Two recent documentaries produced by Hungarian investigative newsroom Direkt36 represent a rare case of high-impact investigative journalism achieving mass audience reach in an increasingly captured media environment.
In Hungary, much of the mainstream media is aligned with the government, while independent outlets operate with limited access to traditional distribution channels. As András Pethő, Co-founder and Director of Direkt36, explains: “Already 5-6 years ago, we started discussing how to improve and expand. There were two main ideas: publishing more stories or being more ambitious and producing even deeper investigations. We chose the latter. We also saw the power of YouTube, the power of videos, so we decided to try them.” As the newsroom did not have the internal capacity, they turned to professional filmmakers.
Their first documentary, about hospital infections, was published in 2023 and has 120k views as of March 26, 2026, which is a respectable number in a country of around 9.6 million, where about 66% of the populationuses YouTube.
The breakthrough came last year with The Dynasty, a documentary detailing the business empire of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s family.
The film quickly became a viral phenomenon: it reached 800,000 views within 24 hours. Within one week, it surpassed 2.7 million views, and by March 2026, it had reached 4.1 million.
This scale is highly unusual for investigative journalism, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe. The film became, by all available measures, the most watched Hungarian public affairs content on YouTube, far exceeding the reach of Direkt36’s written investigations.
Several factors explain this success. “First of all, it is a really strong story, and no one has told it in this format before. And it is a good movie, with some particularly powerful elements, for example the hidden camera footage,” Pethő argues.
Timing also played a crucial role. In February 2025, the Hungarian political system was already in turmoil after 15 years of authoritarian rule. Public interest in similar topics was high, and “the digital sphere really came alive, with several popular podcasts and video channels,” says Pethő. Published at the right moment, the documentary crossed traditional audience boundaries. Instead of reaching only politically engaged readers, it attracted a broader YouTube audience, including viewers less likely to consume investigative reporting.
Attacks by government propaganda further amplified reach. Even before the release of The Dynasty, government-aligned figures framed the documentary as “politically motivated disinformation.” Officials claimed the film was part of a “Ukrainian intelligence campaign” against Orbán, and these baseless accusations were widely circulated in pro-government media ecosystems. Paradoxically, these attacks generated additional public curiosity and media coverage, helping to drive viewership. This dynamic resembles the Streisand effect, where attempts to suppress information instead amplify it.
From Viral Moment to Sustainable Audience Growth
A year later, The Trap, which tells the story of Hungary’s missed economic opportunities during Orbán’s rule, built on the success of The Dynasty. Within a month, it reached 1.4 million views.
This sustained audience interest demonstrates that the success of The Dynasty was not a one-off viral moment. Together, the two films show that investigative outlets can build ongoing audience engagement through documentary storytelling, a model more commonly associated with streaming platforms than with non-profit journalism.
Nevertheless, the documentaries were not only editorial successes; they also contributed to financial sustainability, even though Direkt36 did not rely on commercial monetisation strategies such as paywalls or advertising.
Direkt36 operates primarily on reader-supported funding, and The Dynasty directly strengthened this model. According to Pethő, paid memberships increased from around 3,000 to 5,000 last year, and “most joined after the release of the film, or following the government’s campaign against independent media in the spring.”
This suggests that the documentary functioned as a conversion tool, turning passive viewers into paying supporters.
“The challenge was to keep these new supporters, because retention rate can be high: they forget about their subscription, their credit card expires and they don’t update it, and so on. So we had to show them that it is worth supporting us,” Pethő continues.
Producing The Trap was part of the response to this challenge, and it brought another increase in supporters. However, it was not the only motivation for making the film: “It is another very important story, and it also resonated with the audience,” says Pethő, adding that these two are currently the most watched Hungarian political documentaries on YouTube.
Beyond Monetisation: Reputation, Community, and Impact
Beyond direct memberships, the films contributed to Direkt36’s sustainability in other ways. In Hungary, the law allows anyone who has paid personal income tax to request that 1% of that amount be redirected to a qualified non-profit organisation. “We saw enormous growth in that last year,” says Pethő: tax donations to Direkt36 more than doubled compared to the previous year.
Furthermore, “these movies are really useful for audience building. It is much easier to organise meetups when you want to show a film instead of reading from articles,” Pethő explains. He adds that they do not monetise these meetings; even if there is an entrance fee, it only covers organisational costs. However, these events strengthen the outlet’s reputation.
The films also generated international recognition and awards. Their success has been widely covered in the international press, and The Dynasty has received several awards. This gives increased credibility and potential access to grant funding, while strengthening partnerships and cross-border collaborations. In this sense, monetisation is not purely transactional; it also includes reputational capital, which is crucial for non-profit investigative outlets.
“The films increased our audience and impact. Being a nonprofit, we cannot ask for more,” Pethő says.
In heavily restrictive media environments, shifting to video can dramatically expand reach and impact. These documentaries demonstrate how this can translate into financial support.
The Journalism Funders Forum has published “Journalism and Media Funding in Europe”, a new report offering a snapshot of how philanthropic organisations are funding journalism and media in Europe.
The field of journalism and media is widely recognised by funders as essential for democracy, accountability and countering misinformation, but it still receives only a tiny slice of philanthropic budgets. Despite this, there is growing urgency, a slow but visible increase in investment, and a shift toward more flexible, long‑term funding, as the field grapples with a rapidly changing media landscape, unstable business models, and rising threats to independent journalism. The data from this study underlines this context, showing a field that is crucial yet under‑resourced.
Bringing together key findings on funding patterns, priorities and emerging challenges, the report helps build a clearer picture of how philanthropy is supporting journalism and media in a fast-changing environment.
Based on a sample of 36 philanthropic organisations from 12 countries, the report shows that while funding for the field remains relatively limited, it is diverse, evolving and increasingly shaped by concerns around democracy, misinformation and the long-term sustainability of independent journalism. The report highlights a journalism and media field that is varied across different types of actors, content and geographies but accounts for just 3.2% of the total budget of the funders surveyed.
