join
Image credit: Peter Rigaud

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What was the biggest success story?

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

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

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

The sudden freeze on USAID funding has sent shockwaves through independent newsrooms across Europe. With grants halted and uncertainty looming, many smaller outlets face closure, while larger ones brace for financial strain. As autocratic leaders may seize the moment to tighten control, experts are calling on European institutions and private donors to fill the sudden gap and prevent long-term damage to media pluralism.

On January 20, US President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring all federal agencies to halt foreign development aid for 90 days. The directive, which took effect on January 24, applies to foreign funding managed by the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The administration stated that the review aims to ensure alignment with the President’s foreign policy.

USAID’s Critical Role in Supporting Independent Media

The US has long been the world’s largest provider of humanitarian aid. Through USAID, it has distributed billions of dollars in development assistance in more than 100 countries. The US government has also been the largest public donor to media development, supporting independent media as a core component of USAID’s mission since the 1980s.

“US public funding has played a crucial role in strengthening independent public interest journalism throughout the world. Particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, it has been one of the few key funders,” says Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager at Adessium Foundation and a Co-Chair of Journalism Funders Forum.

In the 2022 financial year, USAID invested approximately $130 million (EUR 123.9 million) to support media and the free flow of information. In 2023, the agency funded training and support for 6,200 journalists, 707 non-state news outlets, and 279 media-sector civil society organisations dedicated to strengthening independent media. For 2025, US Congress had allocated $268,376,000 (EUR 255.8 million) in foreign aid funding to support independent media and access to information.

USAID programmes have helped journalists expand their reach, secure sustainable revenue, and leverage digital tools to engage audiences. The agency has also worked to protect journalists from digital, legal, psychological, and physical threats while promoting professionalism and media management skills.

“USAID grants have allowed many independent media outlets to survive, especially in challenging environments,” says Marius Dragomir, Director of the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC). “For most independent media, grants are a major source of income. In many cases, they represent the largest part of their budget,” he continues.

Zselyke Csaky, a Senior Research Fellow at the Centre for European Reform, does not believe that these funds will return. According to her sources, with the shutdown of USAID’s Central Europe programme, originally launched in 2022, only 10-30% of grant funding will remain available in the region compared to three years ago. 

The Financial Fallout

“This freeze means that some news outlets will be hit disproportionally, which will undermine the role of journalism in holding power to account. This will have consequences for all journalism funders, including funders like Adessium Foundation who do not fund news outlets directly in the region. The network of our grantee partners will be affected and thus the entire ecosystem we aim to support,” notes Akgün.

According to the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the freeze affects dozens of news organisations in more than 30 countries. The announcement came as a shock to many of them. “The general feeling is panic. Panic is the only way to describe the situation,” Karol Luczka, Eastern Europe Advocacy Lead at the International Press Institute (IPI), told Voice of America.

Local, national, and international journalist organisations have all been affected. For example, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) received $7 million (EUR 6.7 million) from US government programs, which constitutes about 38% of its budget. “We are operating as if the reduction in funding will be permanent. Almost all grants have ended to our member centres, and global training, security, cloud computing, and country level programs have been affected,” says Drew Sullivan, OCCRP’s Co-Founder and Publisher. “82 percent of our partner subgrants were cut and almost all funding by OCCRP has stopped to our media member centres. Some of them lost most – or even all – of their funding and are struggling to continue operating,” he adds.

“The best-case scenario is that many organisations will have to downsize operations. Many of our contacts have commented that the freeze is a major blow for them. Dozens have already lost their jobs. There are outlets that will face closure,” explains Dragomir, adding that larger organisations with more diverse funding sources will be less affected, but many smaller ones “will face extinction.” Csaky agrees: “The freeze will cause the most problems for smaller, rural news organisations, especially in countries where diverse funding sources are not yet available.”

