join

Penelope Winterhager, Managing Director of the European Fund for Journalism in Exile (JX Fund) explains how the Fund helps independent media outlets forced into exile quickly restart operations and reach audiences back home, and provides insights into how they support emergency needs, foster sustainability, and fill gaps in the funding landscape.

The JX Fund has a very special mission: supporting media in exile. Why was it important to launch such an initiative?

We were initiated in 2022 by two foundations, the Schöpflin Foundation and the Rudolf Augstein Foundation, who joined forces with Reporters Without Borders. What we had seen was that not only more and more journalists needed to leave their countries, but whole media outlets. Especially when the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine started, whole editorial teams had to leave the country due to repressive measures.

What was missing in the funding space was quick and unbureaucratic support to get back on their feet and reestablish in exile. We saw that if you don’t support them right after they go into exile, it’s getting more difficult to reconfigure, and we said, OK, we try to change that: Let’s create a pooled fund to help those media.

What you have to consider is that most outlets that go into exile don’t leave with a business plan, with what they want to do. If you were, for example, a TV station before, it’s not necessarily the same as what you do in exile. You need time to arrive personally, and you also need time professionally. The area medium faces fundamental questions like: What is our editorial offer? What channels do we serve? How do we keep in touch with sources and colleagues who are still in the country?

So, you have this first period of emergency support, and then if exile continues, the medium arrives at a second period in which they try to become more self-sustainable.

How do you define media in exile? Who is eligible for your support?

That’s an interesting question that we were asking ourselves as well. To define media these days is quite challenging. Is every YouTube channel a medium or not? And we had two more challenges. We support independent media in exile, so we created definitions for all three categories, which can change due to circumstances. In the beginning, when you just arrive in a country, there are different criteria than later on.

Being independent means you don’t have a connection to political parties, actors, or to a politically exposed person, and are not state funded. Those media would not be eligible.

To identify as media, you have to publish journalistic, non-fictional content on a regular basis – not, for example, a book once a year. The published content must cover current affairs and be socially relevant.

Finally, exile means to report for people who are still in the country, mostly with some colleagues and sources still there. But a significant part of the team is located outside.  We support media that still want to serve audiences in the country, not diaspora media. We are supporting media from countries where press freedom is suppressed, and media must leave to continue their work.

How do you support these organisations? Do you offer grants only, or do you also provide other forms of support?

We support on three levels. First, we continuously map all offerings that exist so as not to duplicate anything. We have a database and if somebody turns to us, we try to match them with these offerings. By collecting these existing opportunities, we also see gaps, not only financially but also structurally. Secondly, we give grants, and we try to do this with open calls, wherever possible, so as to not only give chances to selected organisations that we know.

And third, we saw a need for structural support. For example, we initiated a media incubator when the outlets first arrived in exile and had to reestablish themselves as an organisation, to support immediate challenges, such as what is the right legal entity, what channels, what technology to use, how to communicate safely, etc.

Over time, when the basic editorial structure is set up, new questions arise. We are about to start a programme on entrepreneurial skills for exiled media, on how to further build audiences, generate money, and thus become more self-sustainable when funding declines.

Do you focus more on emergency support or long-term sustainability?

It depends on the situation. Right after or during a crisis, we focus on the emergency. After 6-12 months, plans for medium- and longer-term need support. We do fund media in times of transition into exile – but not for 10 years. We aim to help in the emergency and medium term.

 You mentioned that the Fund has existed for three years. How many organisations have you supported so far?

 We have supported around 85 media outlets in exile by now, with around 132 grants. Additionally, we have implemented around 36 projects, like those incubators.

We always try to understand the media landscape of a country to best support single outlets. We have been supporting media from Russia, Belarus, Afghanistan, and Ukraine. I believe we have quite a good overview over those landscapes – something that was missing in the field. We continuously assess how many media outlets are in exile, what channels they use, what topics they serve, which audiences  they reach, what their budgets look like, and what funding they need. We publish the results in the form of studies or country profiles to provide a better understanding of the landscapes and potential funding gaps for the media but also for other funders and supporters.

What is the most important lesson you have learned?

