join

The landscape of local journalism is undergoing a critical transformation marked by dwindling revenues, job cuts, and closures, primarily attributed to the digitisation of information environments. This shift prompts a crucial question: How can local media outlets adapt to the digital era to retain or regain audiences and, consequently, attract advertisers? This study, conducted in Denmark by Lene Heiselberg and David Nicolas Hopmann (Centre for Journalism at the Department of Political Science and Public Management, University of Southern Denmark), employs a mixed-methods audience research approach to unravel the desires and needs of local journalism audiences, exploring functional, symbolic, emotional, and economic values.

Local journalism, vital for community cohesion, faces a challenging cycle where declining resources lead to lower-quality content, further driving audiences away and diminishing revenues. The 21st century, characterised by the dominance of the Internet and social media, poses unprecedented challenges to traditional local media, contributing to the rise of ‘news deserts,’ areas devoid of continuous journalistic coverage. This decline threatens democratic systems, accountability, and crucial local information.

The study distinguishes three audience categories: non-paying, potential-paying, and paying. While all prioritise informative content, paying audiences emphasise symbolic and emotional values, seeking a sense of belonging and personally meaningful content. Non-paying audiences stress the need for improved quality.

Quantitative analysis reveals that 61% of participants are unwilling to pay for local journalism, while 28% are potentially willing, and 11% are already paying. Surprisingly, the perceived relevance of being informed about local affairs is high across all groups, challenging the notion that non-paying audiences don’t value local news. Participants who do not want to pay for local news do not express wants and needs for symbolic and emotional values of local journalism to the same degree as participants who (might) pay for local journalism. Instead, participants who do not pay and participants who might pay emphasise functional values.

The results of the research conducted for this study indicate three paths for local media outlets to increase their audiences: (1) communicate and/or clarify the symbolic and emotional values of local journalism, (2) increase quality regarding the functional values of local journalism, and (3) increase relevance regarding the functional values of local journalism.

Few quotes touch upon the economic value of local journalism, with business owners recognising the relevance of staying informed about local events for economic gain. The study suggests that revitalising local journalism requires prioritising unique, emotionally engaging content, clarifying symbolic values, and enhancing functional quality. Understanding audience preferences is crucial for local media outlets to refine their strategies and to ensure the survival and relevance of local journalism in the digital age.

Heiselberg, L., & Hopmann, D. N. (2024). Local journalism and its audience. Journalism, 0(0).
https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231173226

Recognising the challenges faced by news media, Civitates offers core funding with flexibility for two years in an attempt to address the funding gap that many media outlets in Europe are grappling with. Prioritising organisational development and sustainability, Civitates’ support has been thus far deployed to media outlets across eight European countries.

Democracy is under attack in various European countries as the space for civil society diminishes, with governments imposing barriers, vilifying groups, and impeding access to crucial funding. The digital public sphere, essential for democracy, is threatened by disinformation and a decline in media trust, fuelled by technological changes.

Enter Civitates, a pooled fund comprising 18 foundations, aimed at beefing up the civil society sector. Initially concentrating on countries witnessing democratic erosion, the initiative swiftly recognised the main role of media capture in this phenomenon, which included frequent attacks against civic space, democracy and the rule of law.

Independent journalism faces a triple threat of diminishing public trust, receding media freedom, and financial instability due to disrupted business models. “Our overarching objective is a healthy, pluralistic, and democratic Europe,” says Eszter Szűcs, Senior Programme Manager at Civitates, adding that they focus on supporting independent public interest media, predominantly non-profit organisations.

Civitates does not solely focus on the state of democracy but considers an array of factors in its selection process. Among them, the availability and quality of funding in a country play an important role. Questions about the presence of local funding sources or reliance on international donors become key considerations in how Civitates shapes its support strategy.

Currently, Civitates supports 11 organisations across eight countries: Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain. Szűcs explains their approach as “thinking in cohorts,” emphasising their goal to strengthen connections between grantees, which allows organisations to learn from each other’s experiences, fostering a collaborative environment. Szűcs cites successful implementations of paywalls as an example of shared knowledge among grantees.

It is crucial, she added, that Civitates provides core funding, typically spanning two years, with a notable degree of flexibility. This addresses a significant gap in the funding landscape, as long-term core funding is rarely provided by donors, even though strong, sustainable independent public interest media need stability to flourish.