According to Reuters, Hungary is one of the countries most affected by the freeze. One of the most important projects to support independent media has been suspended, which amounted to HUF 173 million (EUR 430 thousand), affecting dozens of projects aimed at strengthening and sustaining independent local and national public-interest media, or at supporting media literacy and journalism training.

Other USAID-funded media programmes in the country have also been suspended. Tamás Bodoky, Managing Editor of Átlátszó, an investigative outlet, told Reuters that USAID indirectly funded 10-15% of their budget in 2023-2024. They will now seek new donors and expand crowdfunding efforts. Others will have to postpone planned projects, such as the weekly Magyar Hang, where USAID grants constituted 5% of the budget. As its Editor-in-Chief Zsombor György told Balkan Insight, the outlet had planned to invest in a studio and equipment but will now postpone the project.

Ágnes Urbán of Mérték Media Monitor, an NGO, warns that while larger outlets may endure, smaller regional media could suffer serious consequences, as they lack the resources to invest in their future. According to MJRC sources, for some rural outlets, where these grants made up nearly half their funding, survival itself is now in jeopardy.

There are serious consequences in other countries in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. In Moldova, Anastasia Condruc, Editor-in-Chief of Moldova.org, described the situation as ‘dire’. “Around 75% of our budget comes from European and American grants. For now, we have the budget for salaries for the month of February and a bit of March,” she said to The Fix. SDK in North Macedonia is also under severe threat. “[USAID-funded] projects contribute 25% of the newsroom’s budget,” Editor-in-Chief Goran Mihajlovski said. The uncertainty is forcing newsrooms like SDK to reconsider their financial strategies to ensure their survival.

The situation is even more critical in war-torn Ukraine, where media outlets heavily depend on international funding. “Almost 90% of Ukrainian media receives foreign funding,” notes Csaky. Bohdan Lohvynenko, founder of the online news portal Ukraïner, revealed to The Guardian that more than 80% of their funding came from the US, leaving them in a precarious position. “There is no viable advertising market for war reporting, leaving us with community support or a paywall model,” he explained. Raising funds in a country at war, however, remains a major challenge.

Other Ukrainian outlets are similarly affected. As Anna Babinets, Editor-in-Chief of Slidstvo.Info, stated, “80% of our financing is from US government money.” The uncertainty is already causing job losses across the sector. “Some will survive, but many will not,” said Katerina Sergatskova, co-founder of the 2402 Foundation, which supports and trains journalists.

In Belarus, where the independent press already faces harsh repression, the freeze could be catastrophic. Natalia Belikova of Press Club Belarus noted that 70% of their funding comes from US federal sources. “They are at risk of fading away and gradually disappearing,” she warned, emphasising that without independent media, state propaganda would dominate public discourse.

The funding freeze has hit exiled media outlets even harder, and they may need drastic measures to stay afloat. Katerina Abramova, Communications Director for Meduza, a leading exiled Russian outlet, told Reporters Without Borders (RSF) that funding reviews could drag on indefinitely. “We can’t monetise our audience, and crowdfunding has limits—especially when donating to Meduza is a crime in Russia,” she said.

Csaky warns of another consequence of the freeze: many news organisations supported by USAID also received EU grants, which usually require co-financing. However, for some, these two were essentially the only sources of funding, meaning they could now lose both, as they will no longer be able to co-finance EU-supported projects.

The Dangerous Ripple Effect of the Freeze

The freeze on funding could have far-reaching consequences beyond financial constraints. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who has reshaped the media landscape by capturing the regulatory body and the public service broadcaster and forcing private media outlets to close or fall into the hands of pro-government owners, has quickly stated his intention to eliminate “foreign networks” of NGOs and media critical of his regime. According to news reports, at a party meeting he specifically mentioned that those organisations that received funding from USAID should be “banned from Hungary.”

This has raised concerns that the freeze will encourage other illiberal governments to crack down on media deemed unfriendly, as autocratic leaders now feel empowered, says Csaky. Similar measures, such as imposing “foreign agent laws,” will make the financial situation of independent media even more difficult. “Even if new donors emerge, actually accessing their grants will be very difficult in such environments,” she argues.

