Holding Power to Account: Why the Oak Foundation Supports Independent Journalism

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.