Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager, Informed Society at Adessium Foundation explains why supporting journalism is central to the foundation’s mission, shares insights into their focus, and highlights both the opportunities and challenges of sustaining a healthy information ecosystem in Europe.
Why is it important for the Adessium Foundation to support journalism? How does it fit into your broader strategy?
Adessium is a Dutch family foundation that works on various topics with the aim to foster positive societal change. We operate three programmes, one of which is dedicated to a well-functioning information ecosystem in the digital age.
We have been funding journalism for over 15 years, with a consistent focus on strengthening networks that produce high quality cross-border investigative journalism. Over time, we have developed our approach to ensure we meet the needs of the changing information ecosystem. We believe that quality information is key to informed decision making, whether that’s by politicians, policy makers, business leaders, or the general public.
In the early years, we mostly supported organisations that focused on accountability work. Over time, we have expanded the types of organisations we support to make sure that information that’s relevant for broader audiences is also produced. We don’t dictate what needs to be done but, provide general support to journalism organisations and aim to help strengthen them. In addition, we support press freedom and media defence work, and have taken a key interest in the impact of digitisation and technology on the information ecosystem.
In what forms do you support journalism? Do you work directly with news organisations or through intermediaries?
Our Informed Society programme tries to cover different parts of the information ecosystem, but if we just zoom into those who produce journalistic content, we support nonprofits that engage in cross-border collaborative investigative journalism. We support those who directly coordinate the work and who often publish through their partners. Typical examples are Lighthouse Reports, Investigate Europe, and Correctiv Europe.
We also support intermediaries because we believe it is key that complementary funds exist for those whom we do not fund directly, but who are the partners of our grantees. The network of our network, so to say. We have funded Journalismfund.eu for many years and currently co-fund IJ4EU. Additionally, we are among the founding partners of Civitates, where we co-created the sub-fund that focuses on fostering public interest journalism at a national level within the EU.
What are your focus areas?
Geographically, we focus on the EU. We don’t restrict our funding to any specific themes, primarily because we believe that our partners should be those who identify which topics are most relevant to society and need to be investigated. It is to respect their editorial integrity, but also because we want to provide partners with space and flexibility to develop expertise or to expand their topical areas over time.
In addition to financial support, do you provide any other assistance?
Our main approach is to provide multi-annual core funding. In addition, we fund complementary activities such as strengthening infrastructure (e.g. tooling that benefits the broader field, support mechanisms for access to information, etc.).
Where it makes sense, we provide additional earmarked funding to our partners for specific organisational development priorities. This usually entails bringing in external expertise and support. We identify the challenges and needs together with grantees but make sure they remain in the driver’s seat and select and contract external support. This could be a consultant who helps with fundraising, for example, or building income generation capacity.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?
More and more, our partners struggle to distribute their content and findings effectively. With the proliferation of AI-based search and retrieval, the way people consume information is once again transforming. Content producers, including journalism groups, are losing control over how to reach broader audiences or retain direct relationships. In the long run, this undermines the viability of quality information providers.
But I’m also seeing more and more organisations adapting to this reality. Various groups are putting more focus on intentionally and effectively distributing information by, for example, hiring an impact producer, or trying to at least make that a skillset carried by someone within the team.
We see some of our grantees partnering up with different kinds of stakeholders to make sure that publications can reach those affected by the investigation topic, or those who can affect social change. It makes me hopeful to see these efforts succeed in reaching relevant and broader audiences and showcase why journalism in itself continues to be really relevant.
How do you assess the success of your programs? Is there a particular success story you can share?
We assess the success of our partnerships by keeping an eye on the objectives that are set at the very beginning. We do this in three areas: the substantive work and impact of the organisation, organisational development objectives, and objectives around the way we work together.
What we really focus on in these partnerships is seeing how organisations become stronger so that their expertise can flourish. When I look at the journalism portfolio specifically, the primary success indicator is relevant quality information in the public interest being produced and making an impact.
We look for creative and effective ways of reaching different kinds of audiences. We don’t have any specific audiences that we aim to serve ourselves, it’s rather following our partners and understanding what has been done differently per investigation to make sure that it’s not the same people behind the same paywalls that are receiving all the information.
Another aspect we look at is the kind of role our grantees play within the information ecosystem: what they manage to contribute within their own network. Think of organisations that develop a new kind of methodology, or a tool that helps others investigate stories in a different way, or organisations that have discovered a new way of creating information. For example, Bellingcat really revolutionised how OSINT can be part of investigations. They have inspired not only other nonprofits, but even legacy media, to adapt their entire newsroom to include this way of collecting information and producing new content.