Dragomir also warns that similar trends are likely to emerge elsewhere. In countries with a high level of media capture and limited space for independent journalism, the situation will worsen, leading to a “growing dominance of the government-funded media model” and further damaging the news ecosystem.

The decline in independent news outlets could also lead to an increase in misinformation, Clayton Weimers, Executive Director of RSF US argued to The Guardian. “When you pull reliable sources of information, that vacuum will be filled with less reliable sources [such as] state propagandists,” he said. Babinets added that, since the funding freeze, fake stories have already started to circulate on anonymous Telegram channels and websites, echoing Russian disinformation narratives.

What Donors, Governments, and the Public Can Do

According to Sullivan, affected news organisations “should explore any revenue generating option that they have not pursued yet, including donations from readership, fees for service programs, and advertisement. Donors are likely overwhelmed with requests for support, but they could look toward local philanthropy first for commitments. They should also consider changing their business models and starting to publish on some of the platforms that offer revenue from readership such as Substack.”

The funding freeze has indeed forced some news organisations to turn to their audience for financial support. For example, Moldova.org launched a crowdfunding campaign on Patreon and sought new revenue sources. SDK in North Macedonia also relies on donations, but the impact has been minimal, covering only 3–5% of the budget. Meanwhile, the Kyiv Independent, itself unaffected by the freeze, has fundraised to support struggling outlets. Slidstvo.Info has also launched an online campaign, hoping to secure additional funding. However, with the ongoing war, donation appeals are easily overlooked.

Dragomir offers a pessimistic view, emphasising that there is little to be done in the short term. “For many organisations, it took years to build their business model, and grants were a major source. This dependency is not ideal, of course, and some were aware of it, but nobody thought that something like this would happen,” he says. “New revenue takes time to develop and is not an instant solution. We are trying to help them as much as possible, and we have set up a regranting mechanism to assist them in their transition. Any donations are welcome,” Sullivan notes, adding that “realistically, the opportunity for local funding is minimal. Some local audiences have little or no disposable income. In some cases, some organisations will close.”

While media outlets must diversify their revenue streams, many have already been attempting to do so for years, with limited success. In the short term, “mobilisation across Europe is needed,” Dragomir argues.

Akgün highlights the responsibility of funders in ensuring the survival of independent media. “As funders, we need to collaborate to make sure that the infrastructure that has been built for decades can continue to do the crucial work that is needed to protect and foster democracy,” she notes. The European Federation of Journalists echoes this sentiment, with President Maja Sever calling on European institutions and foundations to coordinate efforts in safeguarding media pluralism and supporting independent journalism. “The European Union and other donors cannot abandon to their fate journalists who are the best bulwark for defending the rule of law and democracy in countries where they are under threat,” she wrote in a statement.

The Global Forum for Media Development has also issued an urgent call for action, urging governments, donors, and stakeholders to respond immediately. They advocate for unrestricting existing grants to allow greater flexibility in fund allocation, establishing emergency budget lines for public interest media, and increasing funding while streamlining administrative processes. They also stress the need for better donor coordination and the importance of addressing long-term structural challenges to build resilience within the sector.

A quick reaction is most important, says Csaky: “These outlets need the money now, within the next couple of months; otherwise, they may have to shut down.” She believes that now is the time for new donors to step up, as rebuilding the news ecosystem after a collapse would be much more difficult. “Governments that recognise the importance of independent media could introduce incentives to make supporting it worthwhile, which would add significant value,” she continues, adding that pooled funds could also offer a viable solution, as they ensure that grants do not depend on a single donor.

Nevertheless, Dragomir thinks that in the long term, “news organisations need to start to understand their public better. They need to try to start a dialogue with them, but also to engage more with the private sector beyond advertising.” As he argues, there are businesses that understand the importance of independent media, but “a more proactive approach is needed from media outlets to make them more aware of the situation,” and understand why supporting independent media would be mutually beneficial.

