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.
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.
In an article published in Journalism Studies, Alison McAdam outlines a multidimensional approach to sustainability that expands the primary economic focus by considering how the social, cultural, and political roles that local news outlets play in their communities shape it.
The term “sustainability” is widely used across various fields and has become central to discussions on the crisis facing local journalism. Research has documented the decline of local news through concepts like “news deserts” and “news blackholes,” with sustainability often invoked in relation to finding viable futures for the sector. Still, there is limited research defining what sustainability means in this context.
In local journalism, economic concerns remain central but are interlinked with social, cultural, political, geographic, and temporal dimensions. While economic considerations often dominate discussions, the approach of this study draws on cross-disciplinary and journalism-specific literature, highlighting the multiple roles local news plays in communities. The suggested framework argues that each dimension contributes to the long-term viability of local news, recognising endurance as a fundamental principle of sustainability.
Local media serve multiple functions: they foster community cohesion, act as cultural ambassadors, provide historical records, and hold local political powers accountable. These contribute to the unique connection between local news outlets and their audiences, underlining their importance in maintaining an informed community.
Sustainability is a complex concept with diverse definitions, ranging from a vision of the future to a social phenomenon. Traditionally, it focused on economic indicators such as profitability and financial viability, but more recent approaches emphasise material well-being, quality of life, and social equity. The “triple bottom line” framework integrates environmental, economic, and social dimensions, and time is considered a crucial factor in sustainability. However, journalism studies on sustainability have yet to fully incorporate these perspectives.
A multidimensional approach to sustainability in local news incorporates economic, social, cultural, political, geographic, and temporal dimensions. This framework draws from cross-disciplinary literature and highlights the importance of these factors in ensuring local news’ financial viability, legitimacy, and trust within communities.
The economic dimension of local news sustainability focuses on the production, distribution, and consumption of news. Media corporatisation and cost-cutting strategies have weakened local news, but non-profit outlets are also emerging, prioritising financial viability over growth. Business models focus on increasing audience revenue and diversifying commercial strategies. Some scholars argue that relationship-building and preserving the civic value of local news are essential for long-term sustainability.
The social dimension concentrates on the community’s demographics, the role of local news in connecting people, and on building social capital. Local news outlets embedded in the community can leverage this position to develop power, trust, and loyalty, fostering reciprocal relationships with audiences and advertisers. This social capital, along with a deep understanding of local knowledge, helps news outlets maintain relevance and become more sustainable.
The cultural dimension focuses on how media shape and maintain community values and identities. Local news outlets leverage cultural elements, such as producing alternative publications or archiving historical content, to generate revenue and reinforce their standing in the community. This cultural role helps solidify local news as an essential part of the community’s identity and history.
The political dimension examines the role of the media in supporting democracy and public participation. It highlights the importance of government support for local news, including funding or advertising. While government subsidies can enhance credibility, there may be concerns regarding political influence.
The geographic dimension focuses on the role of physical locations in shaping news outlets’ functions. It highlights how especially rural and remote communities can influence news production, audience relevance, and the dissemination of emergency information. Local sensibility and understanding geographic boundaries help news outlets gauge their reach and relevance, ensuring their viability and connection to audiences.
The temporal dimension highlights the importance of recognising both historical and current factors in sustaining local media. By focusing on past successes and enduring practices alongside modern challenges, this approach advocates for long-term solutions and acknowledges the value of what has stood the test of time amid changes in the landscape.
The concept of “sustainability” provides valuable insights into the challenges faced by local news media. Journalism studies must embrace the complexity of the term “sustainability,” drawing on the broader concept from other disciplines. The sustainability of local news should be viewed as multidimensional, demonstrated by its endurance over time. This nuanced approach can also benefit the communities served by local news outlets. By considering sustainability in a broader context, social equity factors emerge, ensuring equitable access to local news that connects citizens to their community, fosters engagement, and supports democratic processes.
McAdam, A. (2025). Rethinking “Sustainability” as a Multidimensional Conceptual Framework for Local Journalism Studies. Journalism Studies, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2025.2492738
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.”
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.
Funders, journalists, and civic actors are rethinking how to defend media freedom amid funding cuts, political intimidation, legal threats, and the dominance of Big Tech. From pooled funds to local initiatives, a range of strategies is emerging to support public interest journalism.
The barrage of challenges facing independent journalism is alarming. The funding landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, even before the US foreign aid freeze, with organisations like the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and various governments retreating or shifting their focus. Adding to that is Meta’s decision to cut fact-checking programmes, which has deprived many non-profit newsrooms of crucial revenue – another sign of the growing dependency on Big Tech.
