Can small, local independent media thrive in an authoritarian environment? A multiple-year-long funding programme revealed that upscaling small outlets can deliver results, but only when paired with strong internal capacity, business-minded leadership, and continued donor engagement.
Supporting Independent Media Under Pressure
Since 2021, the Media and Journalism Research Center (MJRC) has supported independent local media in highly authoritarian environments through a sub-granting programme. For safety reasons, MJRC does not disclose the names and locations of the media outlets in the programme.
Funded by a philanthropic partner, the programme provided core funding to help outlets achieve financial and organisational sustainability, grow audiences, and strengthen resilience. It also fostered collaboration among grantees and evaluated their progress through regular monitoring and comparative analysis, measuring impact across audience reach, revenue, and staffing.
The programme consisted of two phases. In the first phase, MJRC awarded grants to seven local organisations. According to the programme evaluation, it filled a critical gap in local media, offering vital funding, mentoring, and capacity-building. Grantees appreciated the tailored support and local-language administration. Challenges included limited capacities, inexperience running donation campaigns, economic instability in the country, and political pressure.
What Upscaling Looks Like
In the second phase, three of the grantees were selected and received a much larger grant. This phase focused on two core goals: scaling up the infrastructure and impact of the selected outlets and exploring how innovative strategies work in captured media environments. The aim was to help grantees take meaningful steps toward long-term sustainability.
The selection process emphasised operational growth and capacity-building rather than content production, with the jury assessing how applicants could realistically expand their infrastructure, outreach, and impact, based on past performance and readiness for organisational change.
Two grantees received grants almost three times larger than their previous annual budgets, but even the largest outlet experienced a 40% budget increase. In addition to funding, the programme provided ongoing training sessions, peer learning, and mentoring in capacity-building. The organisational development training supported internal improvements, while a needs-based approach ensured tailored support aligned with each outlet’s goals and capacities. The programme aimed to build more sustainable, resilient, and independent media organisations capable of withstanding pressure in challenging environments.
Without this grant, the two smaller grantees would likely have continued to struggle with day-to-day operations, facing little opportunity for meaningful development and little hope of achieving visible impact. In a heavily captured media environment where prospects for press freedom and media sustainability remain bleak, the survival of independent local outlets is largely dependent on donor support. The market simply does not offer the necessary conditions for a small news organisation to become sustainable, let alone to grow or innovate.
The Role of Management and Capacities in Sustainability
One of the key lessons of the project was that smaller outlets often lack the skills and internal capacity required to carry out the kind of strategic and structural transformation that sustainability demands. This became apparent as both smaller grantees faced significant delays in implementing their plans and struggled to use the funds in a timely manner due to insufficient capacities and lack of expertise.
In contrast, the largest grantee was able to deliver on its project goals within the expected timeframe. As a more established organisation with experienced management and a stable internal structure, it was well positioned to absorb the grant and make full use of it.
The size of the organisation and its internal capacity are critical factors in determining how effectively a grantee can handle a grant that dramatically expands its operating budget. While the smaller grantees also experienced a temporary increase in income, primarily through supplementary grants from USAID’s Central Europe programme, the sudden termination of that programme in early 2025 posed a serious threat to their financial stability.
However, the two smaller grantees are not in the same position. One of the most important insights from the project’s earlier phase was confirmed again: outlets led by a business-minded management are significantly better equipped to sustain and grow their operations. This difference became even more apparent after the USAID funding ended. While both smaller grantees lost key financial support, one of them is now in a much stronger position due to its more robust operational staff which has proactively secured new sources of revenue. The other organisation, which lacks a strong business-minded management, has returned to a precarious financial state with potential staff cuts on the horizon and little clarity about the future.
The Limits of Market-Based Models
Long-term sustainability for independent media depends on diversifying revenue streams. Yet in such a hostile and distorted media environment, this is exceedingly difficult. Advertising remains one of the biggest challenges. In captured environments, state advertising often is an important source of media ad revenue but is reserved exclusively for outlets that support the ruling parties. Moreover, in such environments, private businesses are reluctant to advertise in independent outlets, fearing political or economic retaliation.
This makes it all the more important for media organisations to experiment with alternative ways of engaging their audiences. Encouraging regular feedback from readers can help shape editorial strategies that better respond to audience needs. Data on content performance can also reveal which formats or topics are most effective in building loyalty and trust.
Financial sustainability could also benefit from more targeted efforts to understand the audience’s willingness and capacity to pay, whether via donations, subscriptions, or paywalls. Still, in many countries only a small portion of the population is willing to pay for news, therefore audience-based funding, while desirable, cannot yet provide a stable foundation, especially for local outlets with smaller audiences.