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

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

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

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

Why support local newspapers? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent media in the age of misinformation 

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

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

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

Defining Amediastiftelsen’s priorities 

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

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

Challenges in reaching younger audiences 

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

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

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

The significance of foundation-owned media

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

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

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

Facts about Amediastiftelsen

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

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

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

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

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

Is it open for new players to join?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you consider your biggest success story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media freedom in 2025 will be influenced by a combination of political, economic, technological, and regulatory factors. Key developments include Donald Trump’s inauguration, intensifying political and economic pressure on newsrooms, the outcome of the war in Ukraine, the development of new technologies – especially AI – and critical regulatory milestones like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).

The Inauguration of Donald Trump

Donald Trump has been re-elected as President of the United States, and his contentious relationship with the press and potential policies to limit or discredit critical media could set the tone for global press freedom. His first term was marked by hostility towards the media, and in 2020 alone, over 600 attacks on journalists were registered. Trump has openly supported such violence, framing journalists as adversaries.

In his second term, Trump and his allies aim to further politicize federal institutions like the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Plans allegedly include leak investigations, espionage charges against journalists, and potential reforms to libel laws to target critical reporting. The DOJ’s new regime may amplify prosecutions of journalists. Meanwhile, a Trump-led FCC could revoke broadcast licenses, consolidate conservative media ownership, and punish critical networks. Beyond legal and institutional threats, journalists face a chilling effect through self-censorship, as already shown before the election. The selection of the new director of Voice of America, a fierce Trump-ally who called journalists “monsters,” strengthens these fears.

One of the first executive orders signed after the inauguration also raises these fears: President Trump suspended all U.S. foreign assistance programs for 90 days, pending reviews of whether they align with the new administration policy goals. It is yet to be seen how it will impact journalism programs funded by the U.S. government.

Furthermore, Meta announced the discontinuation of its third-party fact-checking program, raising concerns about an even more significant proliferation of misinformation on Facebook and Instagram. X (formerly Twitter) has also reduced content moderation significantly, leading to an increase in hate speech and misinformation on the platform. Meanwhile, U.S. tech groups have been urging Trump to pressure the EU to scale back its investigations into global tech companies. Although these investigations are based on the EU’s digital markets regulations, a review has been initiated, which could indicate that the EU may be less inclined to enforce those regulations.

Political and Economic Pressure on Newsrooms

Political and economic pressures on newsrooms may intensify around the globe in 2025. Trump’s victory could encourage other populist leaders to further erode democratic norms, including the freedom of the press. Populist rhetoric frequently casts journalists as adversaries of the state, undermining trust in media and often resulting in restrictive measures against independent journalism, including digital surveillance or even legal restrictions. The latter may include legislation against “fake news,” which, often vaguely defined, enables governments to arbitrarily penalize critical reporting with fines or even imprisonment.

At the same time, economic challenges further threaten media sustainability. Rising operational costs and diminished advertising revenues have forced many outlets, particularly smaller and independent ones, to find new strategies to secure revenue or face closure. Nevertheless, in the distorted media landscapes of many countries, where ad revenue is allocated based on political loyalty rather than audience reach, and some audiences are already struggling with subscription fatigue, the role of external funding from philanthropies and other organisations will be critical.  

The Outcome of the War in Ukraine

Russia’s war in Ukraine has highlighted how disinformation and propaganda are used to undermine public trust in institutions, including the media. In authoritarian and hybrid regimes, state-controlled narratives already dominate, but democracies might also adopt stricter regulations to combat disinformation, inadvertently creating challenges for legitimate journalism. The war has also made journalism more dangerous, with reporters targeted in conflict zones and online harassment becoming widespread.

