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

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

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

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

Why support local newspapers? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent media in the age of misinformation 

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

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

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

Defining Amediastiftelsen’s priorities 

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

• Projects that promote the use of editorial media and reach new groups of media users. A key focus is to reach younger generations, who often use other sources for their news consumption.
• Support industry-wide initiatives and measures that promote knowledge-sharing and collaboration between editorial offices.
• Enhance competence in editorial offices and develop tools and knowledge that will strengthen journalism across the sector.

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

Challenges in reaching younger audiences 

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

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

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

The significance of foundation-owned media

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

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

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

Facts about Amediastiftelsen

• Sparebankstiftelsen DNB purchased the media group Amedia in 2016 and established Amediastiftelsen (the Amedia Foundation) to own the group
• The foundation supports media organisations, industry organisations and educational/research institutions, within and outside Norway
• Approximately NOK 30 million will be allocated in 2025
• André Støylen, the former CEO of Sparebankstiftelsen DNB, is now the general manager of the Amediastiftelsen

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

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

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

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

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

Is it open for new players to join?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you consider your biggest success story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Inauguration of Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

Political and Economic Pressure on Newsrooms

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

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

The Outcome of the War in Ukraine

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

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

Emerging Technologies

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

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

Regulation Milestones

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In which regions does V-Ventures focus its investments?

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

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

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

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

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

What challenges have you faced in funding journalism in Europe?

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

What has been your biggest success story so far?

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

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

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

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.”

Autocrats in Central and Eastern Europe are obsessed with independent journalism. They badmouth the press and label them as ‘opposition’ every chance they get. They create Foreign Agent Laws to starve independent outlets of their funding. They resort to legal intimidation, physical threats and murder to silence the truth. They understand and fear the power of information and will spare no expense to control it. On the flipside, our Philea membership survey points to journalism as the least chosen topic of interest two years in a row. Are philanthropists missing a trick? Are we not valuing journalism as much as the likes of Orban? Or are we unconvinced that our support could make a difference?

Last week at KoneKtor, I brought together a panel of journalists and journalism funders in the CEE region to help foundations understand why supporting journalism has become more indispensable and meaningful than ever before.

A politicised market model

In 2011, Tamas Bodoky founded atlatszo.hu – “atlatszo” means transparent in Hungarian – as the first Hungarian investigative journalism non-profit. While Tamas left his former publisher and established Atlatszo to be free from political influence, the challenge to retain editorial independence remains. In Hungary, where mainstream media is captured by the state and critical voices are labelled as opposition, advertising revenue doesn’t follow the market model, but political logic. With businesses afraid of being associated with critical reporting, sustaining an investigative outlet solely on ad revenue is simply infeasible.

To finance their work, some outlets experiment with forms of paywalls. For journalism non-profits established to promote transparency, accountability, and freedom of information, using paywalls feels contradictory to their goal. It would also mean losing even more readers to propaganda news, which is freely available. Instead, many critical outlets turn to crowdfunding. Yet the pressure to choose a side remains. Whilst the situation in the Czech Republic is not as alarming as that in Hungary, polarisation creates a highly volatile readership… to quote Pavla Holcová, “We are not publishing stories about local kittens”.

The kind of stories published at Investigace.cz are bound to create strong opinions and spark emotions. As investigative outlets naturally report more often on those in power, especially the ones spending taxpayer money, they attract more readers and donors that align with the opposition or are unwillingly identified or branded as against the reigning party. When they inevitably produce an article that criticises someone in the opposition, the result can be a devastating loss of donors and readership, and accusations of having been bought up by ‘the other side’.