Repressive legislation is another major concern. Foreign agent laws in Central and Eastern Europe are increasingly being used to intimidate independent outlets, with the newest examples coming from Georgia. Attacks and threats or smear campaigns have become widespread in several countries, for example, in Serbia, while the Hungarian government threatens to ban foreign funding for the media. “It is a disaster in pretty epic proportions,” said Drew Sullivan, Co-founder and Publisher of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).
These developments threaten to further fracture information environments, leaving citizens without access to reliable information. In April, the annual event of the Journalism Funders Forum discussed these issues, creating a space to examine how to navigate the challenges and collaborate to preserve independent journalism.
How US Funding Losses Are Shaking Newsrooms Worldwide
The cuts to US government funding hit journalism support worldwide, with a global loss of USD 735 million. According to data from OCCRP, the Pacific region suffered the most, losing 88% of its funding, followed by Central Asia with 47% and Europe with 43%. In Europe, the impact was particularly severe in Cyprus, which lost all donor funding for journalism, while Ukraine lost 82%, Albania 80%, Kosovo 77%, Moldova 69%, and Belarus 64%.
Sullivan warned that some OCCRP partners now face an existential threat, with many unable to secure advertising revenue, being targeted by smear campaigns, and struggling even before the cuts. Countless other outlets are facing potential layoffs and pay cuts.
Press Under Pressure in Italy
The situation is difficult not only in Central and Eastern Europe but also in other EU Member States. In Italy, journalism faces a unique set of challenges rooted in both cultural and systemic issues. To discuss these issues with local foundations, the Journalism Funders Forum’s annual meeting took place for the first time in Florence in cooperation with Assifero, the Italian umbrella organisation for foundations, close in time and location to the subsequent International Journalism Festival in Perugia. As Francesca Mereta, Head of Programmes and Communications at Assifero, explained, journalism historically has not been a focus for philanthropies because the state and public welfare systems seemed to provide sufficient support. However, with the growing spread of disinformation, there seems to be a rising awareness among philanthropies of the need to engage in this field.
Nevertheless, recent years have also seen the concentration of media power in the hands of a few companies, leaving less space for investigative journalism. Freelancers are paid poorly and lack legal protection, making independence from advertising revenue almost impossible and opening the door to political interference. According to Sara Manisera, Investigative Reporter and Fundraiser at the FADA Collective, fragile journalism is dangerous to democracy and leads to increasing polarisation, especially as news consumption shifts to social media.
News organisations struggle not only economically but also in reaching their audiences. Younger generations consume news on platforms like Instagram, making multimedia content increasingly essential. Legal risks also weigh heavily, Cecilia Anesi, Centre Director of the Investigative Reporting Project Italy, noted. Papers are hesitant to publish investigations due to the threat of civil and criminal lawsuits.
One of the most pressing legal threats comes in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), with Italy having the highest number of such cases in the EU. Journalists, whistleblowers, and even comedians face lawsuits by politicians seeking damages of €50,000 to €100,000. The resulting legal costs and mental health impacts are severe, and while EU directives offer some hope, Martina Turola, Head of Communications at The Good Lobby Italy, emphasised that providing journalists with the necessary tools and funding to defend themselves remains essential.
Local Media’s Battle for Survival
Local media face even greater difficulties within the already challenging media landscape. Anesi pointed out that local outlets often lack the international connections that larger mainstream organisations can rely on. Their limited capacity and the burden of bureaucracy also prevent them from offering additional services to increase revenue, making their financial situation particularly precarious.
Still, the survival of local media outlets is essential, as they provide crucial information for their audiences to remain informed about local issues directly impacting their lives. However, while it is easy to start such an outlet, it is extremely difficult to keep it alive in an increasingly hostile and unfair market. “Funding and working on the local level is a way to counter what is happening around the world and online,” Sameer Padania, Director of Macroscope London, argued, stressing the importance of supporting journalism “where people are.”
There are various ways to support independent local media beyond grant funding. Placing advertisements in them or subscribing as an organisation could make a significant difference, as even small contributions can be meaningful on one hand and have the potential to encourage others to do the same on the other. Supporting local media is not just altruistic, Padania noted; businesses also benefit by having accurate, reliable information about what is happening in their own communities.
Regulating Big Tech to Protect Journalism’s Future
The shifting funding landscape is just one part of the problem. As Adam Thomas, Founder of Evenly Distributed, pointed out, Big Tech has been disrupting traditional business models for two decades. Vera Franz, former Division Director for Technology & Society at OSF Global Programs, described the moment as “very bleak” but also as an opportunity to challenge Big Tech’s dominance.