Another example of changing the information ecosystem is Forbidden Stories, which also influences the incentive of why a story is being investigated, making solidarity a key incentive to continue the investigation of a silenced journalist and hopefully deter future threats to journalists. We also have some grantees, such as The Examination, who are experimenting with how better collaborative models can be developed. This includes providing support to their investigative partners so that the collaboration works better for everyone.
To mention an example of success, I could share Lighthouse Reports’ work. About two years ago, they published an investigation with local journalists in the Netherlands on an algorithm which was used by the municipality in Rotterdam to flag potential fraudsters in welfare support. It turned out that this algorithm was actually targeting migrants, specifically single mothers. Because they managed to reveal this, in the end the municipality decided to stop using the algorithm. But what was also very interesting to follow in this example was that Lighthouse Reports did not only collaborate with local partners who then published behind paywalls, but also managed to distribute the information in a way that it reached the people who the investigation was about, the single mothers. I think this is a really striking example that shows how you can make sure that the information doesn’t only reach the same audience which can afford to consume news.
What were the biggest challenges that you have had to overcome or that you still struggle with?
One that I think we will continue to struggle with is the unpredictability of the funding landscape. There are a couple of funders that are very stable and consistent with their strategies and provide multi-annual support. But what’s out there is not enough to allow our partner networks to really strategise and think about how they are going to become stronger and more futureproof.
The fact that the largest global funder, the US, has cut its global development support in many areas, including journalism, just brought this to a whole new level. There are so many organisations that are now either shutting down or going through their reserves. The entire ecosystem is quite vulnerable at the moment. It made very clear that there was an over-dependency on US public funding in Central and Eastern Europe. Even for organisations who had successfully diversified their funding streams, it turned out that some of the intermediaries they were relying on were also dependent on US funding. We saw organisations that went from having five funders to having none.
One of the biggest challenges we’re about to face due to these funding cuts is that national newsrooms are going to shut down in certain countries where no independent quality information is going to be produced anymore. Or it’s going to be small and competing with unintentional or intentional undermining factors, like disinformation and misinformation. The watchdog role of these outlets will be weakened, and quality information will be reaching less people, thus not informing decision-making. This is something that we are really going to feel in the future.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
It is crucial to have a healthy information ecosystem to support your line of work, regardless of what your foundation focuses on. If you are a foundation that works on broad topics, like democracy, the environment, or social change, the production of information is going to be crucial in the success of your strategy.
Within this whole information ecosystem, I don’t think we all have to do the same thing. What is important is that we complement each other. As one of our grantee partners recently said, a healthy democracy needs media plurality, but it is also crucial to have plurality in the strategies of funders. We should not all jump on the same thing. We need funders who focus on the local level, on the national level, the regional level, and the international level. We need funders who focus on cross-border investigative journalism, but we also need funders who focus on other forms of public interest journalism. We need funders who focus on supporting the ecosystem or the infrastructure that enables information production, funders who support conferences or training, who support FOI requests of journalists. Then we need funders who support press freedom more broadly, who ensure that there are emergency mechanisms that can support journalists being attacked for the impactful work they do.
So there is a lot to support in this space, and there are different ways of starting to experiment with this. If you make your first grant in journalism, you don’t have to have a full strategy right away. You can take your time in building that up.
We, as funders, need to be in conversation about how we are going to complement each other. I’m not inherently opposed to having thematic funding either, as long as it’s not extremely short term and not overly restricted. In places like the Journalism Funders Forum and other informal settings where funders inform each other and exchange ideas, there are plenty of lessons, but there’s also plenty of inspiration to discuss these questions.
Crystal Logan, Co-Executive Director of the Reva and David Logan Foundation, explains how funding journalism connects to their broader strategy and shares insights into why Europe is a key part of their portfolio. She stresses the value of risk-taking in funding, the interdependence of different forms of support, and the Foundation’s role in helping smaller organisations grow.
Why is it important for the Logan Foundation to support journalism? How does it fit into your broader philanthropic strategy?
We believe that journalism is truly essential for the health and vitality of civic participation and debate. Consequently, we believe that it’s the surest protection of our freedom and democracy. Journalists can affect large-scale, lasting change, and that addresses the other areas that we fund: social justice and arts granting. In those areas, we grant to address the systemic issues that are plaguing our society, including inequity, indifference, suffering, and neglect. Journalism can bring light to some of those issues and hold those in power to account. All our granting is intersectional and interlinked, and journalism is essential to support the Foundation’s mission and protect those most vulnerable in our society.
As a Chicago-based foundation, why do you think it is important to support journalism in Europe?
We support journalism in three main geographical locations: in the US, Europe, which includes the UK, and Latin America. We live in an age of globalisation. Issues, whether societal, environmental, or political, don’t stop at borders.