Polarisation doesn’t only endanger the editorial independence of investigative journalism. Politicised and contentious reporting gets more traction and is actively promoted by Big Tech platforms. In contrast, general interest media focused on keeping the public informed and engaged in their local and national environments have a hard time ‘selling’ their non-politicised content to the public, and also attract less funders.  David Klimeš understands foundations favouring specific outlets, especially when they align with their personal or organisational values. With the Endowment Fund for Independent Journalism however, David is on a mission to help local donors (e.g. business owners) understand that a model of concentrated ownership where public opinion is swayed by the highest bidder can easily backfire when in the ‘wrong’ hands. In other words, a stable and independent media is good for business. While project funding or targeted funding for a specific outlet can serve as a great entry point for funders new to journalism, the NFNZ brings local funding together and invests in media pluralism, balancing support for a specific issue or outlet versus support for the sector as a whole. Additionally, it is now also looking to redirect more support to local media outside major cities where the only access to information is through outlets owned by local majors.

Scare tactics

My main takeaway from the conversation at KoneKtor is that in times of state sponsored polarisation, philanthropic support is a more crucial source of income than it ever was. It alleviates the pressure on independent media outlets to conform to a polarised readership or a market logic that serves the political agenda. It promotes nuanced reporting, critical yet party-neutral investigations and it safeguards the access to general interest information.

This last lifeline is exactly what Orban and other autocratic regimes in the CEE are now trying to cut. With a recent surge in ‘Foreign Agent’-style laws, European autocrats have added a dangerous instrument to their playbook. Despite the official communication that Hungary’s new Sovereignty Protection Office was established to stop domestic political actors from accepting foreign funds, one of the first targets they cracked down on was the independent media outlet Atlatszo. Not only do these laws impose crippling monitoring and reporting requirements, they are an obvious attempt at delegitimising their target’s work in the eyes of the public and scare off funders.

We at Philea will continue to voice our concerns over the rise of Foreign Agent Laws; their detrimental effects on targeted grantees should be taken seriously. Fortunately, the message from journalism funders at KoneKtor was resoundingly clear: these laws will not stop international funding from reaching independent media in Central and Eastern Europe. They will not deter foundations already active in the region and some have even ramped up their support.  Yet much more funding is needed if we want independent journalism in Europe to endure. If you are not supporting journalism yet, let Orban’s obsession be all the proof you need of the power and value of a free press.

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

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

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

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

Key Successes

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

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

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

Challenges

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

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

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

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

The Path Forward

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

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

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

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

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

George Leech, Director of Outreach and Communications at the Prague Civil Society Centre, emphasises the importance of providing institutional funding for independent journalism. By offering flexible support, the Centre helps media outlets continue their vital work, even in exile or under authoritarian pressure across Central Europe and the former Soviet Union.

Why is it important for PCSC to support journalism? How did you come to the decision to include media in your programme?

Leech: We’re approaching our 10 year anniversary next year, and we’ve been supporting the media since 2016-2017. So really, as soon as we started, we kind of realised that the media had to be part of the strategy and can’t really be taken apart from civil society. It’s so important for amplifying the voice of civil society, exposing the failures of authoritarianism, promoting reform, accountability, it’s a key component. If you don’t have robust, strong, independent media, then all these groups doing all this amazing work, in a way, are losing a point of access to the population.

We also recognised the gap in donor funding, that a lot of media support was technical support, or it was very project-driven, whereas our approach since the very start has been to try and provide institutional support for media, funding to pay journalists’ salaries, pay for rent, and cover the costs of doing journalism. We don’t have a kind of editorial approach or thematic priority approach. We are not a donor that is interested in X, Y, Z and would like to see articles on those topics. We really want to fund the media to achieve what they want to do, reach their audiences, and be journalists. Our approach has been to decouple it from thematic priorities and really have it as a core media support programme.

It has also taken a lot of convincing at certain points within the donor sector, and convincing large institutional government donors that actually providing this institutional support is necessary and valid, because it also takes a lot of trust from people giving the money, right? It’s very easy to form a project where you say, at the end of this, we’re going to have had 30 articles on this topic, and we’ll have had five training sessions on these various topics. Whereas if you’re just giving institutional support, you’re saying that the media is going to continue to work, it might grow its audience. It’s very hard to package that into a very nice, clean project. But working with the big donors and convincing them of our approach has been part of our work and has been successful. We have grown our media support programme substantially over the years and really had a lot of buy-in from large donors, such as the European Union, on the necessity and validity of this kind of support.