Key takeaways:
- Funding for journalism and media is relatively limited but highly diverse.
- Support is spread widely across different types of actors, content and geographies.
- Protecting democracy and countering misinformation are core motivations for funding.
- The sector is undergoing major changes, creating new challenges for funders and grantees
Read here: “Journalism and Media Funding in Europe”
Media freedom in 2026 is once again set to face pressure from various political, financial, technological, and regulatory sources. Elections in the EU’s increasingly fraught democratic landscape, high-stakes debates over the shape and enforcement of digital regulation, and the use of AI will all profoundly influence the state of media freedom. As journalism funders play a crucial role in sustaining independent media, these developments may also directly or indirectly impact their work.
Digital Regulation: Debates Around the Digital Services Act (DSA)
The Digital Services Act (DSA), introduced to create a safer and more transparent online ecosystem, will remain a central point of debate both for its enforcement and its implications for freedom of expression. As the EU pushes forward with stringent platform obligations, the United States is pushing back, arguing that some elements could undermine free speech and impose extraterritorial burdens on US companies.
The DSA mandates algorithmic transparency, content moderation, and risk-mitigation measures. The US government argues, however, that these run counter to the American constitutional tradition, which generally prioritises minimal state involvement in speech regulation. As the European Commission ramps up enforcement, Big Tech companies such as Meta, X (formerly Twitter), and Google argue that the DSA’s risk-mitigation obligations will force them to make judgments that may appear political, especially during sensitive elections.
The outcome of this standoff will not only shape future platform governance but also the information environment surrounding upcoming elections.
Hungary’s 2026 Election
One of the most consequential events for media freedom in Europe this year will be the Hungarian parliamentary election on April 12, 2026, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s illiberal regime faces its most serious challenge in over a decade. Orbán has been criticised for over a decade for controlling much of Hungary’s media landscape, characterised by pro-government propaganda networks and economic pressure on independent outlets, but his system remains a blueprint for other authoritarian leaders around the world.
The election will not only determine Hungary’s domestic media environment but may also have an influence on democratic resilience in other EU Member States where populist and illiberal actors are gaining ground. The result and the agenda of the next government will also influence the EU’s infringement procedures against Hungary for, among others, failing to comply with the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), meaning a test for EU legal mechanisms to uphold democratic standards.
The Use of AI and Deepfakes in Election Campaigns
Artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI capable of producing deepfakes, has moved from sci-fi speculation into becoming a serious factor in electoral politics. In 2026, this trend will be inseparable from broader debates about media freedom, electoral integrity, and digital regulation, including the EU’s forthcoming AI Act.
Deepfakes are AI-generated or AI-altered videos, images, or audio that mimic reality. They have already proliferated and influenced global elections. A study published last summer found that 38 countries have experienced election-related deepfake incidents in recent years.
The impact of deepfakes is not only important because of their reach, but because they damage public trust. By lowering the cost of producing convincing fake media, AI enhances what researchers call the “liar’s dividend,” where real footage can be dismissed as fake and real media loses credibility. For example, the upcoming Hungarian election is already being shaped by AI-generated political content, and the European Parliament voiced its concern over unlabelled AI-generated political videos published on social media channels tied to political parties.
While some governments are attempting to mitigate these risks by employing tools to detect deepfakes, technology alone cannot solve the problem: legal mechanisms and their enforcement are needed.
Harassment of Journalists and Self-Censorship
One of the most worrying recent global trends is the increase in physical and digital threats to journalists, which goes hand in hand with rising self-censorship and negatively affects media freedom.
According to the latest UNESCO World Trends in Freedom of Expression and Media Development report, freedom of expression has declined significantly worldwide, accompanied by a steep rise in attacks on journalists. Governments and powerful actors have tightened control over traditional and digital media channels. Reporters are not only facing physical violence, but also surveillance, legal intimidation, and online harassment that undermines independent reporting and forces many to avoid sensitive topics altogether.
Economic Fragility
Another structural challenge that will undoubtedly shape media ecosystems in 2026 is the economic fragility of independent journalism. The 2025 World Press Freedom Index shows that the financial environment for journalism is at a historic low point: in 160 out of 180 countries, with media outlets struggling to sustain basic operations. Advertising revenue has shifted dramatically toward large tech platforms, leaving news organisations starved for funds. Newsrooms are shutting down worldwide, especially where political pressure compounds economic vulnerabilities, leading to news deserts where access to reliable news is severely limited.
The domination of global digital advertising by tech giants has not only diverted revenue but also amplified disinformation and manipulated online information environments, further destabilising independent media. In 2026, economic viability will be a defining battlefield for media freedom.
The Journalism Science Alliance pairs journalists with scientists and backs their work with grants, mentoring, training, and cross-border collaboration to support public interest investigations. In its first cycle, it supported 24 teams from 15 countries, awarding nearly 1 million euros in funding.
The idea for the Journalism Science Alliance (JSA) emerged during early conversations between the European Journalism Centre (EJC) and NOVA University in Lisbon. As Vera Penêda, Director of Programmes & Impact at the EJC, recalls, “we realised that it was a good moment in time to create a joint programme, at a time when journalism and science are both under pressure from rising authoritarianism and mis- and disinformation.” This shared urgency laid the groundwork for a pan-European initiative designed to bridge two fields that rarely collaborate in a structured way.
JSA is built around a simple premise: meaningful investigative journalism can be strengthened when it draws on scientific methods, and research can reach deeper into public life when communicated through strong, evidence-based reporting. The programme supports this idea through grant funding, training, mentoring, and networking opportunities that bring journalists and researchers together. With these resources, participating teams are expected to uncover stories of public interest, experiment with new approaches, and produce investigations capable of engaging audiences across Europe.
