Königer, Director of Journalism and Media at ERSTE Foundation, highlights the importance of supporting independent journalism to protect democracies in Europe. From fellowships to pooled funds, the Foundation’s evolving approach aims to strengthen media resilience, for which it is essential to develop sustainable business models.

Why is it important for the ERSTE Foundation to support journalism? How does it fit into your broader mission?

The Journalism and Media programme is embedded in our Europe and Democracy programme. We define the problem here: liberal democracy is under threat. Europe’s democracies remain fragile and unprepared to withstand internal and external socio-economic, technological, and geopolitical disruptions. One of our answers to this problem is that we want to support high-quality independent media and journalism in CEE. We have been doing this since the very beginning, only a bit differently; now we do it with a wider focus.

Together with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, who left some years later), we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence. At that time, in 2007, we were focused on the Balkans because we thought that countries in Central Europe who just became members of the European Union – Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, et cetera – were good, so we should focus on South Eastern Europe, on countries which are not yet there. As a fellowship it was meant as an investment in people, in investigative journalists, and for many years this was our only project in the field of journalism.

Then in 2018, we were shocked about what happened in our surroundings. Jan Kuciak and his fiancé were killed. Hungary and Poland changed their laws and their attitudes towards independent media. Also in the Czech Republic, politics became hostile towards independent media. Suddenly we became aware that focusing on the Balkans to support independent journalists and good journalism in CEE is not enough.

First, we enlarged the scope of the fellowship to the – back then – so-called Visegrad countries. Then we saw a decline in the media scene: the well-trained journalists that came out of this fellowship had no platforms anymore on which to publish. A lot of media were gone. What could we do now, if they cannot tell their stories to their audience anymore? The geographically enlarged fellowship was embedded in a platform called “Reporting Democracy” where articles could also be published.

It was clear from the very beginning that we don’t want to invest directly in media. Actually, we cannot. As an Austrian savings bank foundation, the core shareholder of Austria’s biggest bank, Erste Group, we are only allowed by our statutes to invest in nonprofits. There are a lot of nonprofit media around, but we also saw a risk of conflicts of interest in both directions, as well as reputation risks. Then we discovered the wonderful tool of pooled funds.

What are the advantages of these pooled funds?

We very much like the idea of joining forces. The leverage is bigger. If you put money in a pile, you can support media with higher amounts, or longer, or more of them, and have more impact. Also, you can delegate the delicate task of selecting the media you support. You have a qualified jury to do that. It’s much more efficient if several foundations join into a fund.

Civitates was the beginning. Its sub-fund for public interest media has a focus on Southern and Eastern Europe. That is important for us because we have a strict geographic focus on Central and Eastern Europe. Our revenues are the dividends of our share in Erste Group, one of the biggest financial service providers in Austria and Eastern European countries.

In 2021, we were approached by the Media Development Investment Fund. They presented us with the idea of Pluralis. An impact investment fund was something new for us. Pluralis guarantees editorial independence for legacy media by investing in publishing houses in Eastern Europe; a smart concept. By now, Pluralis has a portfolio of three important media in Poland, Slovakia and Croatia and it plans to grow further.

Finally, we became one of the initiators of the Media Forward Fund, focusing on Austria, Germany, and Switzerland.

So, your journey as a funder of journalism started in the Balkans and ended in Austria?

Indeed! If you had told us 18 years ago, when we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, that we would one day be supporting innovation in Austrian media, we would have laughed in disbelief. But the media ecosystem in Austria is in danger, like in many other countries. The market is in an extremely precarious situation, public interest media struggle to survive although (some even say: because) there is a lot of public funding.

The Media Forward Fund supports – with much money for a short and limited period – media organisations that apply with a convincing business idea. Good journalism is the precondition, but it’s not what is funded. You should apply with a smart idea to scale up your business or to secure more stable resources.

How would you explain this substantial growth in the Foundation’s engagement for journalism?

ERSTE Foundation reacted in a timely manner to what was happening to the media scene and in journalism. We all see the threats everywhere: Autocratic regimes attacking independent media, media capture, disinformation campaigns, decreasing societal trust, and increasing technological and economic disruptions put public interest media and critical journalism in CEE at high risk.