In addition to providing grants for institutional funding, is anything else included in your support programme?

Leech: It’s a combination. Most of our support goes through grants, as we are a re-granting organisation. The Prague Centre exists to take large, predominantly government, donor money, and repackage that into smaller grants and try to remove a lot of the burden that comes with, say, being a USAID grantee, or a Foreign Office grantee, or a European Commission grantee. We’re like the middle man in making that money accessible.

But we do also have a full capacity building programme, and that ranges from many different kinds of support. In general, we don’t have media technical expertise in house. Rather, we have a wide network of trusted providers, and we talk with the media. When we’re in the process of making a grant, or we’re discussing their projects with them, then they self-identify that it would be really good to have training on security, or some kind of audience research. And we know people, we can put them in touch.

So we really try to empower the media we support to get the best support that’s tailored to their exact needs, rather than saying, here’s the Prague Centre’s media capacity building, this is our prescription. We listen to the needs and suggestions of our media partners and have a network of proven and trusted providers that we can recommend to circulate, and if someone is necessary and relevant, that’s perfect.

What kind of media are eligible for your support?

Leech: A huge range of media. From traditional newsroom media focused on Eastern Europe and Central Asia, to investigative media, various niche media, all the way down to various social media channels. We also include in our media support programme NGOs that have kind of advanced media arms. We also support them in similar ways, to do campaigning and communication. So our grantees range from traditional large newsroom-style media to people with a YouTube channel across the whole region where we work.

Which region do you work in?

Leech: We have a mandate to work in all the countries of the former Soviet Union, apart from the Baltic States. Two years ago, we started a media support programme for Central Europe. So Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and Slovenia were added onto that.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from the programme?

Leech: I will reiterate the necessity that we must provide institutional support. There’s not enough of it in the sector. There is a cost of being the kind of flexible donor that we are. We pride ourselves in making this funding as adaptable, as flexible, as useful as possible for the grantees that we work with. But that requires, of course, a lot of talking with them, adaptation of proposals, changing proposals mid-project, which really puts a lot of extra work on our grants team, and I really wouldn’t underestimate the work it takes to stay true to the commitment to be flexible, adaptive, and responsive.

For example, when the full-scale invasion happened in Ukraine, we were making grants immediately as part of our emergency response to civil society and the media. There was one media [outlet] to whom we gave a grant to relocate from Kyiv, as the Russian army was advancing. When it became clear that Kyiv wasn’t going to be overrun and actually they’d be able to remain in Kyiv, we were then able to basically change the grant and say, OK, hang on, you don’t need to relocate, but you still have all this money, let’s see what we can do, and use the money in the way that you need it most. That’s a sensible and obvious thing to do, but you still have to change the project and work out how to manage it, what the new objective is. This is constant change, especially when you’re working in an area as volatile as those we work in. This just requires constant communication, adaptation, and tailoring.

In addition to the war in Ukraine, what are the biggest challenges you have had to face?

Leech: I think the war has dominated this region since 2022. Pre-2022, we were working with some exiled media, but now that has increased substantially. There’s a lot of media now located in the EU that present opportunities, but also challenges […]. Also, as a donor, you have media in exile that are still targeting audiences inside the country where they’ve come from, facing attempts to block them. So from investing in technology to circumvent censorship, there are different kinds of needs for the media to be able to continue doing the work. There’s obviously also the increased costs of being located in the EU rather than in your country of origin.