At the same time, however, the war has also inspired innovation in independent journalism. Ukrainian media outlets have started to leverage crowdfunding and partnerships. Still, independent media in Ukraine face the difficulties of navigating donor dependence, operational challenges, and the urgent need for more sustainable funding models.

Emerging Technologies

New technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), may shape media freedom in 2025 in various ways. On one hand, the development of generative AI tools is likely to fuel a surge in the number of misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Sophisticated AI models can easily create deepfakes, fabricate convincing narratives, and flood digital platforms with content that erodes public trust in credible news sources, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish fact from fiction. As authoritarian regimes and other actors with bad intent exploit these technologies, independent journalism may face new threats, including orchestrated smear campaigns that undermine its integrity and credibility.

On the other hand, the same AI technologies hold promise for empowering journalists and enhancing the reach of independent media. Investigative journalists can harness AI for tasks like analysing vast datasets, uncovering corruption, or mapping networks of influence. Automated fact-checking tools might help counter misinformation, providing journalists with tools to quickly validate claims. Personalized front pages can help audiences access relevant, high-quality journalism tailored to their needs. Still, these tools also introduce ethical challenges, as overreliance on AI for reporting and editorial decisions risks eroding the human judgment central to true journalism.

Regulation Milestones

Regulatory milestones anticipated in 2025 may reshape the operational landscapes of both traditional and digital media. The European Union will see the full implementation of the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the European Media Freedom Act (EMFA), which aim to create transparent and accountable frameworks for protecting editorial independence, tackling disinformation, and promoting media pluralism. However, their success will depend on consistent application across Member States.

Globally, debates around platform governance, particularly concerning Meta, Google, and X (formerly Twitter), will affect how media outlets interact with these tech giants. Issues such as content moderation and removal, revenue-sharing models, and the spread of harmful content are central, as these platforms often act as gatekeepers for news dissemination. The DSA’s provisions, which require platforms to notify media providers before removing legal content, could set a precedent for similar regulations worldwide, but their implementation could vary depending on national contexts.

Furthermore, agreements or discord in forums like the G20 regarding AI regulation will also influence the field of combating misinformation and the potential misuse of surveillance tools. As AI-generated content becomes more prevalent, governments face the dual challenge of mitigating harm without stifling innovation. 

In March 2024, a consortium of seven media organisations and a media-focused technology provider launched the Taktak project, with the objective of developing an innovative donation solution, supported by the European Commission. The initiative addresses a fundamental challenge facing modern journalism: the need to identify sustainable revenue sources in the context of evolving consumption patterns and the adverse circumstances faced by freelance journalists. It introduces an innovative approach to donations, whereby readers can decide which organisations to support.

The concept for Taktak was developed by Worldcrunch, a Paris-based digital magazine known for its work with international partners. Lucie Holeček, a design-thinking expert and consultant on the project at Transitions Online, outlines that Worldcrunch’s distinctive collaborative model presented challenges that existing payment platforms were unable to accommodate. As Worldcrunch frequently translates and shares articles with various international media partners, a key challenge emerged in relation to the allocation of donation revenue across contributors. “None of the existing payment solutions worked,” Holeček states, adding that a new approach was needed to ensure funds were distributed fairly among all parties involved.

The Taktak project represents a convergence of three key developments in the journalism sector. Firstly, the initial research phases revealed significant problems faced by journalists, particularly freelancers, in terms of job stability, financial security and stress levels. “We were aware of the difficulties, but not to this extent,” Holeček recalls. Secondly, there is significant untapped potential for joint reporting efforts across languages and borders, which could enhance the scope and reach of journalism. Finally, there is an increasing need to generate direct revenue from the audience.