“It is very important to pay attention to fund the organisational development of the grantees,” Szűcs argues. While it may be easier for media outlets to fundraise for specific projects, this can divert their focus towards initiatives they may not necessarily want to pursue but that they will in any case undertake due to financial necessity.

News organisations require a robust structure and functional operations, elements often overlooked in the chase for project-specific funds. Civitates has identified this gap and tries to address it, a rather uphill battle as many journalists may lack expertise in organisational development.

“The core funding provided by Civitates (…) means that the organisations are not pressed to deliver certain stories within a predetermined time window or to follow predetermined financial strategies,” said Diogo Cardoso, journalist and member of the governing body at Divergente, a Civitates-funded organisation from Portugal. “This creates the base for both a truly free independent media and the room for experimenting in the field of alternative sources of revenue, with the financial sustainability in mind.”

Furthermore, funding from Civitates is not just financial aid; it comes bundled with capacity-building support and a focus on networking. This includes facilitating conference participation and exchanges among organisations funded as part of the programme. “We share a lot of the same challenges and doubts while consolidating our projects, so being able to benefit from others’ experience while analysing our own challenges helped us to make wiser decisions,” Cardoso said. “We benefited from visiting and hosting different organisations, and thus acquiring knowledge in specific areas that helped to cover gaps that we had in our organisation.”

Supporting business model development, editorial growth, audience engagement and outreach, and capacity to achieve impact on the public debates is expected, and hoped, to contribute to the long-term sustainability of news organisations, Szűcs argued.

“Before we won the grant from Civitates, Átlátszó Erdély was a small investigative journalism outlet run by journalists, with me, the editor-in-chief constantly juggling, and often overwhelmed by, editorial, admin, fundraising and outreach tasks,” explains Zoltán Sipos, chief editor and manager of Átlátszó Erdély, an investigative journalism project focusing on the Hungarian community in Romania. He adds: “The Civitates grant allowed us to hire an administrative assistant, and later to add a marketing person to the team. This freed up my schedule so I could focus more on the content, and also on the longer-term projects that are essential for our growth of Átlátszó Erdély. Thanks to the Civitates grant, Átlátszó Erdély became a bigger, and considerably more resilient organisation.”

“The Civitates core grant was a game-changer as it allowed to put in motion a long term plan that transformed our organisation from a small journalism project into one of the most awarded independent newsrooms in Europe, with presence at international journalism networks and multiple cross-border cooperation with other organisations,” Cardoso argued.

By providing funding to cover the needs of media outlets in those areas, Civitates hopes that it contributes to the sustainability of independent media, and thus, to the fabric of a thriving democratic Europe.

Over the course of three decades, USAID has distributed funds in more than 40 countries. It spent US $130 million in 2022 to strengthen independent media. Olesia Gardner, USAID’s Civil Society and Media Advisor discusses challenges and partnerships, and highlights success stories, emphasising the need for dedication and local engagement in media development, as well as the vital role of media pluralism in upholding democratic values.

Why is it important for USAID to support the media?

Gardner: Media pluralism serves as a crucial tool for maintaining a robust media landscape and upholding democratic values. For over three decades, USAID has helped to fuel the growth of an independent media ecosystem across Europe and Eurasia. However, today the sector is facing unprecedented challenges to both a free press and to broader democratic progress: financial insecurity, technological change, eroding public trust, and threats from powerful political and business interests.

USAID support strengthens the competitiveness, credibility, capacity, and innovation of content creators, and equips journalists and media outlets, including investigative journalists, with the tools they need to confront these challenges. USAID programmes also foster demand for high-quality news and information and improve critical thinking skills among news consumers.

What kind of news organisations are eligible for support? In which countries does USAID fund media?

Gardner: USAID has been one of the world’s leading supporters of independent media for over three decades in over 40 countries. In the 2022 financial year alone, USAID spent approximately US$130 million to support media and the free flow of information. USAID’s comprehensive approach to supporting media systems globally focuses on supporting both the supply side, so content producers and distributors, and the demand side, audiences and the legal enabling environment.