Independent local journalism remains indispensable for informing communities and holding power to account. However, without external financial support there is a growing risk of entire regions turning into news deserts where propaganda and misinformation go unchallenged.
Therefore continued donor support is essential. Core funding is the only realistic way to keep small local media running, as the current market offers no viable path to full financial independence. While relying on grants is not ideal, it remains the only available lifeline for independent journalism in countries with declining media freedom.
For more information, contact the Media and Journalism Research Center.
Maribel Königer, Director of Journalism and Media at ERSTE Foundation, highlights the importance of supporting independent journalism to protect democracies in Europe. From fellowships to pooled funds, the Foundation’s evolving approach aims to strengthen media resilience, for which it is essential to develop sustainable business models.
Why is it important for the ERSTE Foundation to support journalism? How does it fit into your broader mission?
The Journalism and Media programme is embedded in our Europe and Democracy programme. We define the problem here: liberal democracy is under threat. Europe’s democracies remain fragile and unprepared to withstand internal and external socio-economic, technological, and geopolitical disruptions. One of our answers to this problem is that we want to support high-quality independent media and journalism in CEE. We have been doing this since the very beginning, only a bit differently; now we do it with a wider focus.
Together with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, who left some years later), we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence. At that time, in 2007, we were focused on the Balkans because we thought that countries in Central Europe who just became members of the European Union – Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, et cetera – were good, so we should focus on South Eastern Europe, on countries which are not yet there. As a fellowship it was meant as an investment in people, in investigative journalists, and for many years this was our only project in the field of journalism.
Then in 2018, we were shocked about what happened in our surroundings. Jan Kuciak and his fiancé were killed. Hungary and Poland changed their laws and their attitudes towards independent media. Also in the Czech Republic, politics became hostile towards independent media. Suddenly we became aware that focusing on the Balkans to support independent journalists and good journalism in CEE is not enough.
First, we enlarged the scope of the fellowship to the – back then – so-called Visegrad countries. Then we saw a decline in the media scene: the well-trained journalists that came out of this fellowship had no platforms anymore on which to publish. A lot of media were gone. What could we do now, if they cannot tell their stories to their audience anymore? The geographically enlarged fellowship was embedded in a platform called “Reporting Democracy” where articles could also be published.
It was clear from the very beginning that we don’t want to invest directly in media. Actually, we cannot. As an Austrian savings bank foundation, the core shareholder of Austria’s biggest bank, Erste Group, we are only allowed by our statutes to invest in nonprofits. There are a lot of nonprofit media around, but we also saw a risk of conflicts of interest in both directions, as well as reputation risks. Then we discovered the wonderful tool of pooled funds.
What are the advantages of these pooled funds?
We very much like the idea of joining forces. The leverage is bigger. If you put money in a pile, you can support media with higher amounts, or longer, or more of them, and have more impact. Also, you can delegate the delicate task of selecting the media you support. You have a qualified jury to do that. It’s much more efficient if several foundations join into a fund.
Civitates was the beginning. Its sub-fund for public interest media has a focus on Southern and Eastern Europe. That is important for us because we have a strict geographic focus on Central and Eastern Europe. Our revenues are the dividends of our share in Erste Group, one of the biggest financial service providers in Austria and Eastern European countries.
In 2021, we were approached by the Media Development Investment Fund. They presented us with the idea of Pluralis. An impact investment fund was something new for us. Pluralis guarantees editorial independence for legacy media by investing in publishing houses in Eastern Europe; a smart concept. By now, Pluralis has a portfolio of three important media in Poland, Slovakia and Croatia and it plans to grow further.
Finally, we became one of the initiators of the Media Forward Fund, focusing on Austria, Germany, and Switzerland.
So, your journey as a funder of journalism started in the Balkans and ended in Austria?
Indeed! If you had told us 18 years ago, when we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, that we would one day be supporting innovation in Austrian media, we would have laughed in disbelief. But the media ecosystem in Austria is in danger, like in many other countries. The market is in an extremely precarious situation, public interest media struggle to survive although (some even say: because) there is a lot of public funding.
The Media Forward Fund supports – with much money for a short and limited period – media organisations that apply with a convincing business idea. Good journalism is the precondition, but it’s not what is funded. You should apply with a smart idea to scale up your business or to secure more stable resources.
How would you explain this substantial growth in the Foundation’s engagement for journalism?
ERSTE Foundation reacted in a timely manner to what was happening to the media scene and in journalism. We all see the threats everywhere: Autocratic regimes attacking independent media, media capture, disinformation campaigns, decreasing societal trust, and increasing technological and economic disruptions put public interest media and critical journalism in CEE at high risk.