At the moment, tech giants have a monopoly on advertising. 80% of Google’s revenue comes from its control of the online advertising system, and it also controls how ads are sold. Although an increasing number of news organisations no longer rely on ads, instead turning to crowdfunding and subscriptions, they are also forced to pay Big Tech through app store or cloud service fees.
“For journalism, Big Tech is the problem of the past, present, and future,” Franz warned, highlighting the importance of building digital infrastructures independent of Big Tech control, as funders must address not only symptoms but also the structural causes of the broken ecosystem.
One step towards this could be monetising unique content by outlets themselves and preventing AI from scraping it without compensation. However, regulation is key in this regard, and, as Pierrick Judeaux, Director of Portfolio and EU Representative at International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM) noted, it is an open question how far the European Union is willing to go and how many Member States would be willing to implement stricter regulation.
There are also ongoing discussions about building a European cloud system, independent from US tech giants, but, as Franz highlighted, journalists and funders are not yet sufficiently involved, although funders, with their broader perspective, have a particular responsibility to connect initiatives and strengthen the sector’s resilience.
How Philanthropies Can Step Up for Independent Media
In these circumstances, it is crucial for funders to rethink their approaches if independent journalism is to survive. Civil society and media are equally vital pillars of democracy, a reality becoming more apparent not only in autocracies but also in parts of Western Europe. “If you don’t have free media based on facts, where would you go to discuss your causes?” asked Maribel Königer, Director of Communications, Journalism and Media at the ERSTE Foundation.
The recent tragedy in Serbia’s Vojvodina region, when a train station’s roof collapsed, demonstrated why independent media is important. According to Vasic, it made many realize what journalists have been saying for years: corruption can kill. Although the donation culture is underdeveloped in the country, KRIK has been successful in securing revenue from its audience by explaining why they need money and involving donors in the decision-making process about spending. Vasic believes that brand awareness and connection to readers are paramount for the success of such efforts.
There are various other success stories of organisations using their creativity to increase revenue. Dennik N in Slovakia increased its subscriber base by almost 40% due to a successful campaign. Direkt36 in Hungary gets 75% of its income from commercial revenue. These examples show that there is potential in the sector, but entrepreneurial leadership and business-mindedness are key to such achievements, Sullivan emphasized.
Nevertheless, there are several ways where philanthropies could also strengthen their involvement. Judeaux called for better advocacy, bringing other potential funders to the space by articulating the value of public interest journalism, unlocking more private capital, attentive listening to grantees, and understanding where grant funding fits best.
Successful funding programs also require long-term strategy and a deep understanding of grantees’ operations and national contexts, particularly in authoritarian environments. Long-term, flexible funding is seen as the most helpful, enabling organisations to plan beyond mere survival. Adrian Arena, Director of the International Human Rights Programme at Oak Foundation, argued that linguistic barriers often hamper proper grant evaluation, therefore, it is important to have team members who understand the language in which grantees publish.
Pooled funds may provide an answer to many of these challenges and can play a crucial role in supporting journalism by opening up opportunities for funders and media outlets alike. They provide a buffer between donors and grantees that can be beneficial for all parties involved. Pooled funds also bring together a diversity of experiences, allowing knowledge-sharing and fostering a collective response to challenges that no single funder could address alone.
Civitates is one such pooled fund. Its Senior Programme Manager Eszter Szucs explained that linking journalism support to broader democracy funding could help bring in new funders, using the shrinking media freedom as an indicator of democratic backsliding.
Another example of such pooled funds is the recently launched Media Forward Fund (MFF), which focuses on developing business skills within media organisations, as the team realised that the level of business skills is really low in many media organisations, argued Founding Director Martin Kotynek.
MFF is a “cousin” of Press Forward, a US initiative, and there are other similar regional pooled funds in the making, in the UK, Brazil, and Australia, with the potential of bringing in new, locally engaged funders. As Kathy Im, Director, Journalism and Media at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation emphasised, attracting new funders requires offering flexibility, recognising their varying starting points.
Recognising the scale of the current crisis, Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager at Adessium Foundation and Willem Lenders, Programme Manager at Limelight Foundation, the Co-chairs of the Journalism Funders Forum, called for urgent collective action. They announced a joint initiative to respond to the funding gaps left by US cuts. Although philanthropies cannot fully replace lost US support, a coordinated answer could ensure that crucial independent media outlets have a fighting chance.
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:
- Unlocking all content published in Denník N’s first 10 years.
- Giving a free subscription to all future first-time voters.
- Producing significantly more free, short videos on social media.
- Sending free print editions to all senior homes and senior clubs.