Our programmes help support journalists to develop and grow their audiences, establish more sustainable sources of revenue, leverage digital tools and technology to broaden their audiences and strengthen engagement with them, and protect themselves from increasing digital, legal, psycho-social, and physical threats to their lives and livelihoods. USAID’s support seeks to strengthen journalistic professionalism, establish media management skills, and promote free and independent media. Among our partners are news publishers, investigative journalists, and media organisations.

Do you implement the programmes yourself, or do you involve other organisations? What is the advantage of your approach?

Gardner: At USAID, we achieve our mission by partnering with individuals and organisations around the world. Working together, we find innovative and cost-effective solutions to pressing global challenges. We have been experimenting and encouraging partnerships as these bring together various expertise, personalities, and resources to achieve the most impact. For example, the Central Europe Media programme is a partnership between Zinc Network and IREX. The Media Trends conference in Budapest [in December 2023] was a success due to partnership with the Center for Sustainable Media. In Bulgaria, we have organised two workshops for journalists in partnership with the Association of European Journalists (AEJ).

Thinking of media support programmes in Europe, what are the biggest challenges you have to face?

Gardner: The economic sustainability of media outlets continues to be a major challenge. The question arises how traditional and emerging media can maintain relevance and financial viability in this ever-evolving landscape where entertainment and information consumption patterns are rapidly changing. We operate in an environment where holding the powerful to account is increasingly difficult, and where state actors routinely interfere with the advertising market, starving independent media to favour those willing to toe the government line.

Through our media support programmes we aim to create space and opportunities for news organisations to access different experiences, tools and thinking. In Central Europe, for example, we conducted an audience research, which was presented broadly to independent media in five countries. The feedback we received showed that the research helped better understand the audiences and also the importance of data-driven technologies in reaching outside the audience bubble. The overwhelming response to the research also showed a big appetite among the journalism community to introduce surveys in their work.

What was the biggest success story among your projects?

Gardner: USAID has lots of success stories to share, but I will focus on the ones achieved by the Balkan Media Assistance programme (BMAP). USAID launched the first iteration of BMAP in September 2017 with the objective of enhancing the professionalism and sustainability of media in the Balkan region by working with renowned and promising news media outlets to improve their digital content quality, business processes, and collaboration. The success of BMAP, which closed in July 2022, led to the launch of a second iteration of the programme, entitled Balkan Media Assistance Programme to Foster Organisation Readiness While Advancing Resilient Development (BMAP Forward), which unfolded in February 2022.

BMAP was designed and implemented by 10 media outlets spanning Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. The successes of the BMAP programmes have been multi-faceted and far-reaching. All of its key partners have seen marked increases in their programmatic advertising revenue, significantly boosting their financial sustainability. For example, Bosnia-based media outlet Oslobođenje saw an increase in monthly programmatic advertising revenue of 206 percent, going from $2,770 at the start of the programme to $5,680 by the end of the programme. Meanwhile, Vijesti, an outlet based in Montenegro, increased its advertising revenue by 1,300 percent going from US$1,100 in revenue per month to US$10,200. Media partners participating in BMAP also emerged with a more robust network and stronger relations with other media outlets.

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

Gardner: Media development is a fascinating area, but it also requires dedication, patience and financial commitment. Sound analysis of the media and its environment in a country is needed before planning a new media development intervention to map the media outlets and the operational environment, donors and what type of assistance they provide, to identify the gaps in technical assistance and funding.

Our experience has proven that local consultants are in most demand […] as they already understand the local context, speak the language, and most importantly because of trust. Finally, the media development programmes tend to be the most successful when guided by the principles of locally-led development where partners are involved in defining their own vision for success; whereas the donors remain flexible and attentive to the needs for the partners.

Miguel Castro, head of Global Media Partnerships at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, shares his thoughts about partnering with large, mainstream media organisations, what the foundation looks for in their partners, the biggest challenges when working with such outlets, and how they measure the success of their projects.

The Gates Foundation is one of the largest spenders on media partnerships among philanthropies. Why is this field so important for the Foundation?

Castro: I’m not really sure whether the foundation is among the largest philanthropic investors in media anymore, the data is always very difficult to crack. We are definitely a large funder, no question about it, but in the last few years there has been an increased investment by philanthropic organisations that have not been traditionally investing in the media space, and there is very little tracking about all of that. But we do have a significant portfolio.