After the quasi organic growth of the portfolio, we now have a clear strategy. The foundation worked on its overall strategy and one of our goals for the next few years is a healthy media ecosystem in CEE that upholds democratic values, combats misinformation, and empowers communities with reliable information. We therefore invest in and support sustainable and independent free media and fact-based critical journalism. This is how a single project topic developed into a consistent programme portfolio. The consequence was that I changed my position. As of July 2025, I am the Director of Journalism and Media. After 18 years as Director of Communications with the journalism projects as my second task, I switched focus.
In what other ways do you support journalism?
In Vienna, together with Presseclub Concordia and the Forum für Journalismus und Medien (fjum), we organise in-person and hybrid press briefings with researchers and experts from our other programmes. Journalists get firsthand information on the political, economic or societal situation in other countries, often just before elections in a given country.
Through the funds we support, we also offer capacity building. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is not only funding the development of business ideas in media but is also coaching to develop business skills.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from these programmes?
I have two lessons in mind. Firstly: Most journalists are passionate about and very good at their job, but many of them have no idea about the business side of media. New media outlets with a great mission will die very quickly when no one looks at target groups, funnels, revenue plans, and the like. Even proper accounting or having a business plan is not a given. This lack of basic business skills or appropriate competent personnel in young media is so obvious that, today, many foundations or intermediaries offer tools known from the start-up world: media accelerators and incubators. Media viability became also a very important topic in conferences.
This brings me to the second lesson: Why is it so important to build a sustainable business model? Because relying on a single resource – be it a donor, be it public funds of your community, be it, well, USAID – can have fatal consequences. In January it became clear that a full focus on a single source, as generous as it might have been in the past, causes real problems. Sustainable business models (meaning also diversification of revenue streams) are crucial for media viability but also for media pluralism.
What were the biggest challenges you have had to face so far?
One big challenge is to explain to people why the media are in such a problematic situation at all. Just 10 or 15 years ago, people founded newspapers to make money, and not to be funded. Today, classical public interest media have lost their business model. But there are still big, powerful media groups, for some it is still big business. So explaining why some media need funding is a challenge.
Fortunately, we haven’t had challenges such as smear campaigns yet. But everyone knows that independent media and their funders are under constant threat of authoritarian attacks. It has become a risky business to be a foundation supporting what should be the most natural thing in the world in a liberal democracy: free media.
How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story related to supporting journalism?
Usually, our projects include process assessment and impact measurement. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is constantly assessing its brand new processes and results. It just started one year ago, and one term is two years. If the grants have had a real impact on the businesses of the grantees, we will soon see, with the first cohort ending the programme in one year. The application process was also assessed and some selection criteria have been changed in the second round. For example, we wanted the business part and editorial part to be clearly separated. That works for the New York Times, sure, but if you are a three-person, brand new, young organisation, then it is not possible. So we changed this criterion. Now you must agree that these entities will be separated once the medium has grown…
These seem banal things, but it is important to realise when something does not work and change it. The real success will be, in two years, to have businesses that double their subscription base, or make money on theatre stages with their concept, whatever they applied with.
Whether our funding has societal impact is, of course, very difficult to measure. I would take Pluralis as an example which pooled philanthropic investment in media matters. Gremi Media, the publisher of Rzeczpospolita in Poland, is part of Pluralis’ portfolio. Having kept one of the biggest Polish newspapers as a free, independent one is very important. It is a centre-conservative paper with fact-based reporting. This also shows that our goal is not to support a certain agenda. It is about the quality of journalism and media pluralism. In Slovakia, Petit Press, publishing the daily SME, has in Pluralis an owner that is backing the editors in a very hostile public environment.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so?
First of all, I would ask them to imagine that there is no more media where they can talk about their main topics, be it climate, culture, environment, equality, or whatever. People would get their information only from social media, from influencers, from AI bots. If you think that this might be a really bad situation, then start supporting media and journalism.
My advice for newbies would be to start with a pooled fund. You don’t have to fund media directly, trust in experts. My other advice is that, if you are unsure what kind of pooled fund you should turn to, then come to the Journalism Funders Forum. This is a peer group of foundations which are happy to give anyone advice about the risks, realistic goals, about what you can gain, et cetera, by funding journalism. Or look for foundations that already support journalism, everybody is happy to share their knowledge. The main thing is: do it.
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.
Local journalism faces significant challenges around the world, resulting in the decline of newspapers in various regions, often referred to as “news deserts.” These areas suffer from a lack of reliable news sources, resulting in diminished access to important information that citizens need to participate actively in their communities.