- Conducting 100 interviews with people who haven’t given up on Slovakia.
- Publishing special print editions dedicated to at least five Slovak regions.
- Offering our video content for free to TV broadcasters.
- Organising lectures on the dangers of social media for 10,000 students.
- Launching a training programme for young journalists.
- 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.
Donor dependency, wherein media outlets rely heavily on external grants, has become a major challenge for independent media. While crucial for the survival of many outlets, it comes with substantial risks, as the recent freeze on US funding has demonstrated. Experts emphasise the need for revenue diversification to ensure long-term sustainability.
Donor dependency occurs when an organisation relies predominantly on external grants from philanthropies or other donors to sustain its operations. This has become particularly common among independent media operating in challenging environments where alternative revenue streams are scarce.
Anya Schiffrin, Director of the Media, Technology, and Communications specialisation at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, notes that donor dependency is not a new phenomenon. However, concerns related to it were different two decades ago. When new donors entered the field and started to fund reporting on certain topics, it raised concerns about editorial independence. Later, “donors started to fund too many outlets,” which began to compete for the same resources.
The landscape changed after the 2008 financial crisis. “Everyone needed money,” Schiffrin argues, adding that a lot of news organisations improved their fundraising capabilities in the process. As her study highlighted in 2019, advertising remained difficult to secure and audience-based revenue models often failed to generate sufficient funds. A report by Free Press Unlimited further reinforced that many public interest media, especially those operating in difficult environments, became highly dependent on donor funding, as many struggled to generate commercial income.
In regions like the Western Balkans and Central and Eastern Europe, “donor support has been part of media business models,” argues Davor Marko, Central and South East Europe Programme Manager at Thomson Foundation. While grants were crucial in establishing independent voices after the wars in the Balkans, donor dependency has now become a threat, as many media outlets have neglected sustainability and capacity building.
The Consequences of Donor Dependency
While donor support is often essential for independent media, particularly in restrictive environments, over-reliance on external funding creates significant risks. One major consequence is financial instability. Newsrooms that fail to develop independent revenue streams risk severe financial crises or even closure when donor funding ends. A striking example is the recent USAID funding freeze, which has left many news organisations struggling to stay afloat.
Donor dependency can also distort market dynamics and weaken audience engagement. Donor-funded media often neglect sustainable revenue strategies. As a result, they may capitulate to donor priorities over audience needs, failing to cultivate a loyal readership or produce content that people are willing to pay for. This undermines long-term viability.
In authoritarian or hybrid regimes, donor dependency also exposes media outlets to political pressure. These governments frequently label donor-funded organisations as “foreign agents” or tools of foreign influence, using this narrative to restrict their operations or damage their credibility.
How Can Newsrooms Reduce Donor Dependency?
Reducing donor dependency requires a shift in mindset and a commitment to exploring new revenue streams. For years, many media outlets operated under the assumption that donor funding, particularly from US-funded programmes, would be reliable, Marko notes, adding that this led to a complacent approach wherein newsrooms did not prioritise exit strategies. Now, with US funding drying up, the urgency to adapt has never been greater. Schiffrin warns that European countries are unlikely to fill the gap in journalism support left by US funding, and she expects widespread layoffs. “I am definitely worried. There will be a bloodbath,” she says.
Diversifying revenue to mitigate the risks associated with donor dependency is a critical step. This could include subscriptions, memberships, advertising, and commercial services. Some media outlets have successfully experimented with alternative business models, such as offering video storytelling or live streaming services. Marko points to a newsroom in Serbia that has leveraged its expertise to provide video production at competitive prices. However, these strategies are not one-size-fits-all, he argues; local market conditions must be considered when designing new business models. “The Thomson worked with 100+ media outlets in Central and Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans. 10% of them were successful in creating something new and sustainable,” he says.
Audience engagement is another key factor in financial sustainability. Encouraging reader support through crowdfunding or membership programmes can help newsrooms build financial independence. However, securing this support is not easy, as it requires trust and consistent value delivery to readers.
Collaboration may offer additional opportunities. Anya Schiffrin suggests smaller newsrooms consider partnerships with other outlets or even universities. Academic institutions could provide resources such as office space or even students, although increased bureaucracy might be a trade-off.
Despite these possibilities, the overall outlook remains uncertain. The media development sector is undergoing dramatic changes, and without strategic-level thinking, many outlets will struggle to survive, Marko concludes.
A 2023 survey conducted in Austria with 1,000 participants investigated the relationship between media trust and consumers’ willingness to pay (WTP) for online news in the post-pandemic era. The results indicate a strong correlation between media trust and both WTP and actual media expenditure. This highlights the importance of trust in securing financial sustainability for media organisations. As free content dominates the digital landscape, media companies must rebuild trust to encourage consumers to pay for credible news.