The Taktak consortium, formed by Worldcrunch, comprises an impressive array of local, national, and international media outlets, which are coming together to explore these opportunities. The consortium includes Mensagem, which provides local news in Lisbon; Pod Tepeto, a media outlet based in Plovdiv, Bulgaria; La Marea, a Spanish publication; and Livy Bereg, a Ukrainian news source. The platform’s geographic diversity and the difference in scale between its members enables it to address the needs of journalists and readers at multiple levels, from the hyper-local to the transnational. The involvement of these media groups also benefits younger journalists, who are facing an increasingly unstable job market and income situation. The consortium’s reach is extended further through the inclusion of WAN-IFRA, the World Association of News Publishers, and Transitions Online, both of which have extensive networks within the journalism community.

Taktak is currently a closed consortium, funded by an investment of €1,376,040 over two years. Eighty percent of this funding, totalling €1,100,832, is provided by the European Commission under the Journalism Partnerships Collaboration call. The remaining 20% is provided by the Taktak partners themselves. “The funding goes toward creating the tool,” said Holeček. She adds that the tool is currently in development and will support various types of content, including articles and podcasts, with options for transparent payment distribution. The tool enables readers to make donations and to see precisely where their contributions are being allocated. This transparency is a key element of the project’s value proposition for donors, as it builds trust.

One of the distinctive features of Taktak is its flexibility. Readers are able to select the total donation amount, while collaborating journalists can choose the ratio of how it is shared. Holeček states that Taktak’s donation model provides an alternative to the fatigue that many readers feel with multiple subscriptions. This new solution offers flexibility, allowing readers to give money without any obligation. They can simply indicate their appreciation for an article and choose to support the publication directly. This approach is particularly beneficial for freelancers, who might otherwise be excluded from revenue-sharing models even when their work is particularly successful.

Taktak’s primary objectives extend beyond the mere creation of a new revenue stream. They also encompass the fostering of collaboration across media, the promotion of diverse voices, the growth of reader engagement, and the encouragement of a more resilient journalism sector. Taktak’s donation-based model encourages journalists and media organisations to commit to quality, in-depth coverage that resonates with readers, with the aim of creating a mutually beneficial relationship. The platform’s secondary objectives include facilitating the sharing of best practices and insights among media outlets, which can ultimately benefit the wider sector.

The tool is currently in the development stage and has been designed with the objective of collecting payments efficiently while distributing them fairly. The tool is essentially a flexible ‘donate’ button that allows readers to decide how much to give to each party involved in the content’s creation. This flexibility addresses a market gap for direct support of journalists, particularly in cases where readers wish to contribute without committing to a full subscription. As Holeček explains, the objective is to make the process “as flexible as possible”, offering financial support to journalists facing financial difficulties who might otherwise go unrewarded.

The first prototype of the Taktak tool is scheduled for release in 2025, following which it will undergo further refinement based on feedback. Holeček emphasises that, while the eventual aim is to roll out Taktak across Europe, the team is mindful of the regional nuances involved. “Every country is specific,” she states, citing differences in consumer attitudes towards paying for news content and in regulatory frameworks. The consortium’s approach to scaling will be strategic and tailored to the specific needs and context of each market.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In which regions does V-Ventures focus its investments?

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

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

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

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

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

What challenges have you faced in funding journalism in Europe?

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

What has been your biggest success story so far?

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

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

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

By offering financial aid, mentoring, and training, journalism-funding programmes can significantly enhance media sustainability, despite ongoing challenges such as government pressure and revenue limitations. Lessons learned from a four-year programme highlight the need for long-term support for independent journalism in authoritarian environments.

In 2021, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) launched a four-year programme designed to support independent news media in heavily controlled environments, where market conditions are so distorted that independent journalism struggles to survive. For safety reasons, MJRC does not disclose the names and locations of the media outlets in the programme.

MJRC worked closely with local experts to combat this phenomenon, also known as media capture, by financially supporting independent online media organisations in rural areas. The programme aimed to enhance their sustainability, focusing on three critical areas: financial stability, organisational resilience, and audience growth.