This trend is also alarming for journalism funders, as local journalism plays a critical role in maintaining a well-informed public. With fewer reporters covering city councils, school boards, and local events, citizens are left with limited information about issues affecting their lives. This lack of coverage can create a vacuum of knowledge, undermining democratic processes at the local level.
There are several factors contributing to the rise of news deserts. The digital age has brought about immense changes in how people consume news, with many turning to social media and online platforms for information. Traditional newspapers have struggled to adapt to this new environment, leading to declining subscriptions and advertising revenue. Furthermore, the consolidation of media ownership has resulted in fewer local voices and a focus on profit over community service. As large corporations buy up local papers, they often slash staff and resources, further weakening local journalism’s capacity to serve its community.
Depopulation is another significant factor. As younger generations move to urban centres seeking better opportunities, remaining populations often consist of older residents who may have different news consumption habits or limited access to digital media. This demographic shift creates a cycle where diminished local engagement leads to reduced journalistic coverage, which in turn accelerates depopulation, as residents feel less connected and informed about their communities.
The Castile-La Mancha region in Spain serves as an example of how depopulation can lead to news deserts, as it has seen significant population decline, and with it, the local media landscape has dramatically changed. Fewer people means less advertising revenue, which newspapers rely on, ultimately resulting in cuts to staff and resources. Like many areas suffering from similar trends, Castile-La Mancha faces a decline, not just in quantity, but also in the quality of news coverage.
Local media distribution mirrors the region’s polycentric demographic patterns, with outlets clustered in urban centres while rural zones remain underserved. Demographic indicators such as low population density, aging communities, and the absence of younger populations strongly correlate with the lack of media presence, while factors like business activity or income levels show limited influence.
Public services in depopulated areas, such as healthcare and education, remain relatively intact due to public efforts. However, media access heavily relies on private investment, as third-sector media remain underdeveloped. Future research should explore the potential of municipal broadcasters and public communication policies in these regions. Distance and territorial structure further exacerbate media absence, with logistical and administrative barriers isolating peripheral zones.
The complex relationship between depopulation and media absence suggests the need for further exploration, including how media might attract or retain populations. Local journalism’s ability to fulfil grassroots values is critical, alongside the role of civil society and social media in filling informational voids. Emphasising community resilience may offer new perspectives on addressing these challenges.
Saiz-Echezarreta, V., Galletero-Campos, B., & Arias Molinares, D. (2024). From news deserts to news resilience: Analysis of media in depopulated areas. Journalism, 25(12), 2641-2660. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849231218818
In response to the changing media environment, journalism programmes are increasingly emphasising the importance of skills such as adaptability, critical thinking, and audience engagement. This reflects a shift from simply teaching traditional skills to preparing students for a future where they are expected to integrate new technologies and diverse perspectives into their work. A significant part of the discussion revolves around how journalism educational institutions must innovate their curricula to meet these challenges, fostering a culture of lifelong learning among journalists. This is particularly important for journalism funders, as their support plays a crucial role in equipping future journalists with the tools to navigate and adapt to the shifting landscape, ensuring the sustainability and impact of quality journalism.
Drawing from insights gained from fifty experts in journalism and education, a study conducted in the Netherlands employed scenario planning to explore various potential futures for journalism education. This method considered both certain trends, such as ongoing technological advancement and the necessity for journalists to engage with their audiences, and uncertain trends, which include the blurring of professional boundaries within journalism and the growing need for collaboration across disciplines.
The study found four plausible scenarios for the future of journalism education. The first scenario, “Back to Basics,” emphasises a return to foundational skills centred around traditional journalism standards, focusing on research, interviewing, and a critical understanding of political and social contexts. The second scenario, “Mix & Match,” allows for personalised learning paths, where aspiring journalists can curate their educational experiences based on individual needs and interests, often leveraging audience collaboration and advanced technology. In the third scenario, “Creators United,” students are trained not just as information providers but also as active participants in journalism, working closely with media organisations and engaging directly with their communities. The final scenario, “Learn for Life,” envisions a flexible, open-ended form of education where traditional structures like diplomas may disappear, allowing journalists to navigate their own paths and explore varied formats and subjects.
Journalism education needs to evolve continually, and educators should prioritise teaching new skills while reconsidering the fundamental journalistic values that should always underpin such training. These insights contribute to the broader discourse on how journalism programmes can stay relevant in the rapidly evolving media landscape, highlighting the importance of flexibility, innovation, and a commitment to understanding the journalist’s role in society.