After the quasi organic growth of the portfolio, we now have a clear strategy. The foundation worked on its overall strategy and one of our goals for the next few years is a healthy media ecosystem in CEE that upholds democratic values, combats misinformation, and empowers communities with reliable information. We therefore invest in and support sustainable and independent free media and fact-based critical journalism. This is how a single project topic developed into a consistent programme portfolio. The consequence was that I changed my position. As of July 2025, I am the Director of Journalism and Media. After 18 years as Director of Communications with the journalism projects as my second task, I switched focus.  

In what other ways do you support journalism?

 In Vienna, together with Presseclub Concordia and the Forum für Journalismus und Medien (fjum), we organise in-person and hybrid press briefings with researchers and experts from our other programmes. Journalists get firsthand information on the political, economic or societal situation in other countries, often just before elections in a given country.

Through the funds we support, we also offer capacity building. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is not only funding the development of business ideas in media but is also coaching to develop business skills.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from these programmes?

I have two lessons in mind. Firstly: Most journalists are passionate about and very good at their job, but many of them have no idea about the business side of media. New media outlets with a great mission will die very quickly when no one looks at target groups, funnels, revenue plans, and the like. Even proper accounting or having a business plan is not a given. This lack of basic business skills or appropriate competent personnel in young media is so obvious that, today, many foundations or intermediaries offer tools known from the start-up world: media accelerators and incubators. Media viability became also a very important topic in conferences.

This brings me to the second lesson: Why is it so important to build a sustainable business model? Because relying on a single resource – be it a donor, be it public funds of your community, be it, well, USAID – can have fatal consequences. In January it became clear that a full focus on a single source, as generous as it might have been in the past, causes real problems. Sustainable business models (meaning also diversification of revenue streams) are crucial for media viability but also for media pluralism.

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

One big challenge is to explain to people why the media are in such a problematic situation at all. Just 10 or 15 years ago, people founded newspapers to make money, and not to be funded. Today, classical public interest media have lost their business model. But there are still big, powerful media groups, for some it is still big business. So explaining why some media need funding is a challenge.

Fortunately, we haven’t had challenges such as smear campaigns yet. But everyone knows that independent media and their funders are under constant threat of authoritarian attacks. It has become a risky business to be a foundation supporting what should be the most natural thing in the world in a liberal democracy: free media.

How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story related to supporting journalism?

Usually, our projects include process assessment and impact measurement. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is constantly assessing its brand new processes and results. It just started one year ago, and one term is two years. If the grants have had a real impact on the businesses of the grantees, we will soon see, with the first cohort ending the programme in one year. The application process was also assessed and some selection criteria have been changed in the second round. For example, we wanted the business part and editorial part to be clearly separated. That works for the New York Times, sure, but if you are a three-person, brand new, young organisation, then it is not possible. So we changed this criterion. Now you must agree that these entities will be separated once the medium has grown…

These seem banal things, but it is important to realise when something does not work and change it. The real success will be, in two years, to have businesses that double their subscription base, or make money on theatre stages with their concept, whatever they applied with.

Whether our funding has societal impact is, of course, very difficult to measure. I would take Pluralis as an example which pooled philanthropic investment in media matters. Gremi Media, the publisher of Rzeczpospolita in Poland, is part of Pluralis’ portfolio. Having kept one of the biggest Polish newspapers as a free, independent one is very important. It is a centre-conservative paper with fact-based reporting. This also shows that our goal is not to support a certain agenda. It is about the quality of journalism and media pluralism. In Slovakia, Petit Press, publishing the daily SME, has in Pluralis an owner that is backing the editors in a very hostile public environment.

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

 First of all, I would ask them to imagine that there is no more media where they can talk about their main topics, be it climate, culture, environment, equality, or whatever. People would get their information only from social media, from influencers, from AI bots. If you think that this might be a really bad situation, then start supporting media and journalism.

My advice for newbies would be to start with a pooled fund. You don’t have to fund media directly, trust in experts. My other advice is that, if you are unsure what kind of pooled fund you should turn to, then come to the Journalism Funders Forum. This is a peer group of foundations which are happy to give anyone advice about the risks, realistic goals, about what you can gain, et cetera, by funding journalism. Or look for foundations that already support journalism, everybody is happy to share their knowledge. The main thing is: do it.

Adrian Arena, Director of the International Human Rights Programme at the Oak Foundation, highlights the importance of a healthy information sphere by supporting independent journalism to hold power to account and ensure citizens have access to accurate information. He emphasises the value of local expertise while sharing insights into how the Foundation supports journalism, reflecting its commitment to strengthening democracy and human rights.