The concept is not entirely new. Over the past few decades, several initiatives have shown what can happen when academics and media professionals combine their skills. A collaborative study of the 1967 Detroit riots, carried out by the Detroit Free Press and Michigan’s Institute for Social Research, became an early demonstration of how joint inquiry can shape public understanding. “Reading the Riots,” a landmark project following the 2011 unrest in the UK, revealed how much impact such partnerships can have when journalists and scholars examine social crises together. More recently, the Center for Media, Data and Society at the Central European University ran the Black Waters project with Atlatszo and BIRN, assembling an interdisciplinary team to investigate environmental corruption along the Danube in Hungary and Romania.
What sets JSA apart is its scale and ambition. Co-funded by the European Union’s Creative Europe programme, it will run across Europe for two years, distributing €2 million in grants to support science-based investigative journalism projects, and will provide additional assistance in the form of mentoring and training. As Penêda explains, it will help participants strengthen skills such as visibility and dissemination: “Journalists learn how to apply elements of the scientific method, such as hypothesis-driven inquiry and data scrutiny. Scientists, in turn, learn how to share their work in ways that resonate with wider audiences.”
The scope of the calls has been intentionally kept broad to encourage a wide range of ideas and partnerships. The aim is to empower journalists and researchers to explore stories that matter to their communities and to the wider public sphere.
To support this ambition, the programme awards three types of grants: €10,000, €20,000, and €50,000. Eligibility criteria mirror the programme’s commitment to collaboration and cross-border exchange. Participating organisations must be based in countries that take part in the full cross-sectoral strand of the Creative Europe programme. This includes all 27 EU member states as well as Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, and Ukraine. Partners from outside these countries can also participate, provided the core team includes one eligible media outlet and one eligible research institution.
The first call, closed this summer, revealed how strongly the sector has been waiting for such a structure. JSA received 162 proposals, more than double the total number of grants it will award across its two-year run. Applicants came from 54 countries, and most teams applied for the largest Tier 3 grants of €50,000. For Penêda, this level of interest sends a clear signal: “This shows that there is enormous demand for a space where journalists and scientists can work together.”
From this pool, the independent jury selected 24 teams from 15 countries, awarding €1 million in total. The successful applicants come from a wide geographic spread and will now have eight months to complete their investigations. While many of the chosen projects focus on environmental questions, topics also range across health, justice, inequality, disinformation, and more. Penêda notes that some of the partnerships themselves are pioneering, bringing together experts who would rarely collaborate otherwise, “for example with psychologists.”
One of the recurring questions during this process was how to balance the very different working cultures and interests of science and journalism. Penêda explains that the JSA “is not about translating research into journalism, it’s about co-creating the investigation from the start, with both disciplines shaping the story.” Teams receive tailored mentoring for both sectors, and evaluators prioritised projects promising equal impact and mutual benefit for both.
Balance does not come without challenges. Penêda identifies time and alignment as the first hurdle: “They operate on a different schedule and vocabulary.” The second was ensuring that applicants clearly understood the scope, as “it is not a science journalism programme. We support any topic as long as scientific experience improves the story.” A third difficulty lies in funding: as a co-funded EU programme, the remaining financing is hard to secure. “While some foundations have stepped back from investigative journalism, others simply don’t have the schemes in place to co-fund ongoing initiatives,” Penêda notes, adding that, “we need a funding ecosystem that supports shared ownership.”
Looking ahead, Penêda is clear about the ambition: “We’d love to renew it.” The next call is set for early 2026, and the long-term vision is expansive: “it could be a template for a collaborative truth-telling model that could grow into a global alliance”, provided the right partners come on board. “It’s not just a grant scheme. It’s a way of testing how journalism and science can work together, as two truth-based fields, by building a shared structure of support.”
Artificial intelligence offers powerful tools while also putting new pressures on already fragile business models in journalism. While newsrooms can turn to AI to boost efficiency and reach audiences in new ways, they also have to face a significant decrease in traffic – and complex questions about who should pay for the journalism that fuels AI systems.
AI tools are reshaping journalism in many ways, and their impact on business models is becoming increasingly visible. Experts usually articulate both optimism and uncertainty surrounding these changes.
For example, Niamh Burns, Senior Research Analyst in Tech and Media at Enders Analysis, describes the current situation as “a mixed bag.” Veronika Munk, Director of Innovation and New Markets at Denník N, notes that every newsroom she knows already uses AI in some form. There is even a sense of fear of missing out, she says, as newsrooms rush to try new tools, but “only a few look at success metrics,” and follow whether these tools deliver the results they expect.
The Benefits of AI in Newsrooms
Despite this lack of clarity, certain benefits of AI are evident. AI tools can help news outlets respond more quickly to their audiences, operate more efficiently, and personalise their products. They also give news organisations new ways to tell stories, reach audiences through different formats, and create products that have the potential to bring in more revenue. One clear example is the use of AI tools for tagging, which Munk describes as particularly helpful for search engine optimisation and direct email campaigns, both of which are essential for maintaining and growing readership. Other examples include automated social media posting, translation, and transcription tools, both from audio to text and vice versa.
Burns highlights that AI tools can become especially valuable for data journalists. These tools make it possible to analyse large datasets far more quickly and with fewer resources, which means even small newsrooms can attempt investigations that would previously have been out of reach. She also points out that “AI can also help with the multiplatform distribution model,” making it easier to prepare audio, video, or social media versions of a single story. In many cases, these new formats lead to higher user engagement and, with that, a greater chance of converting casual readers into subscribers.
Some organisations are already using AI to write headlines that perform better in search engines or to translate stories into new languages. This allows them to reach audiences they have never served before. Burns, however, warns against taking personalisation too far. While AI can support more sophisticated recommendation systems, journalism has always been shaped by editorial judgement, and she argues that this cannot be fully delegated to algorithms. Editors must still decide which stories matter most.