Severijnen, M., & de Haan, Y. (2024). Educating for a Changing Media Landscape: Four Scenarios for Journalism Education in 2030. Journalism Studies, 25(16), 1931–1948. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2024.2406814
The quality of news articles is assessed not only by their content but also by the media brand which publishes them. In today’s information-saturated environment, brands serve as cognitive shortcuts for readers, helping them navigate vast amounts of information. Consumer-based brand equity (CBBE), defined as the value a brand holds based on consumers’ awareness and associations, plays a critical role in this process. It is crucial for those providing financial support to journalism to understand this dynamic, as it emphasises the significance of brand reputation and the potential influence of brand equity on public trust and the perception of journalistic quality.
The role of journalism in supporting democratic societies is widely acknowledged. The quality of journalism is often gauged by its impartiality, reliability, and factual accuracy. However, there is no universally agreed-upon definition of news quality. There is a discrepancy between how journalists and consumers evaluate quality. However, studies indicate that the majority of news recipients can distinguish high-quality articles. This research extends this understanding by examining how media brands affect recipients’ assessments of news articles, particularly through CBBE.
Media brands act as reliable indicators of news quality, particularly in an environment where readers cannot personally verify the events covered in news stories. Brands convey emotional and cognitive associations that shape perceptions of content even before it is consumed. For example, articles from well-known, quality brands are typically rated more favourably than those from tabloid brands, even when the content is identical. This makes the media brand a critical factor in shaping audience evaluations, particularly in the online news environment, where strong brands often exert a greater influence on news selection than the content itself. The increasing prevalence of sensationalism has further obscured the distinction between quality and tabloid media, resulting in a convergence where both seek to deliver factual yet appealing content.
The study reveals that consumers rely on heuristic cues, such as media brands, to assess news quality when direct content evaluation is not possible. In this context, CBBE emerges as a critical factor. A positive CBBE results in stronger brand loyalty, higher perceived quality, and more favourable brand associations, all of which influence how consumers assess news quality. The familiarity of a media brand can prompt the formation of cognitive associations, which in turn influence the perceived credibility and accuracy of the news articles it publishes. The research demonstrates that articles from reputable brands like Süddeutsche Zeitung are generally evaluated more favourably than those from sensationalist brands like Bild. This effect is mediated by CBBE.
For journalism funders and donors, the implications are clear. CBBE, driven by brand awareness and consumer associations, directly impacts the perceived quality of news, particularly in areas such as factual accuracy, impartiality, and relevance. News outlets with a strong, positive brand identity can effectively signal high-quality journalism to their audiences, even in cases where the actual content may not be significantly different from that of their competitors. This indicates that maintaining a robust and reliable media brand is vital for maintaining audience trust and ensuring that quality journalism is recognised and valued by the public.
The research also examined how the impact of CBBE differs across various quality subdimensions. It revealed that brand influence was particularly strong in assessments of factual accuracy and impartiality, while its impact was less pronounced for dimensions like comprehensibility. This suggests that readers may rely more heavily on brand equity when evaluating elements of news that are more challenging to assess based on the content alone. For journalism funders and donors, this emphasises the value of investing not only in the production of quality journalism but also in the development and maintenance of strong media brands. A positive brand image is an effective tool for ensuring that quality journalism is perceived as such by its audience.
The convergence of quality and tabloid journalism also presents another challenge. The role of media brands in signalling news quality becomes even more critical. Funders and donors need to consider how this convergence affects public perception of journalistic quality and what it means for their support of independent, high-quality journalism. In a media landscape where strong brands can enhance the perceived quality of journalism, supporting media outlets in building their brand equity may be as important as funding content creation.
Nevertheless, while CBBE plays a significant role, other factors like brand knowledge and the physical presence of media outlets (e.g., their visibility in public spaces) also contribute to how news quality is perceived. For funders and donors, understanding the full range of factors that influence audience perception of quality is essential for making informed decisions about where to direct their support. By helping media outlets build positive brand equity and maintain a strong public presence, funders can enhance the impact of their contributions, ensuring that quality journalism is recognised and trusted by the public.
Leuppert, R., Bruns, S., Rahe, V., & Scherer, H. (2024). What’s a news media brand worth? Investigating the effect of cognitive brand representations on recipients’ quality assessment of news articles. Journalism, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849241285497
While the new moderate government in Poland has taken steps to restore media pluralism and increase media freedom, experts stress that true reform requires more than policy shifts. Restoring trust and fostering genuine media diversity will be a prolonged effort, offering critical lessons for countries struggling with illiberal governments and their legacies.