 I think one of the most important lessons is that rebuilding media in exile is not a linear thing. It’s not that you go into exile, you start something and build on it with a fixed plan. There are new challenges constantly, and you need to be innovative and reconfigure your media. Channels can be closed because of repressive measures. Security needs to be rethought. Colleagues may be imprisoned back home. These are things that you cannot plan for. I think exiled media are often the most innovative because they reinvent themselves constantly.

Not new but ever prominent is the dependency on visas to continue reporting in exile. Often visas and residence permits are connected to your income. If for some reasons a medium loses its funding and has to terminate work contracts, then these colleagues also lose their right to stay in the country. It is a huge issue. At the same time, we see autocratic governments worldwide on the rise and more and more media under pressure to leave these countries to continue their work. But financial support for those media is not growing at the same pace. This is one of the biggest challenges.

What other significant challenges have you had to face so far?

 An organisation like ours needs to be extremely flexible. We continuously assess the needs of the community, assess what everybody else in the field is doing, and quickly fill the gaps with tailor-made programmes.

Challenges can come from autocratic governments, such as new legislation that criminalises consuming reporting or blocks access to the content of the medium in the country. But it can also come from the funders themselves, such as the funding freeze of USAID, or from big tech who take apps from the app store or deprioritise content. You need to find the right way forward in a constantly changing environment.

Is there a particular success story you can share? In general, how do you assess the success of the programme?

Success can be measured on different levels. For me, it means diversity and impact. There are 64 media outlets in exile from Russia. They cover different regions, different channels, different topics. We helped to keep this diversity of voices alive. This is the only way to ensure that there is an informed audience or civil society.

We know that these media still reach a substantial audience back home. Due to the use of VPNs, this is not an easy task to measure. But there are ways, and we can say, sticking to Russian media in exile, that they still reach between six to nine percent of the Russian speaking adult population. I think this is a great success. Especially if you take into account that about 48 times as much money is being spent on propaganda and censorship in Russia than on exiled media.

Do you have any special advice for organisations that have not funded or supported journalism yet, but are thinking about doing so? Do you have any specific advice about supporting media in exile?

Always look at the media landscape. Don’t just look at the prominent media, or the famous outlets. There are many important regional media, or those focusing on certain topics. Look into these, because in times of news fatigue and rising repressions, they are often more capable of reaching audiences and being relevant than the larger ones. Always look at the whole set of voices that continue their work in exile.

A second hint would be: look at the innovations of those media in exile. I think we can learn a lot from them as they are some of the most innovative in the field: how to circumvent censorship, how to deal with platforms that don’t always treat content evenly, and how to reach audiences with news fatigue. We should see them as partners, learn from them, and interact with them.

Maribel Königer, Director of Journalism and Media at ERSTE Foundation, highlights the importance of supporting independent journalism to protect democracies in Europe. From fellowships to pooled funds, the Foundation’s evolving approach aims to strengthen media resilience, for which it is essential to develop sustainable business models.

Why is it important for the ERSTE Foundation to support journalism? How does it fit into your broader mission?

The Journalism and Media programme is embedded in our Europe and Democracy programme. We define the problem here: liberal democracy is under threat. Europe’s democracies remain fragile and unprepared to withstand internal and external socio-economic, technological, and geopolitical disruptions. One of our answers to this problem is that we want to support high-quality independent media and journalism in CEE. We have been doing this since the very beginning, only a bit differently; now we do it with a wider focus.

Together with the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (and the Robert Bosch Stiftung, who left some years later), we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence. At that time, in 2007, we were focused on the Balkans because we thought that countries in Central Europe who just became members of the European Union – Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, et cetera – were good, so we should focus on South Eastern Europe, on countries which are not yet there. As a fellowship it was meant as an investment in people, in investigative journalists, and for many years this was our only project in the field of journalism.

Then in 2018, we were shocked about what happened in our surroundings. Jan Kuciak and his fiancé were killed. Hungary and Poland changed their laws and their attitudes towards independent media. Also in the Czech Republic, politics became hostile towards independent media. Suddenly we became aware that focusing on the Balkans to support independent journalists and good journalism in CEE is not enough.