We consider Europe to be an important and critical region in the world that really needs to have a healthy journalism ecosystem. One of the things we’ve learned from funding in Europe is that there are many innovative ideas that stem from lots of cross-learning pollination. Some of the most seminal/creative innovations in journalism practice have come from Europe, and we consider Europe to be a key part of our journalism portfolio.
In what forms do you support journalism? Who is eligible for it?
We support journalism in several different ways. We are able to support any organisation which is involved in the journalism ecosystem, those I would call journalism and those which are journalism- adjacent. That includes supporting traditional outlets, most of them being national investigative outlets such as Disclose and BIJ in London. We also support cross-border investigations, collaborations; so organisations such as Investigate Europe, who understand that the issues they report on need a regional lens. Symposia and training are core parts of our European strategy. We fund the Logan Symposium, run by the Centre for Investigative Journalism in London, and others such as the Disruption Network Lab.
It is very important for us to make sure that we give journalists across the world not only the funds and the resources to be able to do journalism, but the training and tools that they need. And time to think, which sometimes is underrated.
We also support databases like Good Jobs First, a US organisation which has a Europe focus as well, and has interesting tools such as a violation tracker. Forbidden Stories, ACOS, and GIJN are also in the portfolio. It’s really a little bit of everything that could be associated with journalism.
What do you consider the most important element of your support? Is it possible to rank them at all?
I don’t think so. To be honest, they are all interdependent. In today’s world, we have to look at all the separate elements needed to create an effective journalism ecosystem, something that’s healthy and continues to produce excellent work. Journalists can’t produce their best work if they haven’t got the training and the skills to do it. They also have to look after themselves and make sure that they understand the security concerns; and they need the data as well. So it’s all interlinked. The core mission is to produce incredible journalism that creates meaningful change.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from supporting journalism?
For us as an organisation, one of the lessons we have learned is how many brave, talented journalists are out there, and that journalism that tells the truth and engages audiences does make a difference for freedom and democracy. To be honest, without truth, we have nothing, and we are in real trouble.
The most important lesson as a funder is that it’s okay to take risks and it’s important to be fearless. It’s good to go outside your comfort zone and identify and support people that others might not.
What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
Honestly, the biggest challenge in Europe is learning the landscape, in both the funding world and the nonprofit world, being able to truly understand cultural differences, nuances, and languages, and keeping up to date, because things are changing so quickly.
We have a number of languages on the team, but it’s different to read in a language that you are not fully fluent in. That’s definitely been one of the biggest challenges and limitations that we’ve had. We also rely on organisations that now publish in English, and that helps us overcome some of those challenges and ask colleagues and others who can provide guidance as well.
How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story?
We have so many success stories, I don’t think it would be particularly fair to single out one organisation. This is our 60th year at the Foundation, so we’ve been doing this for a very long time. How do we assess success? I would say initially our process begins with lots of due diligence. We test things from a lot of different angles. We speak to a lot of people. We read, we listen. We like to tell people that we lurk in the shadows, and we have one saying: “you know it when you see it”.
I think that’s really the way that we assess the success of our programmes. But you know, it really differs from organisation to organisation. For others, success might mean a great investigation. But for us it’s a number of factors – one of the things we look for is whether an organisation is able to take the next step. We fund a lot of smaller organisations, and our focus is to be a catalyst. We don’t want to be a “sustainer” organisation, we are not big enough as a foundation to do that. So one of the things we want to do is to give smaller organisations a push and give them the support that they need to take it to the next level. If they are able to do that, that is a great success for us. If they are able to diversify their revenue streams and grow in the way they need to grow, then for us that’s true success.
There may be a reference to metrics, but that’s not something that we focus on. Each organisation is different, and we always ask them to define their own success. “If we give them X grant”, what would they consider to be a success with that funding? In doing that, it’s a conversation and partnership from the beginning.
We understand that success is relative, especially with everything that is happening in the world. We’ve had Covid and many things that have never happened before. Now the withdrawal of USAID funding and the rise of authoritarian regimes… So I think success today also means finding and cultivating organisations that are flexible and able to evolve. That is something that we definitely look for. We want grantees to be both proactive and reactive.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
Think laterally. Journalism is an excellent means to help bring more public attention to some of the causes that you care deeply about. If you’re concerned or apprehensive as a prospective new funder, it’s important to reach out to others who are already funding journalism. There’s nothing that traditional journalism funders like more than speaking to potential new funders. Check out funding mechanisms and organisations in this space who provide a lot of support in Europe, including the Journalism Funders Forum, among others.
What I would always recommend to people: go to a journalism festival, a symposium, a conference, and get a better feeling of what it is about, what the impact is. Listen to journalists, what their challenges are, what they need to be better at, and what they are hoping to achieve. Go out and investigate what speaks to you and start by funding something that you feel comfortable with.
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.
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.