We’re leading a project called Free Media Hub East, which is a consortium of media support organisations funded by the European Union. We provide the re-granting component, but there are also organisations like People in Need (Czechia), Warsaw Helsinki Committee (Poland), Media in Cooperation and Transition (Germany), Sustainability Foundation in Latvia, and Baltic Centre for Media Excellence, also in Latvia, and together we’ve created a body of established practitioners that are providing the full scope of support for media in exile. So from the Prague Centre there’s funding available; from other organisations, there’s visa support, relocation support, psychological support, registration support, language classes, people that will help navigate the bureaucracies of Berlin, Warsaw, Latvia, wherever it may be, help advocate the case for exile media. So the move to exile and the needs that have come with that have also required slightly different solutions that we’ve also had to adapt to as an organisation.

What was the biggest success story?

Leech: The fact that a lot of the media that we support are still running, still managing to engage their audiences, and in some cases, managing to increase their audiences, despite efforts to liquidate the space for freedom of expression, to shut down any kind of independent voices. I think the continuation and ability to still reach audiences is, if not a glamorous success story, a really important one.

But also the ability to respond so quickly. I gave that example of finding the media to relocate during the full-scale invasion. We’ve been able to mobilise a substantial amount of support for Ukrainian media, large, small, regional. Exactly with this institutional support logic that I was talking about before, which has been kind of outsized in its help for the sector, because there has been so much donor funding that’s gone to Ukraine, which is fantastic, but also so much of it is tied up in certain requirements, certain topics, certain training, you know, it comes with a lot of strings attached. The fact we’ve been able to mobilise millions in unrestricted institutional support is something that I’m really proud of.

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

Leech: First of all, it is great to do it, 100%. If you’re thinking about doing it, keep thinking along those directions, but also question yourself about why you want to do it, and what the results are that you want to achieve through your media support programme.

There are lots of different entry points to supporting media, or lots of different reasons to support media. Know yourself what you’re trying to achieve. If that is to shed more light on the area that you’re focused on, that’s great, but know that this is what you want to do it for. If you believe that independent media is vitally important, it’s underfunded, and needs more support, then do that, and really I’d encourage anyone to go down the core support and institutional funding route.

And partner up! There are a lot of established media support organisations in Europe that have been doing it for a long time. I don’t think people need to always think they need to go alone, or try to do everything themselves. Share, talk to people about their experiences, and identify your niche. There’s always power in the aggregate, right? So maybe, if you can join something that’s existing or amplify something that’s already going on, maybe that’s the way to go about it.

Also, if you’re getting involved in the geographies that we are involved in, then security risk is a really important thing to consider. Understand the operating context of the media, where you’ll be working. You know, we work in Central Europe, in Eastern Europe, in Central Asia, all of those carry very different risk profiles, very different processes, very different approaches to grant-making and supporting media. It’s not a one-size hat that fits all.

Pierrick Judeaux, Director of Portfolio and EU representative at the International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM), explains the critical role of funding independent journalism in low and middle-income countries, and shares his insights into the Fund’s commitment to providing flexible, long-term financial support.

Why is it important for IFPIM to fund journalism? Which outlets are eligible for funding?

Judeaux: The Fund was created as a new multilateral and independent vehicle to fund journalism in low and middle income countries. We created this new vehicle because independent media globally are facing a major economic and financial crisis. The business models that have underpinned independent journalism in past decades have been under massive pressure. And the current level of support that is dedicated to independent media is not of the scale required to meet the challenge.

What we’re seeing globally, with even more acuteness in low and middle income countries, is a lot of outlets shutting down, or being captured by private or political interests. Perhaps more frequent and less visible, but extremely important, is a slow degradation of the capacity of media organisations working in the public interest to maintain their coverage and to hold power to account. That slow degradation is deeply worrying for the future of our information ecosystems and for democracy.

All of this is happening in the context of growing threats to information ecosystems and information integrity, including disinformation, misinformation, and various campaigns and operations led by a number of authoritarian actors. For all of these reasons, we created the Fund as a way to drastically scale up the amount of funding that is being made available to support public interest media in low and middle income countries.

How do you provide support? Are you cooperating with other donors?