Munk takes a practical view of these developments. If a newsroom can save time on routine tasks, she says, then there is more capacity for journalistic work, and this ultimately strengthens the product. She has also seen AI tools directly contribute to higher revenue. “We have a lot of campaigns, and this tool, Manychat, a social media client, is really useful,” she explains. Denník N integrated the tool into Instagram, where sharing links is not possible. However, when the outlet partnered with The New York Times and bundled subscriptions, users could comment “New York Times” on an Instagram post and they immediately received an automated direct message with the subscription link. Munk explains that they have been using this tool for half a year and “the conversion rate is quite high sometimes.”
Another important contribution of AI is its ability to analyse audience behaviour. By identifying trends in topics, formats, or publishing times that perform best, AI tools can guide editors as they shape content strategies. These insights help balance public interest journalism with the need to produce stories that draw enough attention to sustain the business.
Still, as Munk notes, while some outlets may think about monetising the tools they develop, most are building similar systems for internal use, such as summarisation tools or language checkers. This means the competitive advantage often lies not in creating unique tools, but in deploying them thoughtfully.
Risks to Traffic and Visibility
At the same time, concerns about the risks AI poses to journalism have been steadily growing. Many of these concerns arise from the simple fact that the business model for news media was already fragile long before AI tools became widespread. Burns explains that publishers originally put their content online for free because they expected to earn money from advertising. That model has been faltering for a decade, but, as she says, “with AI, we see a further challenge: news organisations not getting clickthrough traffic as before.”
This is indeed the main concern for news media. While tech companies have relied heavily on news content to train large language models, now search engines and chatbots answer many queries directly. This means that even when users seek reliable information, they may not reach the website that produced it. Studies already show that the clickthrough rate for Google’s AI-generated summaries is dramatically lower than for traditional search results – Tollbit, for example, found a 91% decrease. Furthermore, Cloudflare reported that OpenAI scraped a news site hundreds of times for every single referral page view it sent.
Publishers see a pattern in this: while their content helps power AI tools, their own visibility shrinks. According to a study by the Reuters Institute, 74% of respondents are worried about a decline in referral traffic for their news organisation.
The impact is not equal across newsrooms. Munk notes that Denník N feels the decline in clickthrough traffic less because of their hard paywall model. Still, it can be a serious problem for outlets that rely heavily on advertising, she adds.
This has serious consequences. As audience behaviour changes, more people turn to AI-powered search engines and chatbots. For many publishers, disintermediation, the loss of direct connection with audiences, is becoming the greatest fear. Younger audiences, who already have weaker ties to traditional news brands, are drifting even further away.
Therefore, Burns argues that newsrooms “need to build direct engagement with their audience,” also because nobody knows how these tools will evolve. They change constantly as tech companies adjust their products to improve user experience. The figures and patterns we see today may shift again in as little as a few months.
Legal Battles and Licensing
Against this backdrop, publishers are trying to rethink how they can adapt. Some believe that they may eventually need to distinguish between human readers and AI agents. As The Atlantic’s CEO, Nicholas Thompson, argued at a conference, they need to identify who is visiting the site so that the organisation can decide how to monetise that interaction. He imagines showing different products or even blocking access in some cases.
You could block AI crawlers, Burns says, but then you face the “problem of losing visibility, because users will still go to these tools to search for information.” Therefore, blocking may protect content, but it also deepens the risk of disappearing from public view.
There is also a broader ethical and economic issue. AI companies rely heavily on the quality of journalistic work, which depends on careful fact-checking, verification and editorial judgement. A white paper published last year by News Media Alliance confirmed that journalistic content is among the most frequently used sources for AI systems. Yet much of this use happens without permission or payment. Burns asks whether it is possible to create an incentive structure where AI companies pay for content. Her answer is cautious: “It’s very patchy at the moment.”
Some publishers have responded with legal action. The New York Times has sued OpenAI for copyright violations, while Dow Jones and the New York Post have taken action against Perplexity.
Others have chosen partnership. A number of news organisations have already agreed to licensing deals. Burns sees “some development in the content of such deals, they are more sophisticated.” She believes that the companies should pay the newsrooms not only for historical, but also for ongoing access.
Survey data from the Reuters Institute shows that almost four in ten publishers expect licensing income from AI companies to become significant. Most, however, prefer collective deals that support the entire sector, rather than each newsroom negotiating its own terms.
Munk agrees that AI companies need journalistic content, and she sees licensing as essential for the future. “It doesn’t work otherwise. If you use something, you need to pay for it,” she argues. Burns also believes that licensing is the right path but warns that not every market will benefit equally. Large English-language publishers have more leverage, while smaller organisations will struggle. She argues that this imbalance shows why “regulatory intervention is needed here, not just ad hoc deals.”
At the same time, the growing value of human editorial oversight may become a strength for publishers who emphasise accuracy, verification, and accountability. Munk notes that journalists are responsible for the content they produce, and this responsibility gives this type of content greater value. Outlets that maintain strong editorial standards, she says, will stand out in the information environment.
Looking ahead, many argue that publishers, journalists, and tech companies should work together to understand how different forms of journalism contribute to the AI value chain. This understanding will be essential for building sustainable business models in the next era of journalism.
The European Commission’s new €2 trillion budget proposal could reshape EU support for journalism. Hopes are high for a substantial increase in journalism funding, but questions remain over how much of it will truly reach news organisations. Experts also agree that EU funding could have a greater impact if it was more targeted, better structured, and aligned with a long-term vision for Europe’s media landscape.
In the summer, the European Commission presented its proposal for the next seven-year budget (Multiannual Financial Framework, MFF), amounting to €2 trillion for the period from 2028 to 2034. According to the proposal, the Creative Europe and Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values (CERV) programmes are being merged into one media-culture joint support vehicle, AgoraEU, which will support media freedom, civil rights, democracy, and diversity with a total of EUR 8.6 billion.