Ever since 2011, when the Foundation decided to centralise its work with media organisations through grantmaking in this unit called the Global Media Partnerships, there have been a couple of elements that substantiate this strategy. One of them has to do with helping media organisations who care about global health, development, and gender equality.

We feel that, in a sense, there has been a market failure of really high quality journalism on these issues. It is assumed that it does not bring in large audiences, although these assumptions have been challenged over the years, and we felt, and we still feel that the overall share of journalism that touches the social issues that are important for underserved populations is very small. So we have always wanted to address that market failure, by subsidising good quality journalism with organisations that share the same values and objectives.

While many donors focus on supporting outlets in financial need, the Gates Foundation forged partnerships also with mainstream media organisations, such as The Guardian, Der Spiegel, El Pais, Financial Times, or Al Jazeera, among others. What is the idea behind these partnerships?

Castro: Whether the organisations we work with are for profit, or not for profit – that’s not the key question. The media organisations we work with should be mission driven. Their mission cannot only be financial return. Of course, that is a legitimate quest by any media organisation, and we want them to succeed and be sustainable, but it is not our priority.

We work with organisations that are driven by a mission that has to do with the role that we believe journalism plays in societies in being a service to society by informing its citizens. How is this impacting the development of communities across the world? That’s what matters to us. And we work with the most effective partners that we find, and often they are commercial organisations that have larger audiences. They’re more sophisticated in their approaches, have a greater understanding of engagement strategies, care about impact in the same way as we do. We have done a significant amount of partnerships with mission driven commercial organisations and in many cases, the very first relationship that they ever had with philanthropy organisations was with us.

Philanthropy is not the solution for the sustainability problems of media organisations. The media sector continues to struggle financially. We, philanthropies, at our best are at the forefront of the quests for social justice, even if it is just defining conversations, informing political debates. It doesn’t matter too much what type of organisation it is, for profit, or not for profit, if there is a mission alignment on what the role of journalism is.

What is the scope of these grants for mainstream media: do they focus on certain projects, reporting about certain topics, skill-building, maybe organisational development?

Castro: We call these relationships partnerships for a reason. They are never one thing only. There is this debate about core funding versus project based support, but I think it’s never one thing or the other. You can do core support and be project led, by providing a great deal of support for the necessary infrastructure. It is more about the design of the grants and how the funding is utilized.

So even though we do have grants and relationships that focus on sustainable development goals, or global health security, or gender equality, within that, there is always support for organizational development, there is always capacity building. Many grants pay for improving the capacity of an organization to understand their impact and their engagement and their audience, sometimes even developing products. On a few occasions we have actually provided catalytic start-up funding for the creation of an organisation.

It is always a result of smart design, and it is an important factor that we have long term commitments to our partners. Since 2018. all our grants are for three years or longer. In three years, even if it is project based funding, there is a lot of organizational development that happens.

What was the biggest success story among these partnerships with mainstream media, and in general, how do you deem a project successful?

Castro: There are a lot of success stories, I could go in many directions. In terms of impact, we have a pretty high ratio of satisfaction and success, because we invest a lot of time in due diligence at the beginning of the conversation to get to know our partners and for our partners to get to know us. Then the grantees have the capacity to do what they do best: journalism.

We track impact jointly with our grantees. We have done a lot of work with a lot of people and a lot of grantees, and have piloted a lot of things to get to a pretty solid framework to understand the performance of our partners and for the partners to understand how their journalism is achieving what they want to or not. Among other tools, we work with the American Press Institute, which has a tool called Metrics for News, which we subsidise for grantees for their media analytics.

We have regular conversations about how their journalism is doing, and its impact. And we learn from them how it is impacting their editorial approaches. I think impact should be an important question for every journalism organisation: understanding how your audiences consume your content, what they do with the knowledge that they acquire seems to me quite a fundamental question. So we have helped media organisations to do that in the most sophisticated way possible for quite a long time. And at the same time, it helped us to understand if we were using our resources in the most effective way.

If you had to mention one project as a flagship one, what would it be?

Castro: I was very happy with an unusual cooperation. In 2019, The Guardian, Spiegel, El Pais and Le Monde got together for a year-long series to examine the lives of refugees arriving to Western Europe. Migration was a really hard topic, and they came together with a project that included longform, multimedia, in-depth, amazing journalism from all four of them called The New Arrivals.