What is Oak Foundation’s approach to supporting journalism?

At a meta level, the human rights movement seeks to unlock truth and inspire justice – in brief, to hold power to account. Independent and investigative journalism is critical to that task. As a human rights programme, one of our priorities is also to ensure a healthy information sphere. This demands that citizens have access to reliable, accurate information.

Professional, rigorous, courageous journalism is foundational to democracy.

The foundation is a founding member of Civitates. Why do you think it was important to be part of the consortium?

Our early membership of Civitates was a strong expression of solidarity with civil society and independent media. Both are critical partners in the defence of democracy.

As a pan-European mechanism, Civitates permits us to access partners in national contexts where we have no footprint or expertise. It provides an assurance in terms of rigour and strategy.

What do you think of the advantages of similar pooled funds? Are you a member of any other?

 Yes, we are a member of the EU Artificial Intelligence Fund, EPIM (addressing migration in the EU), and various pooled funds in the United States.

We are a small team. Pooled funds give us an opportunity to expand our footprint, but without increasing headcount. Perhaps more importantly, they provide an excellent opportunity for peer learning and strategizing.

In what other ways does the foundation support public interest reporting?

Aside from participation in Civitates, we make bilateral grants to various news outlets and investigative journalists in our priority regions.  We generally provide core support and trust the outlets to pursue their journalistic mission with professionalism and integrity. Some organisations maintain specific newsrooms on certain issues. Lighthouse Reports, for example, does this with respect to migration, which is an important programmatic focus for us. We support Lighthouse for this specific work.

But our engagement with the sector goes beyond the journalistic product. Journalists are under frequent attack in the discharge of their duties. We support organisations that assist journalists at risk, including defending them from SLAPPs (Reporters Shield) or organisations which provide emergency assistance and services.

Do you have open calls for these grants, or do you invite organisations to apply?

As a program we do not have open calls, but maintain an open mailbox where anyone can lodge an inquiry. In some of the more restrictive environments in which we work, an open call would not work. In those contexts, trust is paramount, and we work hard to understand the local partner community. We invest in relationships.

I know that Civitates has, however, routinely pursued open calls. This can be useful to surface promising initiatives in new or unfamiliar contexts.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from these programmes?

One key lesson – and it is very simple – is to take the necessary time to understand the national context. Alternatively, work through an intermediary (like Civitates) that knows it already. Local understanding is critical.

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

 A clear but not always obvious challenge is to properly assess the quality of the journalism produced. You need to have someone who reads content in the local language and can speak to its tone and quality. We have also had to calibrate our expectations around audience and sustainability. These expectations must be appropriate to the national context.

How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story related to supporting journalism?

As I mentioned previously, one of our overarching goals is to hold power to account. Independent media partners have done exactly that. Their list of accomplishments is long. Partners have exposed malfeasance, corruption, and abuse which, in turn, have led to prosecutions, sanctions, fines, and regulatory change. There is a clear path of success.

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

 I would say three things.

Firstly, independent media is important to amplify the voice of civil society. Whatever issue you are funding, whether it be education, health, or science, it is critical that your partners’ voices are heard. Independent media can play an important role in amplifying those voices, which, for whatever reason, may be excluded or marginalised from the mainstream press.

Secondly, there may be some barriers to entry. But these are no more significant than in other areas of work. Like in all areas, it is essential to do one’s homework and to understand the local context. Or work with a trusted partner who does.

Lastly, core support is essential to ensure independent media pursues its work fearlessly and without undue restriction.

The results can be very rewarding. 

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

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

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

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

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

Our 10-years anniversary campaign

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

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

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

Our 10 promises to Slovakia

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

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

What we learned: 5 key takeaways for the industry

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

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

2. Your existing audience is your valuable recruiter.

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

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

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

4. The right promises make all the difference.

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

5. Social media can work – when used strategically.

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

The next challenge: Retention

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was the biggest success story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why support local newspapers? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent media in the age of misinformation 

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

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

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

Defining Amediastiftelsen’s priorities 

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

• Projects that promote the use of editorial media and reach new groups of media users. A key focus is to reach younger generations, who often use other sources for their news consumption.
• Support industry-wide initiatives and measures that promote knowledge-sharing and collaboration between editorial offices.
• Enhance competence in editorial offices and develop tools and knowledge that will strengthen journalism across the sector.