AgoraEU will consist of three strands: Culture, CERV+, and Media+. In the previous MFF, Creative Europe amounted to €2.44 billion and CERV about €1.55 billion. Research by the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) found that from 2018 to 2024, the EU funded journalism projects with a total of €295.1 million (about €42 million each year). Therefore, AgoraEU’s planned €8.6 billion represents a significant increase. The Media+ strand, designed to strengthen the competitiveness and resilience of the media and audiovisual industries, including production, market access, digital transition, media pluralism, and viability, will account for roughly €3.2 billion of that total – around €457 million per year.
Media+ proposes funding in investigative journalism, digital innovation, and media literacy, to increase access to trustworthy information and tackle disinformation. According to the Commission, it will build on the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and will complement the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA) by providing financial support and strengthening editorial independence.
However, it is important to note that the Media+ strand splits between Audiovisual and News objectives, with the first one including films and even video games, and it is not yet known how the €3.2 billion would divide between them, warns Péter Erdélyi, Founding Director of the Center for Sustainable Media. He thinks that this first offer looks very good, and it indeed seems likely that funding will increase compared to the previous period.
MJRC Director Marius Dragomir also welcomes the increase because “journalism is going through unprecedented changes.” Ivana Bjelic Vucinic, Director of the Global Forum for Media Development’s (GFMD) International Media Policy and Advisory Centre (IMPACT), hopes that this reflects a stronger EU commitment to media freedom, civil rights, and democracy.
Determining the Final Numbers for News Media
At the same time, all three experts point out that it is difficult to know how much of the money will actually reach journalism projects, as EU funding mechanisms are complex and often involve many layers of distribution. Bjelic Vucinic notes that the proposal outlines objectives for the News strand, but details of allocations, programme design, and management mechanisms are still unclear. The big question is what will happen during the negotiation period, Erdélyi says, adding that everyone will be lobbying for a bigger share.
In fact, the real battle will start among the Member States. Some governments have already indicated that they reject the budget proposal as it is, while others want to decrease overall spending or adjust priorities significantly, Erdélyi explains. Still, he does not believe that the amount of journalism funding will decrease significantly in the MFF, unless the European political landscape undergoes major changes.
Dragomir agrees: “At the moment, there is considerable support for media and journalism at the EU level. However, this could change depending on wider developments. For instance, if the threat of war in Europe increases, that would obviously have a major impact on how these funds are allocated,” he argues.
Bjelic Vucinic believes, however, that negotiations may reduce the final allocation. “This is why joint advocacy efforts will be essential to preserve funding levels that can meaningfully support independent media and journalism initiatives,” she argues, stressing that preserving and strengthening media freedom depends on strategic allocation of funds. She points to a recent GFMD position paper that recommends providing at least €150 million annually to non-profit, investigative, and small local outlets to achieve real impact. She also emphasises that funding should go beyond short-term project grants and instead ensure operational sustainability, foster innovation, and safeguard editorial independence.
Redesigning Funding for Media Realities
To make EU funding more effective for journalism, all three experts agree that the system needs to be redesigned with the realities of the media sector in mind.
Independent media should be recognised “as a public good essential for democracy,” Bjelic Vucinic argues, adding that funding should be flexible and designed to cover operational needs as well as editorial independence, rather than short-term project grants.
Dragomir says the EU should begin by improving its understanding of the media landscape. He argues that a large-scale effort to map how citizens inform (or misinform) themselves would help to identify gaps in information and reveal which organisations most need support. This, he explains, would allow funding to be better targeted to the needs of both citizens and media outlets.
Erdélyi agrees, stressing that programmes should not lump together vastly different players. He believes that small non-profits with tiny budgets should not be competing against large organisations with tens of millions in resources. Instead, funding should be structured into different schemes, tailored to outlets of different sizes, revenue levels, and capacities. Some outlets, for example small local non-profits, cannot survive under normal market conditions but still provide public service and deserve support. At the same time, he notes, larger organisations could benefit from investment in innovation and competitiveness.
Both Dragomir and Erdélyi also underline that the process of accessing EU money must be simpler, particularly for smaller news organisations that currently struggle with the administrative burden. Erdélyi adds that using intermediaries to distribute funds could help, since they are better placed to handle small grants and have a better understanding of local contexts.
Erdélyi also suggests that the EU could experiment with matching funds, where support would match the income outlets raise from subscriptions or micro-donors, helping to strengthen competitiveness and encourage audience engagement. He also sees potential in incentive schemes, such as giving teachers vouchers to spend on media subscriptions, which would reward quality outlets through market-style mechanisms.
At the same time, Bjelic Vucinic calls for innovation to be prioritised, with funding supporting sustainable business models, quality journalism, and media literacy rather than profit or political goals. She also proposes that EU funds could be used to attract private investment through public–private partnerships, multiplying the effect.
Finally, the experts agree that journalism funding should not be viewed in isolation. Bjelic Vucinic emphasises that support should be embedded in wider EU policy and legislative frameworks.
Beyond AgoraEU
When looking at EU support for journalism, it is important to consider not only the funds proposed under AgoraEU but also a range of other instruments that touch on journalism in indirect ways. Erasmus+, for instance, is a massive programme worth tens of billions in the EU budget. While journalism makes up only a small part of it, Erasmus+ can still support journalism education, including master’s and doctoral programmes, as well as training and skills development.
Programmes such as Digital Europe and Horizon can also play a role by funding tools, research, and digital infrastructure that benefit newsrooms, from AI-based reporting tools to systems for detecting deepfakes and improving cybersecurity. Erdélyi also thinks that other EU programmes, such as the Competitiveness Fund, could be opened to media companies for technological innovation.
Furthermore, Global Europe, the EU’s external funding instrument, also contains media development support, Erdélyi notes, adding that this is especially important because US funding in this field has largely disappeared, and the EU might be trying to take on a greater role in supporting independent media outside its borders.
