join

Mia Vukojević, Program Director for the Western Balkans at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, emphasises the crucial role of supporting independent media in fostering democracy. The Fund aims to strengthen democratic governance, accountability, and transparency in a region marked by political fragility, in part through investigative journalism.

Why is it important for the Rockefeller Brothers Fund to support media in Europe?

Vukojević: The Rockefeller Brothers Fund identified the Western Balkans as one of the regions we consider a pivotal place for our focus areas: democracy, peace and climate. We believe that there cannot be true democracy without strong independent media. In situations where democracy is as weak or fragile as it is in the Balkans, supporting independent media, investigative journalists, and other media organisations is absolutely critical to strengthening democracy.

What kind of news organisations do you support?

Vukojević: We mostly support investigative media organisations and independent media that cover the topics we focus on, such as democracy, governance, accountability, transparency, peace, and climate, […] around 15 organisations in four countries in the Balkans. They are all reasonably small organisations. In addition to that, we support two of their networks: Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) and the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN).

Are you in touch directly with your grantees or do you work with implementers? What do you think are the advantages of these approaches?

Vukojević: We’re not that big of a funder; our budget for the Balkans is USD 4.15 million a year. Given that, we see the value in direct relationships with the organisations. We mostly support them directly, give them very flexible general support grants over a longer period of time and build direct relationships. We rarely fund projects and we don’t ask for project proposals—we support organisations for all of their work.

This is partly a question of capacity. If we had a lot more money, we would likely also contribute to some of the pooled funds. In addition to direct grants to organisations, we do provide a grant to Slaviko Curuvija Foundation, a national foundation in Serbia that funds super-small local media and individual journalists, which we would not be able to fund directly. I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. I think the biggest advantage of working directly is that, as a funder, you get to know the people at the media organisations you fund, you build relationships, you trust each other. Then it’s much easier to give general support grants, which are much more flexible than it would be through the intermediaries. I think the advantage of working through intermediaries would be that you can process much more funding and give more grants. You can reach organisations that would normally be too small for you.

What is the most important lesson you have learned from this program?

Vukojević: I think it’s the importance of long-term support. Not expecting that things will change overnight, not expecting that investigative journalism will yield results in changing the system and making it more accountable immediately. The need for funders to stay for the longer term and be flexible is very important. Journalists need to be able to work on stories, however long it takes. They need to be able to own the stories and be responsive. If we are truly good practice funders, we should fund them that way: flexible, long-term. This brings the best results.

What are the biggest challenges you have had to face so far? How do you respond to these challenges?

Vukojević: One of the challenges is that the funding is generally quite scarce for independent investigative journalism work, so there is always far more need than available funding. This makes choosing who you fund, and why and how, more difficult.

There is also [the issue of] dealing with the consequences of this work for grantees. Investigative and independent journalism often puts journalists in danger. Some of them work in extremely difficult environments. They get exposed to SLAPPs [Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation]. Their reputation is slandered. Some get physically attacked. Sometimes even being connected to us may expose them to challenges because we are an American foundation, and foreign funding is increasingly villainised.

It is very hard to do much about that as a funder. Our grantees are independent organisations. They realise what they’re getting themselves into and take these risks consciously. Sometimes, they need help beyond what we can provide. It is especially difficult when our grantees and their partners are personally attacked. In many of these organisations, the majority of journalists are women, and the attacks they suffer are unconscionable.

On a more positive note, what was the biggest success story? In general, how do you assess the success or impact of your programs?

Vukojević: The Balkans region is full of irresponsible, corrupt politicians. The people working in investigative media have, over the last 10 years, exposed the actions of many of those people. These journalists have worked so hard that now every citizen in the Western Balkans region has easily accessible information about properties their politicians own, buy, and hold; the big corruptive deals they’ve made on public procurement and infrastructure; their connections to organised crime. These politicians would deny it, but it is now well-evidenced and indisputable.