They shared resources, ideas, each of them produced a different output to their audiences in their own language. That was amazing to see. We facilitated it by providing funding, because at that time there was a lot of very domestically focused, highly political coverage and very little storytelling about what is happening to the individuals.

It was amazing for two reasons: for the quality of the journalism, for the storytelling, but also because these organizations demonstrated that they could work together. I think there should be a lot more like this, and it’s a shame that it’s 2024 and we do not see tens of projects like that.

What was the biggest challenge you encountered when working with these large organizations?

Castro: These organizations never had philanthropies on their radar. In Western Europe, and in the US. philanthropies are highly regulated. You are accountable to a strong regulatory environment for your tax status, etc. You develop these partnerships with editorial teams. But then it comes to a point when someone should develop  a proposal, and it stops being an editorial question. Someone in the building has to do that, to develop the administrative and accounting infrastructure. It is a struggle for media organizations because they are not used to it. So the first grant is always very hard. It is a bit of a cultural shift.

Also, if you are a journalist, you want to be fully, absolutely independent. There is always a healthy skepticism about funders. But as these partnerships evolve, you build trust, and then it becomes a normal and actually enriching relationship for everyone involved.

Do you have any advice for other funders?

Castro: One of the reasons why Journalism Funders Forum exists is to help foundations that are interested in working with journalism to do it in the most effective way. It can be incredibly effective. Stories are a commodity for both journalism and social organisations. Trust is a common currency. We want audiences and everyone to trust what we do, and we want to earn that trust by doing the right thing.

There are rules of the game, there are approaches that work, and approaches that work less. Journalism organizations that are new to philanthropy have to make an effort to understand what is at stake. And at the same time, philanthropic organisations that have been doing funding in other spaces for decades need to understand what is unique and what is different, and what are the rules of the game when working with media organizations. Ours are creative and editorial independence, the integrity of the journalism produced, and transparency from all parts involved.

And when that happens, it is beautiful. When journalism and philanthropies or civil society organisations with advocacy mandates come together, respecting the rules of the game of advocacy and philanthropy and policy and journalism, this is when everyone is most impactful and ultimately societies will benefit. So it is an invitation to organisations and the philanthropy space to consider journalism funding in the most mature and sophisticated way possible.

Patrice Schneider, the Chief Strategy Officer of the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), shares the lessons learned in the first two years of Pluralis, an impact investment vehicle for news companies led by MDIF. He also discusses how the investment has changed media organisations and offers advice to other funders.

In its first two years, Pluralis invested in Gremi Media, which publishes Rzeczpospolita in Poland, the publishing house Petit Press, publisher of SME in Slovakia, and the Croatian news platform Telegram. Do the three countries share any common challenges despite their different media landscapes?

Schneider: The media landscape in all these countries is indeed quite different. The similarity goes back to the challenge that Pluralis tries to address, which is media plurality. The one thing that unifies these three countries is that independent media companies are being purchased by actors that do not necessarily have an intention of providing more independent media, but rather controlling the narrative.

This is why Pluralis was created: for addressing this challenge. But we knew from the beginning that it is never a one size fits all approach, you cannot just do one transaction with Petit Press and SME and replicate it for Rzeczpospolita or for Telegram in Croatia. After doing this [work] for 28 years at MDIF, we knew there would be different things, but I think what really assembles these three markets is the problem of media plurality.

How do you cope with this challenge?

Schneider: In the world we now live in, it has become an opportunity for ill-intentioned people to buy media companies and turn the narrative in favor of their own interests or a political agenda that satisfies the new investors. So, the challenges were generally the same: finding an independent organization, assessing their capital and development needs, adjusting the capital to match their development plan, and so on.

So the modus operandi is pretty much the same as it was for MDIF for 28 years. The only difference was that we were taking positions in these companies to be able to maintain media plurality, but we were also making sure that there would be no interference.

How do we cope with this? We have the ethics to say that we do not intervene. I mean we do play a role in terms of the development of the company because we do not just do it for press freedom. The company has to survive. And that means that we have to get involved in the business development, helping them where we can. And that is very different whether you are Rzeczpospolita, SME or Telegram. They have totally different needs.

The investment in Croatia is a relatively new one, but the other two took place two years ago. How did your investments change those two organizations?