The programme was funded with nearly US$1 million. In addition to financial support, it incorporated a mentoring component. At the outset, each participating media outlet set specific goals aimed at achieving sustainability. It quickly became apparent that outlets with solid business management were more successful in reaching these objectives, while those led purely by journalists faced more significant challenges, particularly in the programme’s early years.

Key Successes

One of the most apparent successes of the programme was the significant improvement in the operations of participating media outlets. As one editor remarked, the programme was instrumental in maintaining and enhancing their business. A distinguishing feature of the MJRC programme when compared to similar initiatives was the provision of core funding (defined as financial resources to cover all operational costs). Many other support programmes focus exclusively on training journalists in specific skills or reporting on particular topics, which, while beneficial, do not address the critical need for stable core funding. Such financial support is essential for small media outlets, especially those striving for sustainability.

The MJRC programme integrated training and counselling as a complementary element. The training was designed to be non-intrusive, allowing participants to balance these activities with their daily responsibilities. Webinars on topics like fundraising and managing internship programmes were particularly valuable, with one editor describing the experience as “eye-opening.”

The programme also significantly boosted the reach of participating media outlets. Almost all participants reported increases in social media followers and readership. The financial stability provided by the programme allowed these outlets to publish impactful stories on topics often neglected by mainstream media. In regions where local media is controlled mainly by government-aligned owners, these outlets usually serve as the sole sources of critical local news coverage.

Challenges

Nevertheless, the programme also highlighted significant challenges. The media landscape in captured environments, where the media are controlled by the government, owners with vested interests rather than the public good, or a combination of both, remains a formidable barrier to supporting independent journalism. Independent outlets often struggle to gain access to government officials, are labelled as opposition media, and are subjected to continuous smear campaigns. These difficulties are compounded locally, where news organisations frequently encounter resistance from municipalities.

Securing advertising revenue is another major challenge. In markets dominated by the government, advertising funds are typically directed only to aligned outlets. Even in towns governed by opposition parties, municipal funds are rarely allocated to independent media. Additionally, many private companies are reluctant to advertise in independent media, due to fear of government retaliation. Editors in the programme shared instances where potential advertisers were explicitly warned against buying ads with them.

Challenges related to human resources are also significant, with many outlets struggling to attract and retain staff for essential roles like sales managers or community coordinators. This is often due to salary constraints and the stigma attached to working for independent media in authoritarian environments, where such affiliations could have negative repercussions for employees and their families.

Moreover, the heavy reliance on Facebook as a primary platform for reaching audiences poses a significant risk. Changes in Facebook’s algorithm in 2023, which reduced the reach of news media, led to a noticeable drop in daily traffic for many outlets. In response, some began exploring alternative outreach methods, such as launching newsletters or expanding to other social media platforms like Instagram or YouTube. However, these efforts require additional funding to hire skilled social media managers.

The Path Forward

One of the most important lessons learned from the programme is that long-term sustainability for media outlets in captured environments hinges on diversifying revenue streams. However, this is particularly challenging for outlets in rural areas, where access to ad revenue is severely limited. As a result, these outlets often rely on philanthropic funding or direct audience support. While philanthropic funding is vital, it is not a long-term solution in authoritarian environments. Therefore, the most viable path forward is to focus on building a strong, engaged audience base.

Still, due to the limited purchasing power of potential audiences in many of these rural areas, it is unrealistic to expect audience revenues to sustain these organisations in the short or mid-term. Media outlets should, however, be encouraged to continuously seek feedback from their audience, refine their content strategies to align with audience interests, and explore ways to generate financial support directly from their readers.

For journalism funders, this also calls for a change in strategy. Rather than continuing to fund outlets hoping they will quickly become self-sustaining, funders should consider long-term commitments of at least five to eight years. This would provide outlets the stability needed to build strong relationships with local audiences and develop sustainable business models.

Ultimately, the MJRC programme, which concludes soon, has demonstrated that while supporting independent media in captured environments is fraught with challenges, it can result in significant strides. As one editor in the programme noted, the funding provided a lifeline that helped their outlet survive and transformed it into a legitimate news organisation. Without such support, the very existence of these independent outlets would be at risk, underscoring the critical importance of long-term investment in the future of independent journalism.