The media industry faces various challenges due to digital disruption and declining trust. While scepticism toward the media is not new, the pandemic accelerated its decline. Trust in media is essential for democracy and economic stability, yet media institutions remain among the least trusted. Despite increased news consumption during the pandemic, trust did not improve. This decline in trust has affected financial sustainability, forcing media companies to shift from ad-based models to paid subscriptions. However, WTP for news remains low, stagnating at 17% globally and only 13.7% in Austria.
Media trust is a crucial factor in social interactions and economic behaviour. Trust in media means audiences believe the media will perform its role satisfactorily. Without trust, the media cannot serve its democratic function, however, it should not be unconditional and should be accompanied by critical media literacy. Trust also involves uncertainty and a leap of faith, as audiences cannot always verify news content. The digital age complicates trust with misinformation, fake news, and algorithm manipulation. Media organisations have also contributed to declining trust through poor reporting and inaccuracies. Since consumers cannot assess media quality before consumption, trust plays a key role in their decision to pay for content. Building trust requires a focus on journalistic integrity and media branding.
From an economic perspective, trust in media brands influences consumer decisions and financial support. Trusted brands create competitive advantages, increasing WTP. Prior studies show that consumers are more likely to pay for news from trusted sources. Economic theories suggest that consumer preferences determine the value of a good: when consumers trust a media brand, they perceive it as more valuable and are more willing to pay for its content. However, free alternatives on social media and financial constraints make it difficult for media companies to convince consumers to pay.
The sample for the online survey, conducted by the Austrian Gallup Institute in October 2023, consisted of 1,000 respondents aged 16 and older, representing Austria’s web-active population. The survey measured media usage, trust, perceptions of media performance, payment behaviours, WTP, and trust in political institutions. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to test hypotheses. Predictors included socio-demographics, media use, and political trust, with interaction terms to test moderation effects.
The results show that trust in media significantly influences WTP and media expenditure. Public service media were rated as the most trustworthy, with television and radio considered more credible than social media. Although media consumption is high, 25% of respondents avoid news, citing psychological stress and lack of trust. Trust in political institutions is low, with only 12% expressing high trust. There is a moderate correlation between media trust and WTP, indicating that trust influences payment behaviour. Political trust also correlates with WTP and media expenditure, suggesting that those with higher trust in political institutions are more likely to support paid news.
Regression analysis shows that higher education and larger households predict higher WTP, while older age, being female, and living in rural areas predict lower WTP. Media use is also a significant predictor, with frequent media users showing higher WTP. Political trust independently predicts WTP, and its interaction with media trust further strengthens this relationship. Media trust remains a significant predictor of WTP across models, though its effect weakens when political trust is considered. When media expenditure is analysed as the dependent variable, similar patterns emerge, though with lower explanatory power. Income significantly influences media expenditure, while media trust loses significance in complex models.
Trust in the media is important for both democratic and economic reasons. Trust enables informed citizenship and financial stability for media organisations. The survey results confirm that trust strongly predicts WTP and media expenditure. As the pandemic increased scepticism toward media due to misinformation and political biases, and social media has further weakened traditional media, trust has become even more critical for securing paid subscriptions. Consumers prioritise credible media brands, which influences their willingness to pay. Therefore, media organisations must focus on rebuilding trust and demonstrating the value of their content.
To restore trust, transparency is essential. Providing insight into journalistic processes can help regain credibility. Fact-checking, ethical reporting, and clear labelling of content can also enhance trust. Accountability is another key factor, requiring strict ethical standards and swift correction of inaccuracies. Engaging with audiences and considering their perspectives can strengthen trust and loyalty.
Beyond trust, understanding other factors influencing WTP is crucial for media sustainability. Socio-demographic factors play a role, highlighting the need for flexible pricing strategies such as micropayments. Regular news consumers tend to trust the media more and are more inclined to pay for content. Advanced data analytics and AI can help tailor content recommendations and increase engagement.
While quality journalism is important, media companies must also focus on branding and marketing. Consumers’ willingness to pay depends not only on content quality but also on brand perception. Strong media brands create competitive advantages, increase perceived value, and drive higher WTP. Marketing and psychology research emphasise the importance of brand trust, yet this remains an underexplored area in media studies.
Voci, D., Karmasin, M., Luef, S., Förster, S., & Kaltenbrunner, A. (2024). Trust has a price?! Unraveling the dynamics between trust in the media and the willingness to pay in the post-pandemic scenario. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241311101