Judeaux: Yes, we work very closely with other media funders. We’re very conscious that there are a number of other actors that have been doing really important work in terms of supporting journalists and media organisations for a long time. So we work extremely closely with other actors that fund journalism, and local market actors, journalists, researchers, and civil society actors that follow the information space closely. It’s a very important principle for us to fully acknowledge that we don’t operate in a vacuum, and we want to make sure we use the funds and financial capabilities to be complementary to the support that already exists.

In terms of how we provide support, we’re trying to be as driven as we can by both the local context and the needs of our partners, our grantees. So the types of grants we provide will be slightly different from one grantee to the next. There are, however, a couple of principles.

The first is that we strive to provide institutional support and mid- to long-term support. We’ve realised that the need for core funding or institutional funding is really acute. There is a lot of project funding, there is a lot of short-term funding. This kind of support is very important, of course, but it most often doesn’t allow organisations to cover their core costs and to invest in the future and future-proof their organisations at a time where markets are deeply changing. So we endeavour to provide relatively long term support that gives media outlets visibility. These are two- or three-year grants that can be renewed. In the vast majority of cases, it is core institutional funding rather than project-based.

The size of our grant varies, but because of the core funding and the long-term funding, they tend to be relatively large compared to other funders. We do pay a lot of attention, however, to the risk of being too large a source of revenue for a given outlet, and so we ensure that in almost all cases, with a few exceptions, we fund no more than 30 percent of the operating costs of an organisation.

Finally, how do we identify the organisations we support? We source future grantees through four complimentary channels. We run open calls for proposals. We do a lot of proactive engagements, within countries where we work, with a lot of market actors to identify potential partners. We have a system for referrals from trusted partners, such as other funders and development organisations, to suggest partners we should support. And finally, any media organisation that is interested in collaborating and working with us can submit an expression of interest on our website. So we have these four channels to identify potential partners and then all relevant independent media that meet our eligibility criteria (which are described on our website) go through the same assessment and due diligence process.

I’ll end with a very important point. When we created the Fund as a multilateral financing mechanism, we were extremely careful to strike the right balance between creating a partnership that would mobilise many government funders while ensuring the Fund would make funding decisions independently. None of our funders can direct or influence which media organisations the Fund supports. All funding decisions are made under the control of an independent board made of independent experts who don’t serve any specific organisation or government. This was always absolutely central and non-negotiable. It allows [us] to shield donors from allegations of interference. But most importantly, that’s the only way to guarantee the editorial integrity and independence of the media organisations we support.

You have just announced a new round of support in Latin America. Are you planning to expand your programme in Europe as well?

Judeaux: The mandate of the Fund is to work in low and middle income countries. We don’t work in high income countries. In Europe we currently operate in four countries, in the Eastern Partnership: Armenia, Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine. We’re currently finalising a number of additional grants and we’ll be supporting a new cohort of partners in those countries.

We will also be looking at potentially expanding the set of countries in which we work in the near future. The fund is currently in its first phase of operations, but later this month, we’re going to be launching a campaign for fundraising and replenishment of our financial resources for the next phase of our development. As we raise additional funds, we’ll be able to expand geographically as well.

Now, coming back to the four countries where we work, we’re currently finalising the selection of a new cohort of grantees based on the global open call that we’ve launched on World Press Freedom Day [3 May]. And so, relatively soon, within a month or two, we’ll be announcing a new set of grants across those countries.

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

Judeaux: The one thing we are hearing constantly from almost all our partners is how important unrestricted institutional funding is and how critical it is for them to adapt to the future and survive in contexts where they are facing a lot of pressure. That’s true in all of the Eastern European countries that I just mentioned, and it’s true globally as well. It’s the single most frequent piece of feedback that we get from the partners we work with. The acknowledgement that there is really a market gap when it comes to providing that kind of unrestricted, flexible, long-term funding, is the most important lesson to date.