First, we enlarged the scope of the fellowship to the – back then – so-called Visegrad countries. Then we saw a decline in the media scene: the well-trained journalists that came out of this fellowship had no platforms anymore on which to publish. A lot of media were gone. What could we do now, if they cannot tell their stories to their audience anymore? The geographically enlarged fellowship was embedded in a platform called “Reporting Democracy” where articles could also be published.

It was clear from the very beginning that we don’t want to invest directly in media. Actually, we cannot. As an Austrian savings bank foundation, the core shareholder of Austria’s biggest bank, Erste Group, we are only allowed by our statutes to invest in nonprofits. There are a lot of nonprofit media around, but we also saw a risk of conflicts of interest in both directions, as well as reputation risks. Then we discovered the wonderful tool of pooled funds.

What are the advantages of these pooled funds?

We very much like the idea of joining forces. The leverage is bigger. If you put money in a pile, you can support media with higher amounts, or longer, or more of them, and have more impact. Also, you can delegate the delicate task of selecting the media you support. You have a qualified jury to do that. It’s much more efficient if several foundations join into a fund.

Civitates was the beginning. Its sub-fund for public interest media has a focus on Southern and Eastern Europe. That is important for us because we have a strict geographic focus on Central and Eastern Europe. Our revenues are the dividends of our share in Erste Group, one of the biggest financial service providers in Austria and Eastern European countries.

In 2021, we were approached by the Media Development Investment Fund. They presented us with the idea of Pluralis. An impact investment fund was something new for us. Pluralis guarantees editorial independence for legacy media by investing in publishing houses in Eastern Europe; a smart concept. By now, Pluralis has a portfolio of three important media in Poland, Slovakia and Croatia and it plans to grow further.

Finally, we became one of the initiators of the Media Forward Fund, focusing on Austria, Germany, and Switzerland.

So, your journey as a funder of journalism started in the Balkans and ended in Austria?

Indeed! If you had told us 18 years ago, when we started the Balkan Fellowship for Journalistic Excellence, that we would one day be supporting innovation in Austrian media, we would have laughed in disbelief. But the media ecosystem in Austria is in danger, like in many other countries. The market is in an extremely precarious situation, public interest media struggle to survive although (some even say: because) there is a lot of public funding.

The Media Forward Fund supports – with much money for a short and limited period – media organisations that apply with a convincing business idea. Good journalism is the precondition, but it’s not what is funded. You should apply with a smart idea to scale up your business or to secure more stable resources.

How would you explain this substantial growth in the Foundation’s engagement for journalism?

ERSTE Foundation reacted in a timely manner to what was happening to the media scene and in journalism. We all see the threats everywhere: Autocratic regimes attacking independent media, media capture, disinformation campaigns, decreasing societal trust, and increasing technological and economic disruptions put public interest media and critical journalism in CEE at high risk.

After the quasi organic growth of the portfolio, we now have a clear strategy. The foundation worked on its overall strategy and one of our goals for the next few years is a healthy media ecosystem in CEE that upholds democratic values, combats misinformation, and empowers communities with reliable information. We therefore invest in and support sustainable and independent free media and fact-based critical journalism. This is how a single project topic developed into a consistent programme portfolio. The consequence was that I changed my position. As of July 2025, I am the Director of Journalism and Media. After 18 years as Director of Communications with the journalism projects as my second task, I switched focus.  

In what other ways do you support journalism?

 In Vienna, together with Presseclub Concordia and the Forum für Journalismus und Medien (fjum), we organise in-person and hybrid press briefings with researchers and experts from our other programmes. Journalists get firsthand information on the political, economic or societal situation in other countries, often just before elections in a given country.

Through the funds we support, we also offer capacity building. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is not only funding the development of business ideas in media but is also coaching to develop business skills.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from these programmes?

I have two lessons in mind. Firstly: Most journalists are passionate about and very good at their job, but many of them have no idea about the business side of media. New media outlets with a great mission will die very quickly when no one looks at target groups, funnels, revenue plans, and the like. Even proper accounting or having a business plan is not a given. This lack of basic business skills or appropriate competent personnel in young media is so obvious that, today, many foundations or intermediaries offer tools known from the start-up world: media accelerators and incubators. Media viability became also a very important topic in conferences.