There are many examples of public officials, including ministers, having to resign or being prosecuted after being exposed for doing something that they should not have done.

This is a really big success in terms of the big picture and long-term thinking. The change is slow. It often takes a long time, and there are difficulties with the institutions that don’t always act or prosecute quickly, but it is happening. I’m very proud of our grantees for everything they have achieved so far. And there is still, of course, so much more to do. I am looking forward to seeing where they take it.

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

Vukojević: I usually start by saying “you can’t be serious about working for democracy if you are not supporting independent journalism.” That’s number one. Number two, if you do fund journalism, please do not do projects, log frames, six-month funding. These journalists are experts and they need general support to their organisations so that they can make decisions, take action, and pivot as they see necessary. Trust them. You will be amazed to see what they can achieve.

In a world where the pillars of democracy face unprecedented challenges, the relationship between philanthropy and journalism is mutually beneficial. While independent media grapples with daunting challenges and crises, the decision to fund journalism emerges not merely as an act of altruism but as an indispensable strategic imperative, wielding profound influence in shaping societal narratives and driving transformative change.

The significance of journalism often gets overshadowed by the buzz of social media, flashy headlines, and the discussions on misinformation. Yet, on 15 March, at the annual conference of the Journalism Funders Forum, where funders can engage in an interactive and proactive manner, representatives from the philanthropic world gathered in Amsterdam to discuss why independent media and philanthropies mutually need each other, how journalism strengthens the impact of philanthropies, and the importance of new players entering the journalism funding field.

Journalism as a Tool for Societal Objectives

Quality journalism and media organisations face numerous substantial challenges. Media capture, where media are controlled by governments and/or non-state groups with vested interests, the general decline in trust in the media, and the rise of social media platforms are just a few examples. Additionally, the media industry has struggled to recover from the 2008/09 financial crisis as its traditional business model crumbled. While there is a continuous rise in global advertising expenditure, a significant portion of it is monopolised by tech behemoths, therefore, the biggest challenge lies in financial sustainability – maintaining operations without relying excessively on external funding sources – highlighting the need for journalism grants. As Jonathan Heawood, Executive Director, the Public Interest News Foundation argued, “80 percent of the headspace of brilliant journalists is taken away by worrying about bills.”

This stark reality underscores the critical need for more funders, especially new players in the field, to step forward and support journalism. However, convincing potential funders has proven to be a daunting task, as many of them carry a prevailing reluctance to invest in media, often perceived as a failing enterprise. Moreover, journalists themselves may not always be the most effective advocates for their own cause. Compounding these challenges is the general erosion of trust in traditional media, fuelled by the proliferation of mis- and disinformation. Despite these hurdles, the imperative to fund journalism remains clear.

For philanthropy seeking to champion press freedom, the rationale for funding journalism is self-evident. However, even for those with different philanthropic goals, investing in journalism can serve as a powerful means to achieve broader societal objectives. This might prompt potential funders to consider thematic funding, involving grants for reporting on specific topics such as social justice, healthcare, or environmental concerns.

As Jonathan Heawood argued, while this approach may lead to some immediate or medium-term improvements, achieving long-term impact necessitates considering the sustainability of journalism. He urged a deeper understanding of the underlying ecosystem. Just as biological ecosystems require productivity, resilience, and organisation, the information ecosystem must also be nurtured to yield the desired outcome: democracy. Adrian Arena, Director of International Human Rights, the Oak Foundation, echoed this sentiment, emphasising that at its core, the endeavour to fund journalism is fundamentally about safeguarding democracy.

Harnessing the Power of Journalism

However, selling the concept of democracy as a noble cause has become increasingly challenging. Democratic rights are under attack by populist movements and authoritarian governments across various regions. Programs promoting such rights often result in backlash, leading to the stigmatisation of involved organisations. For instance, many countries employ narratives that label such organisations as foreign agents meddling in sovereignty, with civil society organisations and independent media being vilified as adversaries and frequently subjected to smear campaigns. Consequently, for some philanthropies, the perceived risks associated with supporting democracy, human rights, or journalism in certain regions may deter their involvement.