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

Judeaux: We need to make difficult choices all the time. We have raised a significant amount of money for the first phase of operations, close to EUR 60 million, but this is a drop in the ocean compared to the needs. Independent journalism outlets that do really important work for society need funding, and hard decisions have to be made, because there are a lot more needs than actual funding available.

Yet the unmet need remains vast. Following the launch of two calls for proposals, the Fund received expressions of interest from over 600 organisations, requesting grant funding worth a total of US$ 120-130 million. These calls were limited in scope and applied to only a small subset of countries. Globally, the level of demand is many times higher. Scaling up the capital available for public interest media remains of paramount importance.

A second challenge, I think, has been that a lot of media organisations are now asking themselves questions around how to adjust their editorial practices to meet the audience where it’s going to consume content. That’s particularly true in case of younger audiences. We’ve tried to identify those actors that pay particular attention to trying to find ways to cater to the needs of younger audiences. This is part of a broader approach of the fund, to ensure that audience needs are at the core of how media organisations think about their work. We are trying to ensure we identify media organisations that do the best job possible to address the needs of younger and underserved audiences.

We’ve learned a lot of lessons as a community, but it’s still very complex for many organisations, especially those that have existed for some time, to design and execute a strategy by which you not only think about your distribution and your marketing, but also about the types of formats, the topics you cover, also the composition of your newsroom, and make sure you have more diversity and representation within your newsroom.

The shift that’s required to make sure you talk to everyone and address all audiences is far bigger than just thinking about meeting people on social media. Identifying and supporting those organisations which try to go through that transformation has been a challenge, but it’s a very promising area of work.

Finally, in many markets it’s hard to see a future for sustainable independent media without deeper, more structural changes. That’s why we also invest in supporting initiatives that look to create new ways to finance journalism and change the rules of the games that shape the environment independent media operate in. For instance, we’re supporting the creation of several new National Journalism Funds, such as in Sierra Leone and Brazil. We’re also working closely with actors that design models and advocate for fairer value sharing between big tech and the media.

What was the biggest success story in your programme?

Judeaux: There have been a number of media organisations we’ve supported that have highlighted that we’ve allowed them to survive and continue to play a really important role for the community in difficult times, whether it is one of the oldest community radio stations in South Africa, called Bush Radio, or whether it is independent media in Georgia, Netgazeti, or Mtisambebi. We have a number of cases where our partners have highlighted how critical core flexible funding has been to maintaining the ability of these outlets to continue their work.

However, it is not only survival that the grants provide. We also have a number of, I would say, early success stories where we see media organisations that are able to pilot innovation and roll them out in a way that’s proven very successful. Let me share a few examples.

One area relates to the point I was making earlier around transforming newsrooms. For instance, Himalmedia in Nepal has improved its reach and coverage of underreported issues affecting marginalised communities, facilitated by a fellowship programme for young journalists from underrepresented backgrounds.

Experimentation with new revenue streams has been another area of transformation to support growth and independence. For example, in Colombia, Mutante launched its production arm, Mutante Estudio, which within a year has already generated about 10% of its revenue in 2023.

Finally, we’ve also seen several of the media we support experiment very successfully with new formats and distribution strategies and grow their audiences rapidly. In Eastern Ukraine, News of Donbas’ new tailored content for social media has quickly generated a significant increase in traffic. Videos on its YouTube channels were seen over 40 million times in the first three months of the year and their newly created TikTok channel has also rapidly accrued millions of views.

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

Judeaux: I have three pieces of advice. First: do it! Do it because the integrity of our information ecosystem and the existence of independent trusted voices in the countries where your foundation or your institution is working is critical for almost anything else you want to achieve, whether you’re working on issues like social justice or climate change, you name it. It’s certain that having a healthy information ecosystem is central to achieving your goals, so investing in stronger independent media is actually instrumental in advancing your objective as a foundation or an institution.