This brings me to the second lesson: Why is it so important to build a sustainable business model? Because relying on a single resource – be it a donor, be it public funds of your community, be it, well, USAID – can have fatal consequences. In January it became clear that a full focus on a single source, as generous as it might have been in the past, causes real problems. Sustainable business models (meaning also diversification of revenue streams) are crucial for media viability but also for media pluralism.

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

One big challenge is to explain to people why the media are in such a problematic situation at all. Just 10 or 15 years ago, people founded newspapers to make money, and not to be funded. Today, classical public interest media have lost their business model. But there are still big, powerful media groups, for some it is still big business. So explaining why some media need funding is a challenge.

Fortunately, we haven’t had challenges such as smear campaigns yet. But everyone knows that independent media and their funders are under constant threat of authoritarian attacks. It has become a risky business to be a foundation supporting what should be the most natural thing in the world in a liberal democracy: free media.

How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story related to supporting journalism?

Usually, our projects include process assessment and impact measurement. The Media Forward Fund, for example, is constantly assessing its brand new processes and results. It just started one year ago, and one term is two years. If the grants have had a real impact on the businesses of the grantees, we will soon see, with the first cohort ending the programme in one year. The application process was also assessed and some selection criteria have been changed in the second round. For example, we wanted the business part and editorial part to be clearly separated. That works for the New York Times, sure, but if you are a three-person, brand new, young organisation, then it is not possible. So we changed this criterion. Now you must agree that these entities will be separated once the medium has grown…

These seem banal things, but it is important to realise when something does not work and change it. The real success will be, in two years, to have businesses that double their subscription base, or make money on theatre stages with their concept, whatever they applied with.

Whether our funding has societal impact is, of course, very difficult to measure. I would take Pluralis as an example which pooled philanthropic investment in media matters. Gremi Media, the publisher of Rzeczpospolita in Poland, is part of Pluralis’ portfolio. Having kept one of the biggest Polish newspapers as a free, independent one is very important. It is a centre-conservative paper with fact-based reporting. This also shows that our goal is not to support a certain agenda. It is about the quality of journalism and media pluralism. In Slovakia, Petit Press, publishing the daily SME, has in Pluralis an owner that is backing the editors in a very hostile public environment.

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

 First of all, I would ask them to imagine that there is no more media where they can talk about their main topics, be it climate, culture, environment, equality, or whatever. People would get their information only from social media, from influencers, from AI bots. If you think that this might be a really bad situation, then start supporting media and journalism.

My advice for newbies would be to start with a pooled fund. You don’t have to fund media directly, trust in experts. My other advice is that, if you are unsure what kind of pooled fund you should turn to, then come to the Journalism Funders Forum. This is a peer group of foundations which are happy to give anyone advice about the risks, realistic goals, about what you can gain, et cetera, by funding journalism. Or look for foundations that already support journalism, everybody is happy to share their knowledge. The main thing is: do it.

Adrian Arena, Director of the International Human Rights Programme at the Oak Foundation, highlights the importance of a healthy information sphere by supporting independent journalism to hold power to account and ensure citizens have access to accurate information. He emphasises the value of local expertise while sharing insights into how the Foundation supports journalism, reflecting its commitment to strengthening democracy and human rights.

What is Oak Foundation’s approach to supporting journalism?

At a meta level, the human rights movement seeks to unlock truth and inspire justice – in brief, to hold power to account. Independent and investigative journalism is critical to that task. As a human rights programme, one of our priorities is also to ensure a healthy information sphere. This demands that citizens have access to reliable, accurate information.

Professional, rigorous, courageous journalism is foundational to democracy.

The foundation is a founding member of Civitates. Why do you think it was important to be part of the consortium?

Our early membership of Civitates was a strong expression of solidarity with civil society and independent media. Both are critical partners in the defence of democracy.

As a pan-European mechanism, Civitates permits us to access partners in national contexts where we have no footprint or expertise. It provides an assurance in terms of rigour and strategy.

What do you think of the advantages of similar pooled funds? Are you a member of any other?

 Yes, we are a member of the EU Artificial Intelligence Fund, EPIM (addressing migration in the EU), and various pooled funds in the United States.

We are a small team. Pooled funds give us an opportunity to expand our footprint, but without increasing headcount. Perhaps more importantly, they provide an excellent opportunity for peer learning and strategizing.

In what other ways does the foundation support public interest reporting?