Schneider: In the case of SME, they had a majority ownership from an investment group called Penta Holding, which was involved in too many things in Slovakia, and they were starting to intervene in content, which is for us a red line. If you are an investor, you do not do this.

The moment when Pluralis bought the shares of Penta Holding, that pressure stopped immediately. I regularly see [chief editor] Beata Balogova from SME being quoted as saying that every three months she is asked about the stories she is proud of. Before that she was being asked about why they covered this story, or why they did not cover that one, and their editorial choices [were] challenged. Now she is only asked about which stories she is proud of. We talk with the business people. Business-wise, Petit Presse is a very sophisticated organization, a profitable organization. It is extraordinarily well run.

Rzeczpospolita, the number one conservative business newspaper in Poland, was going to be potentially purchased by Orlen, the state-owned oil company. That was dangerous in itself. But we also saw that even if they had made progress, they had work to be done on digital subscriptions. If you are a business newspaper in a country the size of Poland, […] they should have been the country’s leader in terms of digital subscription for the information they provide.

At Pluralis we put the capital in to preserve media plurality, but then we bring experts to help them [the organizations we invest in]. So Pluralis has been supplying massive training to Rzeczpospolita. Not on press freedom, not on editorial issues, but on how to increase digital subscriptions. And the first numbers are looking really good. Instead of sending a journalist from Western Europe to talk about press freedom, we sent [them] people from some reputable companies in Europe who have been leaders in digital subscriptions for 15 years, who know exactly how to do it, which means that, in effect, the business manager who has been doing this becomes the press freedom hero. Increasing digital subscriptions makes them more profitable. If they are more profitable, they will have more impact.

The second thing is that Pluralis managed, I think, to maintain pluralist views. Our role is to make sure that people hear different voices and then they can make their decisions.

If there was one lesson that could be considered the most important one learned from investing in these three countries and these three organizations, what would that be?

Schneider: I think that the main lesson is that Pluralis’ hypotheses work, meaning that there is a need for a new type of capital provider for independent media. Linked to that lesson is the fact that there is appetite for a new type of capital provider. And that is critical because you are asking me about the lesson [learned] from investing [in these organizations]. So, it is  not solely about investing in them, but it has taught us that there is a need for a new type of capital provider that aligns with the social value of independent media. There is an appetite for patient capital to fulfill this role of capital provider.

What do you consider Pluralis’ biggest success in its first two years?

Schneider: I think what I mentioned is also our biggest success: finding patient capital that believes in the value of independent media. By now we have raised €50 million. A lot of people thought we would not raise [the targeted] €100 million, but now we are halfway ahead of time. I think there is capital and there are places to invest, and then there is an impact on society. What do you want more?

I mean, really, that is for us the biggest success. But I think I would just tone this down by saying that the real heroes here are not MDIF, it is not Pluralis, it is not even the business people in these companies. It is really the journalists who are doing that work. And all we do is to enable them to do it in the right conditions.

Knowing what you know today, is there anything that you would do differently related to the Pluralis’ investments?

Schneider: On the investment side, not really. The only thing that we would have done differently is the pipeline, to better understand that we are not an investment fund, we are a solution. An investment fund works in a way where you have money coming in and then you ensure that you have money going out. This also means that you raise capital and then already know where you are going to invest it, and it has to be driven by the investors. In the case of Pluralis, we have capital, but we are not going to invest that money anywhere. It has to be under the right conditions of media capture, a media plurality situation. They have to be profitable and so forth.

So the one thing we could have done differently is to go out there much quicker, saying that we exist, and we are here to bring you the right capital for your needs. Hungary is a beautiful example. I wish we had done this there earlier.

Based on the experience gained in the past two years, is there any advice that you would like to share with funders who consider funding media in the region?

Schneider: Pluralis has now raised €50 million [available] for independent media and media plurality. There are many types of funders in that €50 million, but there are some, like foundations, that provided a grant in the capital structure, €5 million out of the €50 [million], and they do not expect the money back. It helps you de-risk the other €45 million, but I think the problem that Pluralis and other organizations are trying to solve is that we need to reach out to other sectors, like banks. We have the Erste Stiftung and GLS Bank, but we also need to reach out to high net worth individuals, people who have never invested in independent media. They don’t know about independent media, but you have to approach them with a product which looks risk-adjusted, and safe.