For more information, please contact the Center at mjrc@journalismresearch.org.

Defector, a for-profit, employee-owned news organisation, has successfully balanced its economic viability with its journalistic values—an achievement many news outlets struggle to attain. Founded in 2020 by former journalists from the sports blog Deadspin, Defector has distinguished itself with its employee-owned cooperative model and its rare economic success.

Traditionally, US journalism’s financial model has been anchored in the “dual-product model,” where news organisations generated revenue by selling content to the public and selling the public’s attention to advertisers. However, with the rise of the internet, this model has faced significant disruptions, prompting a search for new revenue streams.

One proposed solution has been audience engagement, which involves news organisations interacting with their audiences, mainly focusing on diverse and marginalised communities. This idea has been championed by some as a moral obligation and a potential source of revenue. For instance, studies have suggested that engaging with marginalised communities can lead to new financial support for news organisations. The Columbia Journalism Review has also noted that more engaged audiences tend to contribute more financially. This optimism is based on the belief that, as journalism shifts towards direct audience support, engagement activities will become essential in building and sustaining these audiences, thereby increasing revenue potential.

However, there is scepticism regarding the effectiveness of engagement activities as a revenue strategy. Critics argue that, while engagement might foster a sense of community, there is little empirical evidence to support the notion that it leads to economic success. Moreover, some contend that the focus on engagement, especially through web metrics, can harm journalism’s financial health by encouraging the pursuit of viral content at the expense of long-term loyalty and viability.

Defector serves as a compelling case study in this debate. Its success is closely linked to its emphasis on audience engagement, particularly through its comments section, which plays a central role in both community building and economic gain.

Defector’s business model features a tiered subscription system, with a notable portion of subscribers opting for the more expensive tier that grants access to engagement activities like commenting. This indicates that a significant number of subscribers are willing to pay a premium for the ability to engage with the community, suggesting that Defector’s economic success is indeed tied to its engagement practices.

Defector’s engagement activities, including an active comments section, Q&A sessions, and interactive events, contribute to its community-building efforts and financial stability. The comments section, in particular, is highlighted as a key engagement tool. It encourages subscribers to interact not only with the content, but also with each other, fostering a sense of ownership and accountability among users. This self-moderation helps maintain a civil and constructive discourse, contrasting with the often-toxic environments found in free-to-access comments sections on other sites.

In addition to the comments section, Defector regularly hosts Q&A sessions and events on platforms like Twitch, where journalists engage with subscribers in a more informal, personal manner. This helps journalists better understand their audience and solidifies the bond between the staff and the community, creating a sense of belonging that goes beyond the typical journalist-reader relationship.

Three key factors contributing to Defector’s success can be identified: positive engagement, a strong sense of community, and delivering clear value to subscribers. The positive environment fostered by the site’s paywall ensures that those who participate are genuinely interested in the content, benefitting both subscribers and journalists. This sense of community, carried over from Deadspin, is intentionally cultivated and has led to a loyal subscriber base willing to pay for premium engagement opportunities. Finally, Defector’s success is also attributed to the high quality of its content, which subscribers view as worth paying for, ensuring that engagement efforts are not just superficial, but are tied to delivering real value.

While Defector’s model is not universally applicable, especially given its niche focus on sports and culture and its roots in Deadspin, it offers valuable insights for other news organisations. By centring their business models around their audience, news organisations can potentially achieve a better balance between economic stability and journalistic ideals. However, there is still a need for further research to explore how Defector’s model can be adapted or replicated in different contexts, particularly in understanding the perception of its audience and how this contributes to its success.

Ferrucci, P. (2024). Engagement as Revenue in Journalism: Turning Community, Comments, and Access into Economic Viability. Journalism Studies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2380713