Aside from participation in Civitates, we make bilateral grants to various news outlets and investigative journalists in our priority regions.  We generally provide core support and trust the outlets to pursue their journalistic mission with professionalism and integrity. Some organisations maintain specific newsrooms on certain issues. Lighthouse Reports, for example, does this with respect to migration, which is an important programmatic focus for us. We support Lighthouse for this specific work.

But our engagement with the sector goes beyond the journalistic product. Journalists are under frequent attack in the discharge of their duties. We support organisations that assist journalists at risk, including defending them from SLAPPs (Reporters Shield) or organisations which provide emergency assistance and services.

Do you have open calls for these grants, or do you invite organisations to apply?

As a program we do not have open calls, but maintain an open mailbox where anyone can lodge an inquiry. In some of the more restrictive environments in which we work, an open call would not work. In those contexts, trust is paramount, and we work hard to understand the local partner community. We invest in relationships.

I know that Civitates has, however, routinely pursued open calls. This can be useful to surface promising initiatives in new or unfamiliar contexts.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from these programmes?

One key lesson – and it is very simple – is to take the necessary time to understand the national context. Alternatively, work through an intermediary (like Civitates) that knows it already. Local understanding is critical.

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

 A clear but not always obvious challenge is to properly assess the quality of the journalism produced. You need to have someone who reads content in the local language and can speak to its tone and quality. We have also had to calibrate our expectations around audience and sustainability. These expectations must be appropriate to the national context.

How do you assess the success of your programmes? Is there a particular success story related to supporting journalism?

As I mentioned previously, one of our overarching goals is to hold power to account. Independent media partners have done exactly that. Their list of accomplishments is long. Partners have exposed malfeasance, corruption, and abuse which, in turn, have led to prosecutions, sanctions, fines, and regulatory change. There is a clear path of success.

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

 I would say three things.

Firstly, independent media is important to amplify the voice of civil society. Whatever issue you are funding, whether it be education, health, or science, it is critical that your partners’ voices are heard. Independent media can play an important role in amplifying those voices, which, for whatever reason, may be excluded or marginalised from the mainstream press.

Secondly, there may be some barriers to entry. But these are no more significant than in other areas of work. Like in all areas, it is essential to do one’s homework and to understand the local context. Or work with a trusted partner who does.

Lastly, core support is essential to ensure independent media pursues its work fearlessly and without undue restriction.

The results can be very rewarding. 

Funders, journalists, and civic actors are rethinking how to defend media freedom amid funding cuts, political intimidation, legal threats, and the dominance of Big Tech. From pooled funds to local initiatives, a range of strategies is emerging to support public interest journalism.

The barrage of challenges facing independent journalism is alarming. The funding landscape has changed dramatically in recent years, even before the US foreign aid freeze, with organisations like the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and various governments retreating or shifting their focus. Adding to that is Meta’s decision to cut fact-checking programmes, which has deprived many non-profit newsrooms of crucial revenue – another sign of the growing dependency on Big Tech.

Repressive legislation is another major concern. Foreign agent laws in Central and Eastern Europe are increasingly being used to intimidate independent outlets, with the newest examples coming from Georgia. Attacks and threats or smear campaigns have become widespread in several countries, for example, in Serbia, while the Hungarian government threatens to ban foreign funding for the media. “It is a disaster in pretty epic proportions,” said Drew Sullivan, Co-founder and Publisher of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP).

These developments threaten to further fracture information environments, leaving citizens without access to reliable information. In April, the annual event of the Journalism Funders Forum discussed these issues, creating a space to examine how to navigate the challenges and collaborate to preserve independent journalism.

How US Funding Losses Are Shaking Newsrooms Worldwide

The cuts to US government funding hit journalism support worldwide, with a global loss of USD 735 million. According to data from OCCRP, the Pacific region suffered the most, losing 88% of its funding, followed by Central Asia with 47% and Europe with 43%. In Europe, the impact was particularly severe in Cyprus, which lost all donor funding for journalism, while Ukraine lost 82%, Albania 80%, Kosovo 77%, Moldova 69%, and Belarus 64%.