In October 2023, after eight years under the governance of the right-wing populist Law and Justice (PiS) party, Poland witnessed a significant shift in the political landscape as voters turned out in record numbers to elect a new moderate government led by Donald Tusk. The election followed a period during which there was a notable decline in media freedom and independence. Upon assuming power in 2015, PiS promptly sought to consolidate control over state-owned media, transforming them into instruments of government propaganda. The party introduced legislation that gave it the authority to appoint management for state-controlled broadcasters and agencies, effectively transforming TVP, Polish Radio, and the PAP news agency into mouthpieces. The impact on media pluralism was significant, with consequences extending beyond the state sector.
The government’s influence extended to private media outlets, as evidenced by the 2021 acquisition of Polska Press by state-owned oil company PKN Orlen. Following the acquisition, numerous editors were dismissed, resulting in a shift in the publication’s editorial stance to align with the government’s perspective.
The government installed following the 2023 elections has committed to implementing measures to restore media pluralism. However, Michał Głowacki, an associate professor at the University of Warsaw, highlights that Poland’s media landscape remains polarised, split into “two competing media tribes.” This polarisation is further compounded by opacity in media ownership, which complicates assessments of genuine pluralism. Despite the new government’s pledge to increase pluralism, tangible results remain elusive, according to Głowacki, who adds, “I would like to see much more discussion about restoring media pluralism.”
One of the most significant actions was directed at the public service broadcaster, TVP. During the PiS administration, TVP became associated with far-right propaganda, prompting criticism from the European Union and numerous international organisations promoting media freedom. In December 2023, shortly after the Tusk government assumed power, Poland’s culture minister took prompt action to replace the leadership of TVP with a new management team. While this decision has been welcomed as a catalyst for change, it has also attracted criticism. Those in support of the former administration and a number of human rights organisations have expressed concerns about the precedent this sets. Głowacki highlights that public media has historically been susceptible to political influence, irrespective of the governing party, making it a contentious issue that dates back to the 1990s.
Marcin Gadziński, Program Director for Europe at the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), believes that while TVP no longer operates as a blatant propaganda machine, there is still room for improvement in terms of achieving a more balanced content output. “There are better journalists now, and the decision-making positions are filled by people with good reputations,” he states. However, he also notes that certain topics remain off-limits, and the TV station rarely criticises the government. Głowacki agrees that TVP’s current state is far from optimal, particularly with regard to the need for more adaptive strategies in light of the evolving media landscape and the emergence of multigenerational public service media.
The challenges associated with this transformation extend beyond editorial policy. As Gadziński notes, the dismissal of hundreds of employees from TVP has created a significant shortage of qualified journalists and editors, often drawing talent away from independent outlets and making it more challenging for those outlets to retain skilled professionals.
The issues do not solely affect the public service broadcaster. The two largest private broadcasters in Poland, TVN and Polsat, are also facing their own set of challenges. Warner Bros. Discovery’s plan to sell TVN Group has prompted speculation about potential buyers, including the Czech PPF group and an American broadcaster, as well as a Hungarian billionaire with close ties to Fidesz, the party of Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a close ally of PiS. Gadziński questions the likelihood of such a sale to Orban-linked interests, noting that “Orban-related business groups are already active in the area, looking for opportunities, but would an American mega-corporation sell something to them? I doubt so.” Nevertheless, he also states that nothing is impossible.
Other significant stakeholders in this challenging situation are Orlen Press, which oversees the largest group of regional newspapers in Poland, and Ruch, the second-largest newspaper distributor, both of which are owned by PKN Orlen, the state oil company. Despite reports that Orlen is considering divesting its media holdings, there have been few public developments. Gadziński suggests that even if Polska Press were sold, its reputation, tarnished by political appointments and disregard for market trends, would be difficult to rebuild. Głowacki believes that selling these assets would not significantly change the landscape, as “people don’t really buy their newspapers anymore.”
State-controlled advertising funds represent another key factor influencing the Polish media landscape. Tadeusz Kowalski’s analysis of Kantar Media data demonstrated that state-owned enterprises allocated a considerable portion of their advertising budgets to media outlets that reflected the government’s narrative. This practice, which aimed to maintain favourable coverage while limiting the financial viability of critical outlets, attracted significant criticism from international media freedom advocates. Głowacki states that, as yet, there is no updated data available on whether these practices have undergone a change under the new administration.
In the coming period, the challenges to restoring media pluralism are significant. Gadziński states that PiS embedded “landmines” throughout the system before leaving office, presenting the current administration with a dilemma: whether to move ahead and “lose some limbs”, or to navigate cautiously and make compromises. The issue of reclaiming public media without controversy is a significant one. “How else could public media have been taken back? No idea,” Gadziński said, emphasising the importance of leadership by individuals of integrity for the implementation of long-term solutions. “My advice for other countries in similar situations is to put such people in [those] positions.”