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

Challenges in reaching younger audiences 

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

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

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

The significance of foundation-owned media

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

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

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

Facts about Amediastiftelsen

• Sparebankstiftelsen DNB purchased the media group Amedia in 2016 and established Amediastiftelsen (the Amedia Foundation) to own the group
• The foundation supports media organisations, industry organisations and educational/research institutions, within and outside Norway
• Approximately NOK 30 million will be allocated in 2025
• André Støylen, the former CEO of Sparebankstiftelsen DNB, is now the general manager of the Amediastiftelsen

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

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

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

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

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

Is it open for new players to join?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you consider your biggest success story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tetiana Gordiienko of the Media Development Foundation offers insights into the challenging task facing Ukrainian media as they navigate donor dependence, operational challenges, and the urgent need for more sustainable funding models amid the ongoing impact of war.

“I have almost stopped writing stories… We spend up to 30% of our time on [operational workload related to] grant projects. This seems to me like a lot and we can turn into a media outlet for donors and not for our audiences. This scares me a lot. I see such examples […] and I am very, very, very afraid to become the same“

“The emphasis I want to make is that donors need to sit down, look around, find ways for themselves to choose projects they trust and give them a chance to relieve a little administrative burden and give them the opportunity to secure long-term funding. […] To live and work here, you need a little more trust, because if we lose it now, we lose it gradually, then there will simply be no one to make good journalism.”

The preceding quotations are not intended as a frightening narrative for journalists as part of a Halloween prank. They are drawn from a recent research study, “The Donor Dilemma: Rethinking Support Models for Ukrainian Media’s Future” conducted by the Media Development Foundation (MDF), a Kyiv-based non-governmental organisation (NGO).

Following two years of full-scale war with Russia, Ukrainian media outlets are facing significant challenges. On the one hand, they have established close cooperation with numerous international donor organisations, which have become the main source of funding for most Ukrainian newsrooms, especially at the local level. On the other hand, such close and prolonged interaction could not fail to have had an impact.

The respondents who took part in the MDF study concluded that their media organisations develop their financial plans while taking into account the financial year of donors, or postpone major strategic decisions until they receive funding or confirmation of project agreements. They also pointed to the additional operational burden associated with project-based financing and the necessity to align their goals with the strategic goals of the projects funded by donor organisations.

This research is based on in-depth interviews with representatives of nine media outlets and consists of a thematic analysis of the collected data. Furthermore, it forms part of a number of other MDF research projects. To illustrate, MDF ran a study of the state of local media in Ukraine that comprised a survey of 37 media outlets, 12 in-depth interviews, and three expert interviews. The study revealed challenges related to funding, strategic planning, and human resources in media organisations. “The Donor Dilemma…” employs a nuanced qualitative approach to investigate these issues in a smaller sample of respondents.

As the donor and media systems become increasingly complex and intertwined, the situation is further complicated by the reduction of funding for quality journalism. The respondents observed a notable decline in the number of grant opportunities for media. Concurrently, the advertising market in Ukraine, which has been affected by the ongoing war, is only showing minimal signs of recovery. As a result of the widening funding gap, there is a risk that media organisations may be forced to downsize their teams and reduce their capacity. The least resilient players may ultimately be forced out of the media market.

“It seems to me that core support is the best model in general that can be now [for media]. I know that many Russian media outlets in exile receive core support with not so much effort, while Ukrainian editors, unfortunately, have to constantly invent some projects. Plus, these permanent projects, it seems to me, still slightly distort the reality of the needs that exist within our audience” – An editor-in-chief of a local media outlet in Ukraine.

This excerpt from the MDF report focuses on the challenge of donor relations, but there are other needs as well, including psychological support for teams under immense pressure, a crisis of human resources, and the development of a strategic planning culture.

The Ukrainian media market is approaching a point where it must undergo another round of transformation. Media organisations have already demonstrated remarkable resilience in maintaining their teams and operating effectively, despite the challenges and risks posed by the ongoing conflict.

Particularly in the Ukrainian context, the media plays a significant role at both national and local levels in supporting democratic processes, post-war recovery, and community development. While some needs, such as funding or retaining qualified personnel, are relatively visible, the research conducted by the MDF also revealed a need for solutions to maintain the progress that the media have made with an incredible effort over the last two years. One of the most urgent requests from the independent Ukrainian media is to renegotiate the funding models with the donors to allow them to work in a more sustainable and predictable way.