Independent journalism is essential for democracy, resilience, and public trust, Bjelic Vucinic stresses. At the same time, as Dragomir points out, there is still no clear picture of what it actually costs to sustain a diverse and pluralistic media sector. He believes that the EU should first gather detailed data on who the main actors are, what resources they need, and how much it takes to keep strong media organisations running and able to reach citizens. Only once this knowledge is available, he argues, can the EU realistically estimate the level of financial support required, decide how long it should last, and define the impact it is meant to deliver.
Can small, local independent media thrive in an authoritarian environment? A multiple-year-long funding programme revealed that upscaling small outlets can deliver results, but only when paired with strong internal capacity, business-minded leadership, and continued donor engagement.
Supporting Independent Media Under Pressure
Since 2021, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) has supported independent local media in highly authoritarian environments through a sub-granting programme. For safety reasons, MJRC does not disclose the names and locations of the media outlets in the programme.
Funded by a philanthropic partner, the programme provided core funding to help outlets achieve financial and organisational sustainability, grow audiences, and strengthen resilience. It also fostered collaboration among grantees and evaluated their progress through regular monitoring and comparative analysis, measuring impact across audience reach, revenue, and staffing.
The programme consisted of two phases. In the first phase, MJRC awarded grants to seven local organisations. According to the programme evaluation, it filled a critical gap in local media, offering vital funding, mentoring, and capacity-building. Grantees appreciated the tailored support and local-language administration. Challenges included limited capacities, inexperience running donation campaigns, economic instability in the country, and political pressure.
What Upscaling Looks Like
In the second phase, three of the grantees were selected and received a much larger grant. This phase focused on two core goals: scaling up the infrastructure and impact of the selected outlets and exploring how innovative strategies work in captured media environments. The aim was to help grantees take meaningful steps toward long-term sustainability.
The selection process emphasised operational growth and capacity-building rather than content production, with the jury assessing how applicants could realistically expand their infrastructure, outreach, and impact, based on past performance and readiness for organisational change.
Two grantees received grants almost three times larger than their previous annual budgets, but even the largest outlet experienced a 40% budget increase. In addition to funding, the programme provided ongoing training sessions, peer learning, and mentoring in capacity-building. The organisational development training supported internal improvements, while a needs-based approach ensured tailored support aligned with each outlet’s goals and capacities. The programme aimed to build more sustainable, resilient, and independent media organisations capable of withstanding pressure in challenging environments.
Without this grant, the two smaller grantees would likely have continued to struggle with day-to-day operations, facing little opportunity for meaningful development and little hope of achieving visible impact. In a heavily captured media environment where prospects for press freedom and media sustainability remain bleak, the survival of independent local outlets is largely dependent on donor support. The market simply does not offer the necessary conditions for a small news organisation to become sustainable, let alone to grow or innovate.
The Role of Management and Capacities in Sustainability
One of the key lessons of the project was that smaller outlets often lack the skills and internal capacity required to carry out the kind of strategic and structural transformation that sustainability demands. This became apparent as both smaller grantees faced significant delays in implementing their plans and struggled to use the funds in a timely manner due to insufficient capacities and lack of expertise.
In contrast, the largest grantee was able to deliver on its project goals within the expected timeframe. As a more established organisation with experienced management and a stable internal structure, it was well positioned to absorb the grant and make full use of it.
The size of the organisation and its internal capacity are critical factors in determining how effectively a grantee can handle a grant that dramatically expands its operating budget. While the smaller grantees also experienced a temporary increase in income, primarily through supplementary grants from USAID’s Central Europe programme, the sudden termination of that programme in early 2025 posed a serious threat to their financial stability.
However, the two smaller grantees are not in the same position. One of the most important insights from the project’s earlier phase was confirmed again: outlets led by a business-minded management are significantly better equipped to sustain and grow their operations. This difference became even more apparent after the USAID funding ended. While both smaller grantees lost key financial support, one of them is now in a much stronger position due to its more robust operational staff which has proactively secured new sources of revenue. The other organisation, which lacks a strong business-minded management, has returned to a precarious financial state with potential staff cuts on the horizon and little clarity about the future.
The Limits of Market-Based Models
Long-term sustainability for independent media depends on diversifying revenue streams. Yet in such a hostile and distorted media environment, this is exceedingly difficult. Advertising remains one of the biggest challenges. In captured environments, state advertising often is an important source of media ad revenue but is reserved exclusively for outlets that support the ruling parties. Moreover, in such environments, private businesses are reluctant to advertise in independent outlets, fearing political or economic retaliation.
This makes it all the more important for media organisations to experiment with alternative ways of engaging their audiences. Encouraging regular feedback from readers can help shape editorial strategies that better respond to audience needs. Data on content performance can also reveal which formats or topics are most effective in building loyalty and trust.
Financial sustainability could also benefit from more targeted efforts to understand the audience’s willingness and capacity to pay, whether via donations, subscriptions, or paywalls. Still, in many countries only a small portion of the population is willing to pay for news, therefore audience-based funding, while desirable, cannot yet provide a stable foundation, especially for local outlets with smaller audiences.
Independent local journalism remains indispensable for informing communities and holding power to account. However, without external financial support there is a growing risk of entire regions turning into news deserts where propaganda and misinformation go unchallenged.
Therefore continued donor support is essential. Core funding is the only realistic way to keep small local media running, as the current market offers no viable path to full financial independence. While relying on grants is not ideal, it remains the only available lifeline for independent journalism in countries with declining media freedom.
For more information, contact the Media and Journalism Research Center.
Independent journalism in Europe faces mounting financial and political threats, but a new wave of mission-driven outlets is fighting back. The Journalism Value Project explored how independent media can survive and thrive, offering practical solutions and a vision for a healthy ecosystem.