I would tell the funders: consider the word “leverage”. It is not a bad word in the financial world. I think we need to bring it to the impact investment world. Five million [euros] in grants allows you to get €45 million more for the ecosystem of independent media in emerging democracies. We need grants in many places, but also a different way of using capital, which could be either an investment, or a grant [used] simply to de-risk. I think that one, grants aimed to de-risk, is a big call for action because we are going to need more money.

Philanthropic support for media and journalism has been growing in recent years and is seen as a way to strengthen democracy and civic engagement. However, there are still many challenges and opportunities for both funders and recipients of this support.

On 28 April Philea, in collaboration with GFMD, organised the 13th edition of “Philanthropy for Ukraine” sessions with a focus on journalism in the context of the war. During the session, four Ukrainian media experts shared their insights on the challenges and opportunities for international donors to support the media.

Ievgeniia Oliinyk, Program Director of the Media Development Foundation, shared about the MDF’s experience of collaborating with local media outlets by presenting the main findings of their new annual research on the state of local news outlets in Ukraine. The report shows that regional media have survived and resisted the war, despite the massive staff turnover, the constant threat of violence, the propaganda and misinformation, and the lack of resources. The MDF report also praises the role of regional journalists in documenting war crimes, debunking fake news, telling human stories, and helping Ukrainians stay sane and informed. It calls for more support and solidarity from the international community, the government, and civil society to protect and empower regional media as a vital pillar of democracy and peace. Ievgeniia also highlighted the importance of avoiding news deserts in Ukraine and providing additional support to the regions with such a tendency.

Discussing the state of the media at a national scale, Andrey Boborykin, Executive Director of Ukrainska Pravda, shared the newspaper’s experience. He noted that advertising spending across Ukraine has declined due to the economic crisis and the war, and this has forced Ukrainska Pravda to fundraise with the international donor community, which was not something that they were actively involved in before the war.

The media viability concept has to be rethought in the context of Ukraine, where media outlets face economic hardships and need to adapt to a changing and challenging environment, noted Olga Myrovych, the CEO of Lviv Media Forum. She argued that supporting the Ukrainian media is vital for the country’s recovery and justice and that the international community should recognize and amplify the voice of Ukrainian journalists and editors. Olga also addresses the issue of mental health among journalists in Ukraine, who have been exposed to trauma due to the ongoing war. In particular, Lviv Media Forum has offered psychological support to more than 150 media professionals to help them cope and restore their psychological resilience.

Continuing the discussion on the main issues that affect the media industry in Ukraine, Jakub Parusinski, Co-founder and Editor of The Fix Media, and CFO of The Kyiv Independent, highlighted that one of the main problems that media organizations in Ukraine encounter is the lack of qualified journalists, editors, project managers, sales managers and other media professionals. The current generation of journalists has suffered a significant attrition rate due to psychological breakdown, volunteering causes, frontline work, and the inability to work in the sector. This problem is exacerbated by a demographic problem in Ukraine, with only a quarter of a million graduates a year, down by half from over half a million in 2010. How can media organizations overcome this shortage? Jakub suggests that shared service centres could be a solution. He also argues that the media themselves should invest in training programs, work with universities, and create career development opportunities for their staff.

Another challenge that media organizations face is how to reintegrate veterans as content creators, audiences, and workers. Jakub Parusinski believes that media can play a vital role in helping veterans reintegrate into society. A third issue that media organisations have to deal with is how to connect with the millions of Ukrainians who had to flee abroad. Parusinski argues that the media has a significant responsibility to preserve Ukrainian culture and ties within Ukrainian communities and fight against Russia’s attempt to destroy it.

Based on their experience of being a recipient of media support, speakers shared their ideas and advice on how philanthropic or foundation support for media and journalism could be improved:

Get in touch

A reflection on the Journalism Funders Forum’s in-person event, 16 February, Brussels
By Are We Europe

On 16 February, Philea and the Journalism Funders Forum (JFF) held their first ever in-person event together, bringing together representatives of foundations to discuss their mission of supporting public interest journalism in Europe.

The role of independent journalism in society has never been more important than in the current moment. It is what builds a bridge between communities and ensures balanced information is available to all. Over the past decade, media oppression has been on the rise in both authoritarian states and open societies in Europe. Media organisations and freelance journalists alike increasingly turn to philanthropic funders for support to continue their work despite increasingly difficult conditions.