We encourage European partners to consider new, sustainable approaches to donor funding that will help build a resilient, independent media landscape in Ukraine, and also to join MDF in the effort to develop the Core Media Fund, an initiative designed to raise funds for sustainable ways of financing independent journalism and media advocacy in the country.

Lot Carlier, Executive Director at V-Ventures, the investment arm of the Netherlands-based Veronica Foundation, emphasises the critical importance of fostering financial independence for media outlets to maintain editorial freedom. V-Ventures supports investigative journalism, engages younger audiences, and backs regional media. Their strategy is twofold: providing funding and practical consultancy to help media companies strengthen their business model and establish sustainable revenue streams, and invest in companies that create technology, tools and channels for these media companies.

Why is it important for the Veronica Foundation to fund journalism, and what led to the establishment of V-Ventures?

Carlier: We created V-Ventures as our investment arm to focus on strategic investments, while keeping donations under the Foundation’s purview. Although part of the same organisation, V-Ventures specialises in the investment side of supporting journalism. Our roots lie in media—we were once a rebellious media company broadcasting from a ship in extraterritorial waters when we weren’t allowed to broadcast in the Netherlands. This unconventional start has defined our innovative approach and commitment to independent journalism.

Over recent years, we’ve witnessed a decline in media independence across Europe, marked by increased concentration and political influence over media outlets. Supporting innovative, independent voices, especially in regions where media freedom is under pressure, is more important than ever. We have been dedicated to supporting independent media since selling off our own media assets, and we have recently broadened our focus to also include smaller and mid-sized independent media companies that ensure pluriformity of the press and innovation in the sector.

What is V-Ventures’ approach to supporting media companies?

We have a dual approach. First, we support media companies on the business side to help them become less reliant on grants and donations and develop new revenue streams tailored to their specific markets. This support is essential because donor dependency can lead to a shift in focus away from building a strong audience and sustainable revenue generation. We support these companies to establish revenue models that fit their context, whether through syndication, subscriptions, or other methods.

Second, we also invest in media tech companies that support content creators, such as those developing innovative tools to enhance efficiency. Additionally, we have initiatives like SV-Docs, a documentary fund to support journalistic storytelling. This holistic approach allows us to create a blended return on our investments while fostering growth across the media ecosystem.

In which regions does V-Ventures focus its investments?

Our focus is on Europe, and we target three main topics. First, we support news and investigative journalism in countries where media freedom is at risk or where there’s a significant concentration of media ownership, which reduces pluralism. Second, we focus on media companies that are engaging younger generations (Gen XYZ) who are not as connected to traditional media; reaching them with independent news is crucial. Third, we prioritise regional and local journalism as trust in national media declines. We are exploring sustainable business models for all media to replicate. Additionally, as already mentioned, we invest in tools that make the sector more efficient and effective and in channels, like podcast companies. Lastly, we invest in funds to broaden our reach, such as Mercuri and NBM.  

Do you provide only capital, or do you also offer guidance or training?

For media companies, we offer more than just capital. We often provide a three-day consultancy programme where we work closely with the entire team to identify the best ways to generate revenue. We may fund specific business roles, like a publisher, for one or two years to help build the business side until it becomes self-sustaining. This approach is different for media tech companies, which operate with their own market strategies.

What is the most important lesson you’ve learned through investing in media companies?

The most critical lesson is that financial independence is key to maintaining editorial independence in the longer term. Media companies must generate revenue beyond donor support to remain free from external influences. In the early start-up phase, donor funding may be necessary to build an audience and establish a critical mass of content. However, as the organisation matures, it must develop diversified revenue streams to become truly financially independent.

What challenges have you faced in funding journalism in Europe?

One major challenge is that many smaller independent media organisations haven’t developed a business strategy yet. Journalists often focus on creating impactful content driven by their convictions, and shifting attention to revenue generation can be challenging. This is where editors sometimes step in to handle subscriptions or other business tasks, but it’s tough to balance this with their focus on high-quality journalism. Dedicated staff to take care of the  business side allows journalists to focus on what they do best—creating valuable content.

What has been your biggest success story so far?