The Polish media landscape remains highly fragmented, reflecting a broader cultural and trust deficit. Głowacki highlights that the absence of a “common space for deliberation” intensifies polarisation, which legislation is unable to resolve on its own. The path to media reform needs more than just new regulations; it requires a significant cultural transformation to rebuild trust and foster an environment conducive to pluralism.
Nevertheless, these developments offer international journalism funders valuable insights. As Gadziński points out, providing support to independent media may be proving to be a sound investment. “Poland survived eight years because of the power of independent media,” which was the most robust in the region, as some international media groups are still active in the country. He adds that “a strong independent media is a battle worth fighting.”
With local journalism in crisis, more and more cities are beginning to recognise the vital role of local news in building informed communities. An increasing number of initiatives launched by city councils reflect a growing commitment to sustaining local journalism.
Local journalism is facing a significant crisis, with newsrooms closing down at an alarming rate and leaving communities in news deserts, areas where there is little to no local news coverage. The repercussions of this decline extend far beyond the news industry, impacting local democracy, civic engagement, and even public finance.
Local journalism serves several critical functions within a community. It acts as a watchdog not only for government accountability, but also for the private sector, encouraging adherence to laws and regulations. It is also an effective tool for city governments to disseminate public notices and information on various topics.
Furthermore, as Tarsi Dunlop, Senior Program Officer, the German Marshall Fund’s Cities programme argues, local journalism helps people engage in their communities and bolster trust in local institutions. As cities consider their public reputation, supporting strong local news and prioritising active engagement suggests a willingness to be scrutinised and held accountable. An informed community is vital, as it helps local officials be more effective in their work. In addition, local news benefits cities more broadly by covering arts, culture, or local businesses, and providing reliable information during crises related to public health or safety, such as the Covid-19 pandemic or natural disasters. Ideally, local journalism also helps ensure that different communities and their lived experiences are represented, giving a voice to those less likely to be heard.
At the same time, a lack of local journalism is associated with less informed voters, lower voter turnout, and has even been linked to increased borrowing costs for local governments, as the lack of media scrutiny leads to reduced trust and higher perceived risks among investors.
Recognising these challenges, some cities have begun to take proactive steps to support local news media. Across Europe and the United States, supported is offered through various approaches, including direct financial aid, service contracts, and public policy measures. These efforts are diverse, but they all share a common goal: to sustain local journalism.
One form of support is direct funding to media outlets. Lisbon, for example, has revised its municipal statutes this year to allow city agencies to fund local journalism projects directly. This initiative aims to bolster the local news ecosystem by providing financial support to media outlets that serve the community.
Similarly, the Vienna Media Initiative, a funding programme launched by the City of Vienna in 2020, provides substantial funding to support quality journalism and innovation within the media landscape. With a budget of 16 million euros until 2025, the programme supports self-employed journalists and small media companies through two funding schemes, offering grants of up to 10,000 euros or 100,000 euros respectively. An international jury evaluates applications based on criteria such as journalistic quality, innovation, and sustainability. Funded teams receive additional support through workshops.
In the United States, direct funding takes various forms. For example, New York City recently issued an executive order requiring city agencies to allocate half of their advertising budgets to local press, Dunlop explains. Washington, DC has introduced the Local News Funding Act, which would dedicate 0.1 percent of the city council’s annual budget to supporting local news coverage. This funding would be distributed as coupons given to registered voters, allowing them to choose a local news outlet from which to receive free content, whether it’s a newspaper, podcast, blog, or newsletter.
Another method of support comes through service contracts. Some cities, such as Chicago and Seattle, provide financial support to local media through service contracts, Dunlop says. For instance, the City Bureau of Chicago, a nonprofit civic media organisation, was contracted for note-taking services, while in Seattle, if the city needs content production, they may submit a proposal to Converge Media, a local news organisation. These contracts offer a way to financially support independent media without raising suspicion of influencing the news coverage.
In addition to these financial strategies, public policy measures have also been introduced at the state level. States like New Mexico, New Jersey, and California, have implemented public policies such as journalism fellowships and tax credits for newspaper subscriptions, to bolster local reporting and address the decline in local news outlets. Wisconsin and Illinois are also considering similar legislation.
Despite an abundance of narratives pushing for green and just transitions, many fail to engage those capable of instigating real change. Laudes Foundation aims to disrupt this status quo by determining and disseminating compelling narratives grounded in solutions, tailored to spark meaningful action among key decision-makers across business, finance and government. Megan McGill, Senior Programme Manager explains how supporting journalism contributes to these goals, and what the most important lessons they have learned so far are.
Why did the Laudes Foundation start supporting media?