Still, regardless their focus, it is imperative for every philanthropy to engage the public, creating critical pressure and fostering long-term results. Public outreach and storytelling are indispensable elements of every successful program, which underscores the critical role of journalists in defining narratives. As a conference participant argued, to achieve systemic changes, decision-makers need to feel responsible and inspired to act, and a powerful driving force behind this is evidence-based, balanced and solutions-driven narratives driven by independent journalism.

The power of influencing hearts and minds cannot be overstated, and media serves as a very potent avenue for achieving this goal. Failure to harness the potential of journalism means missing out on a significant opportunity for outreach and impact. Furthermore, even a relatively modest investment in journalism funding can yield substantial results, making a meaningful impact on society.

Speaking of impact, Miguel Castro, Head of Global Media Partnerships, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, emphasised the critical importance of demonstrating impact to convince potential funders, highlighting its dual role as also a tool for media outlets to attract subscribers by showcasing the value of their journalistic product.

However, measuring the impact of journalism funding projects presents challenges due to the difficulty in establishing causal relationships between positive impact and journalists’ publications, given journalism’s multifaceted nature which encompasses informing the public, shaping opinion, fostering accountability, and influencing policy, with these effects often being indirect and hard to quantify. Fortunately, various metrics, such as public revelations, can be utilised, with journalism funding projects proving relatively easy to monitor due to their daily publication cycle, facilitating continuous monitoring.

The ultimate impact of journalism funding, however, extends beyond mere metrics, encompassing discourse shifts and policy changes. The unique ability of journalism to elevate issues onto the agenda creates fertile ground for tangible policy transformations.

Navigating Challenges and Strategies for Effective Funding

Navigating the landscape of journalism funding requires a strategic approach, but, as a participant emphasised, it is not as daunting as it may seem, and it works similarly to other fields. Prospective funders must clarify their objectives from the outset. It is paramount to collaborate with local consultants and partners possessing in-depth knowledge of the media landscape and organisations, whether they are trustworthy and produce quality journalism. Due diligence is also important, particularly in regions with high levels of media capture and limited press freedom.

Engaging with other funders fosters mutual learning and advocacy efforts. Coordination among funders is essential not only to prevent unnecessary overlaps but also to share experiences and insights. Additionally, coordination can extend beyond information sharing: pooled funds offer an alternative entry point, facilitating more significant capital involvement and expertise aggregation. Adrian Arena highlighted their benefits, including expanded geographic reach and collective peer strength in managing potentially sensitive programming.

Journalists’ sensitivity to editorial independence is paramount, necessitating programs built on mutual trust and respect for the autonomy of news organisations. While financial support is crucial, capacity building can be equally vital for sustainability, encompassing legal counselling and assistance with SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), brought by individuals and entities to deter their critics from continuing to produce negative publicity. In certain cases, even psychological support can be valuable. In conclusion, while funding journalism might seem daunting, it presents an opportunity also for new players and thematic funders to make a significant impact. The Journalism Funders Forum stands as an entry point for funders new to the field, providing a space for European philanthropies to engage proactively in supporting independent, quality journalism and its role in democracy, harnessing its power to shape narratives, drive systemic change, and foster accountability.

Journalism Funders Forum - March 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you cope with this challenge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The vague and undefined concepts in the new Hungarian “sovereignty bill” aimed at countering “foreign interference,” and the powers of a new authority present a threat to independent media.

On December 12, the Hungarian Parliament approved a new bill focused on “protecting national sovereignty.” Although the ruling party, Fidesz, claims that the law aims to prevent “undue political interference” by foreign agents, a closer examination reveals potential threats to press freedom and concerns over undefined parameters within the legislation.