Sullivan warned that some OCCRP partners now face an existential threat, with many unable to secure advertising revenue, being targeted by smear campaigns, and struggling even before the cuts. Countless other outlets are facing potential layoffs and pay cuts.

Press Under Pressure in Italy

The situation is difficult not only in Central and Eastern Europe but also in other EU Member States. In Italy, journalism faces a unique set of challenges rooted in both cultural and systemic issues. To discuss these issues with local foundations, the Journalism Funders Forum’s annual meeting took place for the first time in Florence in cooperation with Assifero, the Italian umbrella organisation for foundations, close in time and location to the subsequent International Journalism Festival in Perugia. As Francesca Mereta, Head of Programmes and Communications at Assifero, explained, journalism historically has not been a focus for philanthropies because the state and public welfare systems seemed to provide sufficient support. However, with the growing spread of disinformation, there seems to be a rising awareness among philanthropies of the need to engage in this field.

Nevertheless, recent years have also seen the concentration of media power in the hands of a few companies, leaving less space for investigative journalism. Freelancers are paid poorly and lack legal protection, making independence from advertising revenue almost impossible and opening the door to political interference. According to Sara Manisera, Investigative Reporter and Fundraiser at the FADA Collective, fragile journalism is dangerous to democracy and leads to increasing polarisation, especially as news consumption shifts to social media.

News organisations struggle not only economically but also in reaching their audiences. Younger generations consume news on platforms like Instagram, making multimedia content increasingly essential. Legal risks also weigh heavily, Cecilia Anesi, Centre Director of the Investigative Reporting Project Italy, noted. Papers are hesitant to publish investigations due to the threat of civil and criminal lawsuits.

One of the most pressing legal threats comes in the form of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), with Italy having the highest number of such cases in the EU. Journalists, whistleblowers, and even comedians face lawsuits by politicians seeking damages of €50,000 to €100,000. The resulting legal costs and mental health impacts are severe, and while EU directives offer some hope, Martina Turola, Head of Communications at The Good Lobby Italy, emphasised that providing journalists with the necessary tools and funding to defend themselves remains essential.

Local Media’s Battle for Survival

Local media face even greater difficulties within the already challenging media landscape. Anesi pointed out that local outlets often lack the international connections that larger mainstream organisations can rely on. Their limited capacity and the burden of bureaucracy also prevent them from offering additional services to increase revenue, making their financial situation particularly precarious.

Still, the survival of local media outlets is essential, as they provide crucial information for their audiences to remain informed about local issues directly impacting their lives. However, while it is easy to start such an outlet, it is extremely difficult to keep it alive in an increasingly hostile and unfair market. “Funding and working on the local level is a way to counter what is happening around the world and online,” Sameer Padania, Director of Macroscope London, argued, stressing the importance of supporting journalism “where people are.”  

There are various ways to support independent local media beyond grant funding. Placing advertisements in them or subscribing as an organisation could make a significant difference, as even small contributions can be meaningful on one hand and have the potential to encourage others to do the same on the other. Supporting local media is not just altruistic, Padania noted; businesses also benefit by having accurate, reliable information about what is happening in their own communities.

Regulating Big Tech to Protect Journalism’s Future

The shifting funding landscape is just one part of the problem. As Adam Thomas, Founder of Evenly Distributed, pointed out, Big Tech has been disrupting traditional business models for two decades. Vera Franz, former Division Director for Technology & Society at OSF Global Programs, described the moment as “very bleak” but also as an opportunity to challenge Big Tech’s dominance.

At the moment, tech giants have a monopoly on advertising. 80% of Google’s revenue comes from its control of the online advertising system, and it also controls how ads are sold. Although an increasing number of news organisations no longer rely on ads, instead turning to crowdfunding and subscriptions, they are also forced to pay Big Tech through app store or cloud service fees.

“For journalism, Big Tech is the problem of the past, present, and future,” Franz warned, highlighting the importance of building digital infrastructures independent of Big Tech control, as funders must address not only symptoms but also the structural causes of the broken ecosystem.

One step towards this could be monetising unique content by outlets themselves and preventing AI from scraping it without compensation. However, regulation is key in this regard, and, as Pierrick Judeaux, Director of Portfolio and EU Representative at International Fund for Public Interest Media (IFPIM) noted, it is an open question how far the European Union is willing to go and how many Member States would be willing to implement stricter regulation.