McGill: The Laudes Foundation is focused on inspiring and challenging industry to deliver a green, fair and inclusive transition. We apply system change principles in how we work, which means we also work at the level of mindset shift. In other words, if the stakeholders we are trying to influence don’t hold the right mindsets about what needs to change, why and how, then there is an intrinsic motivation entirely missing to move on the solutions we have at hand.
With this in mind, we designed a grant programme called “Narrative” of which journalism plays an important role. Journalism is a field with the reach to hold decision-makers accountable and highlight through evidence-based arguments where industry needs to and can move with more urgency and more ambition on a green, fair and inclusive transition. What this looks like in practice in our grant-making is helping newsrooms and staff (either directly or indirectly via capacity-building programmes) increase coverage of climate reporting across all beats of the newsroom – more evidence-based stories highlighting greenwashing or green-delay to hold laggards accountable, more solutions-driven stories to inspire other decision-makers to act, and more stories from workers and communities illustrating the intersection of climate and labour to show why industry action on climate must be just and how it can be. And media is an industry itself with investors and business leaders making decisions about media companies. So, in that respect, journalism is certainly an actor, not just a channel.
It was in early 2023 where we intentionally decided to increase our focus on this aspect of our Narrative grant programme. This was in some part due to what we saw as an increase in polarised reporting on climate, where progress is being undermined through mis- and disinformation, and also through headlines climate-related creating a sense of paralysis on what to do about the crisis. This means fact-based journalism is losing out, making it harder for progressive players to see that momentum is on their side or getting the laggards to feel like they need to start moving.
What is the most important lesson you have learned from this programme?
McGill: It is difficult to know if the news media grants are getting cut through with a broad swath of decision-makers. I think that the field of narrative shift relies significantly on metrics related to reach or even sometimes just a belief that the more a story is told, the more people who read it, it’s just going to change someone’s way of thinking. We can definitely agree that if something is not being talked about, then for sure it won’t be acted upon. But we are taking for granted that when something is talked about that it will get acted on.
I think my biggest learning is we’ve got a lot more work to do as a field, both the funders and the organisations that we fund to show the impact of narrative work. For sure with journalism, you can find cases where a reporting project has led to a policy change. That kind of pathway of impact is easy to explain, but I think the mindset shift, where you really start to get people to internalise a problem and to feel responsible for acting on it, which is what we need for wide scale action on the climate crisis, we haven’t started yet to systematically measure that kind of mindset shift. To get more effective at funding this kind of work, we have got to get better at measuring impact.
What kind of other challenges did you encounter?
McGill: The main challenge is that stories catalysed by Laudes-funded grants on just transition most often are not specific to the industries Laudes is trying to shift: built environment, finance, fashion and food. There are some, but not that many, and often they are not explaining what to do about just transitions. I think to motivate the private sector to move on just transition, we need more solutions-driven storytelling, because, in the absence of strong legislation to bring up the laggards, we will rely heavily on inspiration and a sense of a race to the top to move more progressive actors.
So, it has been a challenge to show that an increase in reporting on just transition more broadly will support the transition of industries Laudes is focused on.
What was the biggest success story? In general, how do you assess the success of your programs?
McGill: One of the things we can highlight as progress is that our partners have contributed to just transition entering mainstream news coverage. Evidence we are using is still focused on reach, but it’s certainly acting as a strong complement to the advocacy of other organisations on just transition.
Three years ago, when Laudes made its first grants in the space, just transition did not feature in mainstream news. I think it’s great progress to build, but again, there is still a push needed on measuring the real influence of this reporting on the mindsets of people with influence to act on the political, finance and business solutions to a just transition.
In which regions are you supporting media, and what kind of media do you work with?
McGill: We haven’t had a specific geographical scope in our grant making. We share with our partners the geographies of importance to Laudes Foundation, but it’s not a requirement to focus on these regions.
The media organisations that we work with and want to continue working with are nonprofit media organisations. Those who write and publish themselves, but we also work with organisations that are trying to enable the news industry to increase reporting on climate and just transitions like the Oxford Climate Journalism Network, Arena for Journalism in Europe and most recently, Solutions Journalism Network.
Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so? How should they prepare for such a programme?
McGill: What we quickly learned is that it was smart to focus on news media rather than any media. Given we are trying to reach decision-makers more directly with compelling narratives on just transitions, news is a good place to start rather than trying to also work on, for example, social media, film and entertainment. Where we could create more clarity is whether we as a funder should also start to address the more structural issues of the news industry rather than simply building the capacity of the industry to report more on climate and just transition. Can we do the latter without doing the former?
So my advice would be to create a clear scope boundary for working in journalism, to learn, and then grow from there.