A central feature of the bill is the establishment of a Sovereignty Protection Authority (SPA), which is empowered to investigate “foreign interference,” including acts of disinformation that influence democratic debates. Notably, the law lacks explicit clarification on the definition of “foreign interference,” leaving the interpretation to the discretion of the authority. This ambiguity raises concerns about the potential inclusion of independent media organizations as targets, particularly given the government’s historical hostility towards such entities that receive foreign grants. These organizations have long been targeted by the government’s propaganda machine, which labels them as “dollarmedia” for accepting foreign funding.

Hungarian experts say that intentionally vague definitions and the inclusion of undefined concepts in the legislation serve a deterrent purpose. Drawing parallels with the media law, one of the first major legislations passed after Fidesz had regained power in 2010, the broad interpretation possibilities granted to the SPA could lead to an atmosphere of uncertainty, similar to the effects observed when the new media authority was established.

The legislation provides unclear guidance on potential sanctions, which range from publishing investigation results to initiating criminal proceedings. The SPA is granted sweeping powers, enabling it to interrogate any individual, scrutinize all data of the targeted organization (including confidential contracts and tax files), and summon its head before the Parliament’s National Security Committee. The alarming aspect is that the SPA operates outside the judicial system and lacks any form of oversight, which raises concerns about the potential misuse of power. Furthermore, it has also been revealed that a loyal Fidesz cadre has been nominated as the head of the SPA. This individual is also known for having served as the editor-in-chief of a government-friendly weekly a few years ago. During his tenure, the publication caused a scandal by publishing a list of “agents of George Soros” in Hungary.

The broad investigative authority of the SPA, coupled with the lack of oversight, could have a chilling effect on media organizations, especially smaller ones heavily reliant on foreign grants. The fear of investigations disrupting their operations may lead such organizations to reconsider applying for foreign funding, further challenging their sustainability within Hungary’s captured media landscape.

In an unprecedented move, ten independent Hungarian news organizations issued a joint statement a day after the passage of the bill. They argue that the legislation severely restricts press freedom, potentially making it difficult or even impossible for independent newsrooms, journalists, and media companies to operate effectively.

While some government officials had previously downplayed that the new bill would target free press, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban confirmed this in a recent statement on national radio. “The Sovereignty Protection Act makes it clear that loopholes will be closed, dollars cannot roll into the coffers of the left and the left’s media. It’s not fair that foreign money is used to influence people’s political decisions according to the interests of their sponsors,” he said.

As a worrisome development, Hungary is not the only country exhibiting increased scrutiny of foreign funding for independent media lately. In November, Azerbaijan, where President Ilham Aliyev is an ally of Orban, summoned U.S., German, and French envoys to protest against what it calls “illegal financial operations” targeting investigative news outlet Abzas Media. Three journalists from Abzas Media have been detained, and the charges against them include smuggling. During the raid on the outlet’s office, police claim to have found €40,000. Similar to Hungary, the crackdown was accompanied by a campaign in the government’s propaganda machine, accusing Abzas Media of illegally bringing undeclared foreign grants into the country.

These developments may mean that some donors will have to reconsider their grantmaking strategy, either out of caution or because grantees may urge them to do so to avoid unwanted repercussions. Hungarian media organizations receiving foreign funding will most likely be under scrutiny in the upcoming months, prompting some donors and implementers to find “innovative” solutions to continue operating in the country, development that we will document in the Journalism Funders Forum newsletter.

As the world gears up for what has been touted by The Economist as “the biggest election year in history”, with a staggering 76 countries set to hold elections, the implications for media freedom loom large. Here are six key elections that will likely have a major impact on media freedom, some of them with clear implications for independent media in Europe.

US Presidential Elections: Will Trump Make a Comeback?