There are also ongoing discussions about building a European cloud system, independent from US tech giants, but, as Franz highlighted, journalists and funders are not yet sufficiently involved, although funders, with their broader perspective, have a particular responsibility to connect initiatives and strengthen the sector’s resilience.

How Philanthropies Can Step Up for Independent Media

In these circumstances, it is crucial for funders to rethink their approaches if independent journalism is to survive. Civil society and media are equally vital pillars of democracy, a reality becoming more apparent not only in autocracies but also in parts of Western Europe. “If you don’t have free media based on facts, where would you go to discuss your causes?” asked Maribel Königer, Director of Communications, Journalism and Media at the ERSTE Foundation.

The recent tragedy in Serbia’s Vojvodina region, when a train station’s roof collapsed, demonstrated why independent media is important. According to Vasic, it made many realize what journalists have been saying for years: corruption can kill. Although the donation culture is underdeveloped in the country, KRIK has been successful in securing revenue from its audience by explaining why they need money and involving donors in the decision-making process about spending. Vasic believes that brand awareness and connection to readers are paramount for the success of such efforts.

There are various other success stories of organisations using their creativity to increase revenue. Dennik N in Slovakia increased its subscriber base by almost 40% due to a successful campaign. Direkt36 in Hungary gets 75% of its income from commercial revenue. These examples show that there is potential in the sector, but entrepreneurial leadership and business-mindedness are key to such achievements, Sullivan emphasized.

Nevertheless, there are several ways where philanthropies could also strengthen their involvement. Judeaux called for better advocacy, bringing other potential funders to the space by articulating the value of public interest journalism, unlocking more private capital, attentive listening to grantees, and understanding where grant funding fits best.

Successful funding programs also require long-term strategy and a deep understanding of grantees’ operations and national contexts, particularly in authoritarian environments. Long-term, flexible funding is seen as the most helpful, enabling organisations to plan beyond mere survival. Adrian Arena, Director of the International Human Rights Programme at Oak Foundation, argued that linguistic barriers often hamper proper grant evaluation, therefore, it is important to have team members who understand the language in which grantees publish.

Pooled funds may provide an answer to many of these challenges and can play a crucial role in supporting journalism by opening up opportunities for funders and media outlets alike. They provide a buffer between donors and grantees that can be beneficial for all parties involved. Pooled funds also bring together a diversity of experiences, allowing knowledge-sharing and fostering a collective response to challenges that no single funder could address alone.

Civitates is one such pooled fund. Its Senior Programme Manager Eszter Szucs explained that linking journalism support to broader democracy funding could help bring in new funders, using the shrinking media freedom as an indicator of democratic backsliding.

Another example of such pooled funds is the recently launched Media Forward Fund (MFF), which focuses on developing business skills within media organisations, as the team realised that the level of business skills is really low in many media organisations, argued Founding Director Martin Kotynek.

MFF is a “cousin” of Press Forward, a US initiative, and there are other similar regional pooled funds in the making, in the UK, Brazil, and Australia, with the potential of bringing in new, locally engaged funders. As Kathy Im, Director, Journalism and Media at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation emphasised, attracting new funders requires offering flexibility, recognising their varying starting points.

Recognising the scale of the current crisis, Ebru Akgün, Programme Manager at Adessium Foundation and Willem Lenders, Programme Manager at Limelight Foundation, the Co-chairs of the Journalism Funders Forum, called for urgent collective action. They announced a joint initiative to respond to the funding gaps left by US cuts. Although philanthropies cannot fully replace lost US support, a coordinated answer could ensure that crucial independent media outlets have a fighting chance.

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

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

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

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

Why support local newspapers? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Independent media in the age of misinformation 

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

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

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

Defining Amediastiftelsen’s priorities 

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

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

Challenges in reaching younger audiences 

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

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

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

The significance of foundation-owned media

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

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

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

Facts about Amediastiftelsen

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

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

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

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

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

Is it open for new players to join?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you consider your biggest success story?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Inauguration of Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

Political and Economic Pressure on Newsrooms

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

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

The Outcome of the War in Ukraine

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

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

Emerging Technologies

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

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

Regulation Milestones

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

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

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

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.