Second, there are lots of ways to do this. Maybe you don’t feel like you have the bandwidth or the desire to create an entire programme and to build the capacity to do this, because media funding is quite complex, in the sense that you need to understand not only media, but also the politics in a given country. You need to be very careful about media capture. So if you either want to protect yourself, or don’t want to build the entire infrastructure to do this, then there is an existing structure called the International Fund, a pooled global funding mechanism that allows for organisations that care about information integrity, but might not want to develop an entire programme on media funding to be able to do that very efficiently and quickly.

Then third, invest in local capacity. The field of media development and media support has evolved a lot over the past couple of decades, and the funders that are doing the best work are those which invest in local resources and local capacity, because media is so complex and so embedded in the fabric of society and politics. Being able to work and to be driven by people that live in these environments is extremely important.

In the summer of 2023, amidst ongoing debates on artificial intelligence’s cultural and economic impact, the American Journalism Project (AJP) announced a partnership with OpenAI. This collaboration aimed to provide funding for the innovative use of AI in local newsrooms. Although OpenAI’s donation of US$10 million was smaller than recent contributions from Meta and Google, it marked a significant moment where a leading technology company sought to support the news industry through philanthropy.

Sarabeth Berman, CEO of the American Journalism Project, emphasised the opportunity to involve local news organisations in shaping the implications of generative AI. She highlighted the dual role of venture philanthropists in both fostering innovation and mitigating the financial decline of local news. AJP is part of a broader movement of venture philanthropy programmes, including the Google News Initiative and Meta Journalism Project, which are increasingly influential in journalism. These organisations position themselves as key players in revitalising local journalism through entrepreneurial ideologies and market-oriented solutions.

Venture philanthropists frame the crisis in local news as an opportunity for innovation, portraying themselves as essential in matching financial resources with deserving organisations. They argue that their investments can achieve sustainability and growth in local news where market forces have failed. John Thornton, a co-founder of AJP, compared venture philanthropy to venture capital, suggesting that these funds are necessary to support mission-driven news organisations.

This approach links financial growth directly to the success of local journalism, positioning revenue generation as a critical measure of success. AJP’s impact report claims that their grantees generally grow significantly in revenue, suggesting that venture philanthropy can address market failures in local journalism. However, critics note that much of this funding tends to benefit already affluent communities, raising questions about the equitable distribution of resources.

Venture philanthropists also play a crucial role in disseminating practical knowledge and technical capabilities in journalism. They offer training, best practice guides, and case studies to help news organisations integrate new technologies and business strategies. For example, the Google News Initiative supports projects like the Post and Courier’s use of Google Analytics to develop paid newsletters, demonstrating how local newsrooms can adopt innovative practices to drive revenue growth.

The influence of venture philanthropy also extends beyond financial support, to shaping the discourse around journalism’s future. These organisations produce significant discussion about journalism, promoting their own role as arbiters of change and innovation. They position themselves as knowledgeable experts who understand how to best use available philanthropic capital to achieve sustainability in journalism.

The discourse of venture philanthropy often merges financial and public missions, suggesting that market-oriented strategies can serve the public interest. For instance, Elizabeth Green, co-founder of AJP, stressed the need for expert teams to raise diverse revenue and develop strategic leadership within local news organisations. This framing implies that financial sustainability and public mission are intertwined and that successful organisations must navigate market realities to fulfil their public roles.

Venture philanthropy organisations also respond to journalism critiques, such as the need for diversity and equity, by framing these issues as mission and business goals. They highlight successful examples of integrating diversity into their product and audience development strategies, suggesting that these efforts can attract philanthropic funding.

According to this study, venture philanthropy’s blending of financial concerns with public mission creates a powerful discourse that shapes how resources are directed in journalism. While some critics argue for increased public and government support for local journalism, venture philanthropists present a compelling alternative by leveraging market-driven innovation and philanthropic capital to address the ongoing crises that the industry has been facing for more than a decade.

Creech, B. (2024). Venture Philanthropy, Local News, and the Murky Promise of Innovation. Media and Communication, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.7496