While we’ve completed successful exits on the business side, our blended investment approach combining business and content-focused support is still relatively new. We have seen promising indications of a solid blended return over the past five years, although it’s too early to present final financial results. We aim to demonstrate this model’s viability to other impact investors in the coming years by showing that media investment yields reasonable returns while having a huge impact on democracies.

Do you have advice for organisations considering funding journalism for the first time?

It’s crucial to raise more awareness about the need for support in this sector. The current state of media in Europe, and globally, is challenging, and more help is needed to preserve independent voices. Impact investors can create immense change. The message should be clear: funding journalism isn’t just valuable—it’s essential for sustaining democracy and informed societies.

George Leech, Director of Outreach and Communications at the Prague Civil Society Centre, emphasises the importance of providing institutional funding for independent journalism. By offering flexible support, the Centre helps media outlets continue their vital work, even in exile or under authoritarian pressure across Central Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Why is it important for PCSC to support journalism? How did you come to the decision to include media in your programme?

Leech: We’re approaching our 10 year anniversary next year, and we’ve been supporting the media since 2016-2017. So really, as soon as we started, we kind of realised that the media had to be part of the strategy and can’t really be taken apart from civil society. It’s so important for amplifying the voice of civil society, exposing the failures of authoritarianism, promoting reform, accountability, it’s a key component. If you don’t have robust, strong, independent media, then all these groups doing all this amazing work, in a way, are losing a point of access to the population.

We also recognised the gap in donor funding, that a lot of media support was technical support, or it was very project-driven, whereas our approach since the very start has been to try and provide institutional support for media, funding to pay journalists’ salaries, pay for rent, and cover the costs of doing journalism. We don’t have a kind of editorial approach or thematic priority approach. We are not a donor that is interested in X, Y, Z and would like to see articles on those topics. We really want to fund the media to achieve what they want to do, reach their audiences, and be journalists. Our approach has been to decouple it from thematic priorities and really have it as a core media support programme.

It has also taken a lot of convincing at certain points within the donor sector, and convincing large institutional government donors that actually providing this institutional support is necessary and valid, because it also takes a lot of trust from people giving the money, right? It’s very easy to form a project where you say, at the end of this, we’re going to have had 30 articles on this topic, and we’ll have had five training sessions on these various topics. Whereas if you’re just giving institutional support, you’re saying that the media is going to continue to work, it might grow its audience. It’s very hard to package that into a very nice, clean project. But working with the big donors and convincing them of our approach has been part of our work and has been successful. We have grown our media support programme substantially over the years and really had a lot of buy-in from large donors, such as the European Union, on the necessity and validity of this kind of support.

In addition to providing grants for institutional funding, is anything else included in your support programme?

Leech: It’s a combination. Most of our support goes through grants, as we are a re-granting organisation. The Prague Centre exists to take large, predominantly government, donor money, and repackage that into smaller grants and try to remove a lot of the burden that comes with, say, being a USAID grantee, or a Foreign Office grantee, or a European Commission grantee. We’re like the middle man in making that money accessible.

But we do also have a full capacity building programme, and that ranges from many different kinds of support. In general, we don’t have media technical expertise in house. Rather, we have a wide network of trusted providers, and we talk with the media. When we’re in the process of making a grant, or we’re discussing their projects with them, then they self-identify that it would be really good to have training on security, or some kind of audience research. And we know people, we can put them in touch.

So we really try to empower the media we support to get the best support that’s tailored to their exact needs, rather than saying, here’s the Prague Centre’s media capacity building, this is our prescription. We listen to the needs and suggestions of our media partners and have a network of proven and trusted providers that we can recommend to circulate, and if someone is necessary and relevant, that’s perfect.

What kind of media are eligible for your support?

Leech: A huge range of media. From traditional newsroom media focused on Eastern Europe and Central Asia, to investigative media, various niche media, all the way down to various social media channels. We also include in our media support programme NGOs that have kind of advanced media arms. We also support them in similar ways, to do campaigning and communication. So our grantees range from traditional large newsroom-style media to people with a YouTube channel across the whole region where we work.

Which region do you work in?

Leech: We have a mandate to work in all the countries of the former Soviet Union, apart from the Baltic States. Two years ago, we started a media support programme for Central Europe. So Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovenia were added onto that.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from the programme?