JFF aims to support the funding landscape for journalism in Europe through three strands of work. Firstly, by improving learning opportunities and knowledge about journalism funding across the continent. Secondly, the forum works to diversify and increase the number of journalism funders in Europe, as well as foster connections between them. Thirdly, the forum strives to help build a more effective, transparent and equitable funding environment for journalism in Europe.

At the event in Brussels, funders had the opportunity to share successful strategies, learnings and challenges that they face in supporting public interest journalism. Openly sharing one’s challenges and hopes is the only way to entice other funders that are not yet active in journalism to do so. Just like in journalism, honesty is key.

A pillar of democracy

While many would hope that quality journalism can fund itself, the past few decades have irreversibly damaged most media outlets’ business models. The internet is the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back, paving the way for higher outreach but also forcing many publications to put their content behind a paywall in order to remain sustainable. Some would say the latter hinders journalism’s duty to contribute to public discourse.

Throughout the day, an ever-present topic on the discussions was democracy. After all, journalists and their work are essential contributors to informed communities. While many foundations do not explicitly name journalism in their mission statements, it is through their commitment to upholding democracy that they, too, should support this field. Independent, quality journalism contributes to a healthy democracy. And journalism should be free from any influence that may impact their editorial output. Protecting this independence plays a crucial role in what philanthropic funding can do for journalism today. But how can this work be funded sustainably? 

The challenges to funding independent journalism are not unheard of. Funders, of course, need to find quality journalism to support. In turn, many journalists would argue that they simply do not know the relevant funding organisations to contact. The interdependence between journalists and their funders is evident, but it is discussions around the type of funding needed, and how funders can work together to maximise impact, that made the gathering in Brussels so uniquely impactful.

Stability is key

When investigating the ways in which philanthropy can support media organisations, core funding is of great importance. Core funding allows for the necessary breathing room between projects that contributes to better journalistic output. It furthers the creation of sustainable structures within a media outlet and offers opportunities for professional development. It also removes the incentive some might receive from project-based grants to just “go for the money” to survive. Simply put, not worrying about whether they can break even next month allows journalists to thrive. Stability is key. 

This very stability is the one that can allow for the time and resources for journalists to tackle extensive or sensitive topics that can often be more labour-intensive. Unrestricted support from a funding body can help to bring out the best of what journalism can do, speaking truth to power and contributing to societal change. 

The case for pluralism and funder collaboration

As much as cross-border journalism is becoming a reality in newsrooms today, collaboration should be of equal importance among funders. Like most things in life, it’s a two-way street. Pluralism in funding is essential to a system in which pluriform media thrives. And media diversity is vital. When funders act as a group, they send a clear message of support.

While stability is vital to journalists, it is equally important to funds. But there are solutions. Pooled funds are aggregated funds that allow interested parties to fund journalism without being experts on the topic. As the idiom goes, there is safety in numbers. Pooled funding creates quality assurance among funders who may not have the requisite knowledge to select suitable projects. It essentially creates a comfort zone for those who would otherwise hesitate to begin funding journalism. The hope however is that in the future more funders will become comfortable enough to begin funding journalism outside of the access point of a pooled fund.

However, this is not the only way in which funders can collaborate. In sharing knowledge and expertise across the European funding landscape, philanthropic organisations can work together to co-create new projects and grantmaking initiatives. In this sense, funders can co-fund projects independently but work side by side collaboratively. This kind of collaborative decision-making also accounts for the disparate geographic landscape of funding. For example, a country like the Netherlands is comparatively well-funded compared to other regions in Europe like Italy or Spain. Through collaborative processes, funders can contribute to journalistic diversity in landscapes and languages they might not be familiar with. It is a matter of shared trust. 

Looking forward

The first in-person meeting of the Journalism Funders Forum, since it found its new home with Philea, clearly showed that foundations are eager to connect more often. There is a drive to have funders communicate with one another in a casual setting, but also to facilitate communication between funders and potential grantees and partners. The repeated mentions of how difficult it is to communicate, match the need for better understanding between those who support journalism and those who create it. Both JFF and Philea are strengthened in their resolve to keep building connections between journalism funders in Europe and to advocate for the crucial role that philanthropy plays in safeguarding independent media.

Speaker list

Get in touch