The upcoming US presidential elections pose the pivotal question: Will Donald Trump stage a return to the White House? Amidst the challenge of winning the Republican primaries, polls indicate a favorable chance for Trump. If he emerges victorious, concerns arise over a potential surge in disinformation, smear campaigns against the media, and cuts in funding for independent media. These issues could impact global perceptions and bolster populist leaders worldwide. According to data collected by the Media and Journalism Research Center, Trump’s return to power is likely to have a significant impact on the funds of American development agencies dedicated to supporting media and journalism, which are active in many European countries.

European Parliament: Rise of the Populist Far-Right

In early June, citizens of the 27 EU Member States will cast their votes for the European Parliament. The pressing question is whether the rise of far-right parties in certain countries will reverberate within the EU elections. Polls suggest gains for Eurosceptics and populists, raising uncertainties about their influence on EU policymaking, including media regulation and support for independent press. As in the United States, millions of euros in funding  now earmarked for support of independent media and journalism could be jeopardized.

India: Will the Democratic Decline Continue?

India, the world’s most populous democracy, is facing the prospect of President Narendra Modi securing a third consecutive term. The last few years of his reign have been marked by ongoing campaigns against the Muslim minority as well as numerous attacks on critics and news media, including tax raids, arrests of journalists, and targeting them with the Pegasus spyware. Modi’s government has curbed press freedom through legislation and regulation, giving the government increasing control over the information space. In elections, he will face a coalition of 28 parties, led by Rahul Gandhi.

Romania: Surge of the Far-Right

Romania is bracing itself for presidential and parliamentary elections amidst the rise of the far-right party AUR, which has surpassed 20% in recent polls. AUR is characterized by Christian fundamentalism, sovereignism, and anti-scientific sentiments. The sympathy of AUR’s leader George Simion towards Hungary’s Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party, as well as the shared disinformation narratives between the two parties, hint at the potential direction Romania may take with Simion in charge. According to data from local journalists, AUR is believed to have strong financial backing from Russia. Its narrative is blatantly supportive of Russia and its war against Ukraine. AUR’s win is expected to have negative consequences on the independent media in Romania. The party has been building its own media in recent years and has been lashing out against critical journalists. AUR is also known as one of the country’s main sources of disinformation.

Austria: Far-Right Resurgence

Austrians will also head to the polls this year, and the parliamentary elections may bolster far-right populist parties, according to analysts. The Freedom Party (FPÖ) was shaken by the so-called Ibiza scandal four years ago. The party’s President, Heinz-Christian Strache, was recorded talking about corrupt political practices, including references to their wish to build a media landscape like Viktor Orban did. Now, the FPÖ is the most popular party in the country, signaling potential challenges for media freedom in Austria.

Mexico: Disinformation on the Rise

Mexico is poised to witness a historic moment in June, as it is likely to elect its first female president. Analysts describe Claudia Sheinbaum, the candidate of the ruling party, as less populist than the current president, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. However, concerns have arisen over online, state-sponsored disinformation targeting the opposition candidate, Xochitl Galvez, as well as the electoral authority. During Lopez Obrador’s regime, media outlets, especially state-controlled ones, saw their independence dwindling as a result of attacks and interference with their editorial agenda.

The outcome of these elections will have a significant influence on media freedom in the respective countries, with some of them expected to have worldwide implications as well. The media will also be scrutinized during the campaigns as elections are expected to be heavily influenced by both traditional and social media. While numerous studies focus on social media content during election periods, less attention is given to the influence of the media market’s structural conditions on election fairness and outcomes. Therefore, the Media and Journalism Research Center has launched a new project focusing on media ownership and political finance, and it will collect data about media, spending, and political parties in around 40 countries in 2024. The research will be used to issue a comparative study in 2025, yet some of the data will be shared in the upcoming JFF newsletters.

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

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

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

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

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

A pillar of democracy

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

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

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

Stability is key

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

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

The case for pluralism and funder collaboration

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

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

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

Looking forward

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

Speaker list

Get in touch