Leech: I will reiterate the necessity that we must provide institutional support. There’s not enough of it in the sector. There is a cost of being the kind of flexible donor that we are. We pride ourselves in making this funding as adaptable, as flexible, as useful as possible for the grantees that we work with. But that requires, of course, a lot of talking with them, adaptation of proposals, changing proposals mid-project, which really puts a lot of extra work on our grants team, and I really wouldn’t underestimate the work it takes to stay true to the commitment to be flexible, adaptive, and responsive.

For example, when the full-scale invasion happened in Ukraine, we were making grants immediately as part of our emergency response to civil society and the media. There was one media [outlet] to whom we gave a grant to relocate from Kyiv, as the Russian army was advancing. When it became clear that Kyiv wasn’t going to be overrun and actually they’d be able to remain in Kyiv, we were then able to basically change the grant and say, OK, hang on, you don’t need to relocate, but you still have all this money, let’s see what we can do, and use the money in the way that you need it most. That’s a sensible and obvious thing to do, but you still have to change the project and work out how to manage it, what the new objective is. This is constant change, especially when you’re working in an area as volatile as those we work in. This just requires constant communication, adaptation, and tailoring.

In addition to the war in Ukraine, what are the biggest challenges you have had to face?

Leech: I think the war has dominated this region since 2022. Pre-2022, we were working with some exiled media, but now that has increased substantially. There’s a lot of media now located in the EU that present opportunities, but also challenges […]. Also, as a donor, you have media in exile that are still targeting audiences inside the country where they’ve come from, facing attempts to block them. So from investing in technology to circumvent censorship, there are different kinds of needs for the media to be able to continue doing the work. There’s obviously also the increased costs of being located in the EU rather than in your country of origin.

We’re leading a project called Free Media Hub East, which is a consortium of media support organisations funded by the European Union. We provide the re-granting component, but there are also organisations like People in Need (Czechia), Warsaw Helsinki Committee (Poland), Media in Cooperation and Transition (Germany), Sustainability Foundation in Latvia, and Baltic Centre for Media Excellence, also in Latvia, and together we’ve created a body of established practitioners that are providing the full scope of support for media in exile. So from the Prague Centre there’s funding available; from other organisations, there’s visa support, relocation support, psychological support, registration support, language classes, people that will help navigate the bureaucracies of Berlin, Warsaw, Latvia, wherever it may be, help advocate the case for exile media. So the move to exile and the needs that have come with that have also required slightly different solutions that we’ve also had to adapt to as an organisation.

What was the biggest success story?

Leech: The fact that a lot of the media that we support are still running, still managing to engage their audiences, and in some cases, managing to increase their audiences, despite efforts to liquidate the space for freedom of expression, to shut down any kind of independent voices. I think the continuation and ability to still reach audiences is, if not a glamorous success story, a really important one.

But also the ability to respond so quickly. I gave that example of finding the media to relocate during the full-scale invasion. We’ve been able to mobilise a substantial amount of support for Ukrainian media, large, small, regional. Exactly with this institutional support logic that I was talking about before, which has been kind of outsized in its help for the sector, because there has been so much donor funding that’s gone to Ukraine, which is fantastic, but also so much of it is tied up in certain requirements, certain topics, certain training, you know, it comes with a lot of strings attached. The fact we’ve been able to mobilise millions in unrestricted institutional support is something that I’m really proud of.

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

Leech: First of all, it is great to do it, 100%. If you’re thinking about doing it, keep thinking along those directions, but also question yourself about why you want to do it, and what the results are that you want to achieve through your media support programme.

There are lots of different entry points to supporting media, or lots of different reasons to support media. Know yourself what you’re trying to achieve. If that is to shed more light on the area that you’re focused on, that’s great, but know that this is what you want to do it for. If you believe that independent media is vitally important, it’s underfunded, and needs more support, then do that, and really I’d encourage anyone to go down the core support and institutional funding route.

And partner up! There are a lot of established media support organisations in Europe that have been doing it for a long time. I don’t think people need to always think they need to go alone, or try to do everything themselves. Share, talk to people about their experiences, and identify your niche. There’s always power in the aggregate, right? So maybe, if you can join something that’s existing or amplify something that’s already going on, maybe that’s the way to go about it.

Also, if you’re getting involved in the geographies that we are involved in, then security risk is a really important thing to consider. Understand the operating context of the media, where you’ll be working. You know, we work in Central Europe, in Eastern Europe, in Central Asia, all of those carry very different risk profiles, very different processes, very different approaches to grant-making and supporting media. It’s not a one-size hat that fits all.