The Journalism Value Project, run by and for non-profit independent media organisations, including members of Reference – the European Independent Media Circle, and Netzwerk Recherche, aimed to highlight the need to support independent public interest media in Europe and strengthen their financial sustainability. According to Peter Matjašič, former Executive Director of Investigate Europe, a consortium member, the project responded to the “rapid emergence of small, independent media outlets,” which are “countering the decline of traditional media and the rise of misinformation,” yet face serious financial and political pressures.
Through research, podcasts, stakeholder dialogues, and study visits, the project mapped the field, shared best practices, and engaged key stakeholders. It identified significant challenges which public interest journalism has to face in Europe. Journalists encounter violence, harassment, and surveillance, while restrictive laws and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) silence critical voices. Economic pressure, precarious working conditions, and unsustainable business models further weaken independent outlets, especially at a local level. Media capture and political interference threaten editorial independence, while misinformation, amplified by generative AI, clickbait content, and attacks on journalistic integrity undermine public trust.
Despite some EU efforts, institutional support remains inadequate, and recent shifts in the funding landscape – the USAID funding freeze, changing priorities of some foundations, corporate funders abandoning fact-checking – have created a significant gap that threatens the sector’s sustainability.
What Independent Media Leaders Shared
As Matjašič stressed, the main lesson of the project was that independent journalism is “essential infrastructure for democracy,”; still it remains severely underfunded and exposed to both financial and physical risks. Many independent newsrooms operate with minimal resources and precarious business models, but a new wave of mission-driven, digital-native outlets is stepping in. These organisations demonstrate innovation, community engagement, and resilience, helping to fill the gaps left by declining legacy media.
Matjašič also highlighted that the project’s podcast series produced some of the most surprising insights through interviews with over 20 independent media leaders. These conversations revealed that partnerships with influencers opened new avenues for audience engagement and funding, often from non-traditional sectors such as science and innovation. “Reluctance among donors to support journalism often stems from its role in holding power to account,” he noted, adding that independent outlets have shown creativity in securing alternative support.
Peer learning during study visits was also a very important element of the project. Newsroom leaders shared experiences on membership models and newsletters, among other topics. As Matjašič said, this showed that there is a strong solidarity among independent outlets, and they are eager to share their experiences.
During the consultations and in the podcasts, media professionals from the Reference Circle stressed that sustaining independent journalism requires investment beyond editorial work, such as in subscription systems, CRM (Customer Relationship Management) tools, and community engagement. They highlighted the urgent need to improve journalists’ working conditions and financial security to maintain a skilled workforce and attract new talent. They also saw it essential to grow new audiences and reach underserved communities to expand both impact and revenue.
Stakeholder consultations echoed these concerns. Funders recognised journalism’s social value in combating misinformation, fostering transparency, and promoting social cohesion, but pointed out serious challenges such as distrust in media, misinformation, the lack of charitable status for journalism, and funding gaps.
Impact investors noted that public value and financial sustainability can complement each other, though public value is harder to quantify. Some investors prioritise journalism’s mission over profit, using patient capital to help outlets build resilience. At the same time, think tanks value independent media as partners who help translate complex research into accessible stories, though they recognise capacity limitations.
How to Build Resilient Newsrooms
The project outlined a series of recommendations to strengthen independent public interest media in Europe, focusing on financial sustainability, collaboration, advocacy, capacity building, and public engagement.
A key priority should be the shift from project-based to core funding, which, as Peter Matjašič explained, enables outlets “to focus on their mission, innovate, and build resilience,” whereas project funding restricts long-term planning and flexibility. He added that while some funders recognise the value of core, multi-year support, others are constrained by internal structures or legal restrictions.
Diversifying funding sources is also essential for financial resilience. According to Matjašič, relying on a single income stream leaves media outlets vulnerable. “Business models should be open, with a moral compass about where to accept money from,” he argued, adding that investing in business skills is vital for developing sustainable organisations. “This is where many outlets fail,” as journalists often don’t see these business skills as important and sometimes are even afraid of the word “management,” although they should not be. Without these skills, many journalist-founded outlets struggle to monetise their work or navigate legal and organisational necessities. Coaching in the handling of complex funding structures and managing sensitive information is equally important to help media outlets professionalise and become more resilient against financial and political pressure.
The project also highlighted the need to simplify application processes and refine impact measurement to ease the administrative burden on newsrooms. Collaboration across media outlets and sectors is another cornerstone of the recommendations, which encourage peer learning, resource-sharing networks, and partnerships with think tanks, whistleblowers, and civil society to amplify impact. The project advocates for better legal protections against SLAPPs and the recognition of journalism as a charitable cause across Europe, alongside the allocation of tax revenue to support journalism-focused NGOs.
Finally, fostering public trust and engagement is essential. Transparent editorial and business practices, alongside innovative audience engagement strategies such as live journalism and impactful storytelling, can build trust and increase audience revenue. Nevertheless, robust philanthropic support and thoughtful policy reforms are still essential to securing the future of independent journalism in Europe.
The Essentials for a Sustainable Media Sector
Matjašič emphasised that independent media organisations should balance financial sustainability with editorial independence, and they should seek funding that aligns with their mission rather than chasing money that influences editorial priorities. Transparency about funding sources is critical, as is maintaining clear boundaries with funders. Based on the lessons learned from the project, the Reference Circle – a network focused on non-editorial issues – will continue to advocate for more effective funding and provide opportunities for peer learning and knowledge exchange, he added.
As he argued, although “there is no silver bullet” for a healthy ecosystem, it would combine core funding, diversified revenue streams, and strong business skills among newsroom leaders, alongside collaboration across borders and sectors. Such an environment should be underpinned by legal protections for press freedom, charitable support for journalism, and high public trust built through transparency, engagement, and demonstrated social impact.
Philea has launched a survey on media and journalism funding in Europe, seeking to create an image of the funding landscape and shape a stronger philanthropic agenda for independent journalism in Europe.
Independent journalism is not only valuable in its own right but is essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. Often referred to as the Fourth Estate, journalism serves as a crucial watchdog that upholds the separation of powers and reinforces democratic checks and balances.
In an era where misinformation and disinformation threaten democratic institutions, the role of independent journalism in defending democracy has become even more vital. It holds those in power accountable, exposes corruption, and ensures citizens have access to accurate and reliable information, an indispensable foundation for informed participation in democratic processes. By elevating diverse perspectives and nurturing open, fact-based public discourse, journalism helps sustain the freedoms and civic engagement at the core of democratic life.
The survey, created by the Journalism Funders Forum, seeks to better understand how foundations support media and journalism in Europe, which areas receive focus, where the funding gaps lie, and what the various approaches are. The insights will help guide new funders and shape a stronger independent journalism sector in Europe.
This study is part of the 2025 work of the Journalism Funders Forum, Europe’s only peer-learning platform for funders committed to independent, quality journalism and its role in democracy.
Combining EU and philanthropic funding, the Investigative Journalism for Europe (IJ4EU) fund has become a model for supporting cross-border investigative journalism with high impact. With 90% public and 10% private funding, the fund has helped expose corruption, influence policy decisions, and protect press freedom, offering donors a vehicle for meaningful media impact.
The recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union to outlaw so-called “golden passport” schemes that allowed foreigners to buy EU citizenship marked a significant victory for investigative journalism. In its ruling, the court referred to the work of journalists who had exposed the abuse and malicious intent often underpinning these schemes.
The investigation was only one of many high-profile stories supported by IJ4EU, an initiative dedicated to strengthening cross-border watchdog reporting across the continent.
Launched in 2018, the IJ4EU fund backs investigative journalism that crosses national boundaries, reflecting the transnational nature of pressing public interest issues. The fund is operated by a consortium of four independent organisations committed to press freedom: the International Press Institute (IPI), which leads the consortium, the European Journalism Centre (EJC), the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), and Arena for Journalism in Europe.
Timothy Large, Director of Independent Media Programmes and IJ4EU manager at the IPI, underscores the programme’s success. “The jury is no longer out. This model works,” he says. By combining public and private funds, IJ4EU channels money into “the highest quality investigative journalism without compromising editorial independence.” According to Large, 90 percent of the funding comes from the European Commission, while 10 percent is contributed by philanthropies such as Adessium, Fritt Ord, and Isocrates Foundations, as well as the City of Leipzig. Previous donors also include Luminate and Open Society Foundations.
“Implementers make sure that editorial independence is at the heart of the programme,” he adds. IJ4EU’s model of “cascading grants” allows taxpayer and foundation money to flow via neutral intermediaries, with the consortium partners performing the intermediary function. Independent juries select all projects for funding. “All donors can have confidence that recipients are of high quality, while grantees can be sure that there are no strings attached,” Large highlights.
IJ4EU focuses on cross-border reporting. “Big issues nowadays require time and investment and are beyond borders: climate change, migration, corruption,” Large explains.
The demand for such support has been overwhelming: since its inception, IJ4EU has received applications from 1,526 teams seeking over €43 million in funding. It has distributed €6 million to 226 teams, involving more than a thousand journalists working on complex investigations.
An independent external evaluation report of the initiative found that it has made a significant contribution to improving the media ecosystem and, in turn, to fostering a more well-informed public.
IJ4EU offers targeted support through two primary grant schemes. The Investigation Support Scheme, managed by IPI, provides up to €50,000 to carry out resource-intensive investigations. The Freelancer Support Scheme, overseen by EJC, offers up to €20,000 to teams led by freelance journalists.
In addition to the grants, the scheme offers mentoring, training, and legal counselling to address the distinct challenges they face. Large describes the offering as a “full package,” noting that legal assistance and technical support are essential, as legal threats, including SLAPPs (strategic lawsuits against public participation) and defamation suits, have increased. “Weaponisation of legal risks has a chilling effect,” he says, adding that covering such complex topics sometimes also demands mentoring and help with finding partners.
The Fund’s independent external evaluation highlights that its training, mentorship, legal, and editorial support have significantly strengthened journalists’ professional resilience. Many beneficiaries, particularly freelancers, report feeling better equipped and protected in pursuing public interest investigations.
IJ4EU has seen a wide range of topics among grant applications. Many focus on stories related to climate change or the environment, Large explains, adding that since 2022, many teams have started framing their investigations through a security lens; partly to appeal to funders. Stories about EU borders have also been frequent.
Geographically, applications have come from every EU Member State and candidate country, with particularly strong proposals from Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands, he says. There are many applications also from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, with a noticeable rise from Ukraine.
“Some stories have had tremendous impact,” Large says, citing examples such as the story about the Maltese golden passport scheme, or an investigation into corruption in the Danube Delta that resulted in the suspension of EU funds and an OLAF inquiry. The independent external evaluation also confirms that IJ4EU-backed investigations consistently spark responses from policymakers and businesses and are often quoted by other major media. The programme has been particularly impactful in Eastern Europe, where independent journalism often faces more severe threats. These stories are also “building trust in watchdog journalism as a public good,” Large adds.
At the same time, he acknowledges that while IJ4EU has achieved much, it faces various challenges. Fundraising, for example, remains a concern. “It is wonderful to be able to provide this amount, but there is need for more,” he says, describing current support as “a drop in the ocean,” particularly in the context of the worsening funding landscape.
On a human level, he points to the psychological toll investigative journalism can take. Many of these stories are stressful, and there is “a lot of burnout and anxiety among journalists, even trauma,” he notes. Cross-border cooperation, while essential, can also be difficult to manage.
Participating foundations recognise that “independent media is a cornerstone of democracy,” Large says, adding that IJ4EU is a “safe and impactful way of getting into funding journalism.” He hopes that the programme will not only continue, but attract more philanthropic support, as there is a huge demand for such grants. Looking ahead, he imagines a possible future expansion: “Dreaming big, maybe one day the model can be expanded beyond Europe, to become global, because it really works.”