Taken for granted: How unbiased outside funding can help save independent journalism

RU

Are mass media profitable?

Until recently, the mass media were considered a lucrative business. Television, radio, magazines, and newspapers lived happily off of the advertising revenue they generated. They could afford spacious offices, foreign correspondents, helicopter footage of events, expensive investigations, high-paid lawyers — practically anything they needed. Jean Paul Baudecroux, director of the French NRJ Group, at one time even called media the second most profitable business after the drug trade. At the same time, newsrooms followed professional standards, displayed a sense of responsibility to their viewers, readers, and listeners, and protected their own editorial independence from outside interference — if only to maintain an audience in a highly competitive environment.

However, the rapid development of the internet and social media changed the playing field. Unlike traditional media, social media offered customers the opportunity to exchange opinions publicly while receiving only relevant information delivered with a viewpoint they were open to hearing. Advertising and proceeds from its sale flowed to new platforms that targeted the medium’s messaging as effectively as possible. The once gigantic circulation of the press has become a thing of the past. Editorial staffs have been reduced to a minimum. The audience for television news, which remained strong for generations, is now quite literally dying out.

Attempts to force the new platforms to share their profits with the editorial boards of the media outlets whose content they distribute have not succeeded. How can traditional journalism survive in this new environment? Should it adapt by creating social media pages and mobile apps? Successful media outlets in developed economies can raise funds by selling subscriptions and access to exclusive content. The less successful ones look for donors.

Public and community media

In Europe, journalistic outlets are traditionally divided into three types: private, public, and community media. Operational models of public and community media may vary. Public media are funded in a way that prevents manipulation of taxpayers' money for political gain. The media budget is tied to a share of the country's total revenues — sometimes derived from the income of energy companies, in other cases via special levies on individuals. The management of such media organizations is selected in a transparent and competitive manner.

Such media have editorial independence but are obliged to produce material for children and adolescents, minorities, and other societal groups that are of little interest to commercial media and their advertisers. They do not compete with private publications but provide free access to meaningful information, vetted and filed in line with high professional and ethical standards. Public media outlets are like public schools, which provide free education for all but are not compulsory to attend for those who choose private alternatives.

Public media are widespread in Europe, where their coverage is frequently criticized by both the right and left. But while their independence from the authorities is questioned, even in the worst cases (as in Hungary or Slovakia) their body of work is far less problematic than that of state-owned media, which are fully dependent on the ruling elite.

Community media usually focus on local agendas and exist in the form of short-range radio stations, small-circulation newspapers, or local online media. Their content is of little interest to a national audience but is relevant for community members. Such non-profit media are usually founded and operated by civic activists and enjoy a loyal and engaged — albeit limited — audience. They often live off crowdfunding and donations and frequently depend on the pro bono participation of community members for content production. The authorities, in turn, are obliged to provide community media with various exemptions and freedom of action.

Who funds independent journalism?

When a philanthropist donates to the Museum of Modern Art in New York, they do not demand that the museum put their relatives' art on display or make changes in the curator team. The Standards of Fundraising of the International Council of Museums state: “Regardless of funding source, museums should maintain control of the content and integrity of their programs, exhibitions and activities.” The purpose of the donations is to cover the museum's bills and facilitate its growth while keeping admission prices affordable for everyone. Naturally, any donations imply accountability. For this purpose, there is control of the museum boards and independent audits, organized as transparently as possible — at least for donors. The same mechanism works for large theaters and other cultural and educational institutions.

These principles work in the world of journalism as well. For decades, charities have helped media organizations maintain their independence from governments and the private sector. In 1936, the family of the owner of The Guardian, John Scott, founded the Scott Fund Trust. The stated purpose of the trust was not to make a profit but to protect independent journalism — and above all to preserve the editorial policy of The Guardian itself. The trust took over the newspaper and later, in 1993, acquired The Observer as well. Thanks to the Scott Fund Trust, both publications could experiment with the formats of their content, and they were among the pioneers of online British media.

Democracy is directly dependent on the existence of the free press. A lack of such freedom allows authoritarianism to flourish and fosters conflict and inequality. This is another reason why international foundations and organizations fund projects aimed at developing independent journalism in areas where it does not exist. The funds are used to train media workers in professional ethics, to bolster their methods of finding and verifying information, to provide computers and other equipment, and to create opportunities to visit other countries.

The EU supports media projects in East Africa aimed at establishing dialogue between warring communities and preventing conflicts in the first place. It also helps raise awareness of pandemic control issues, and promotes the openness of public authorities to journalists through feedback mechanisms and training.

The German foundation GIZ ensures transparency of media ownership in Moldova by sharing an international methodology for analyzing the influence of private companies on the work of editorial offices.

Lithuania and Poland help journalists and publications expelled from Belarus to continue their work.

Kosovo is hosting a hub for the rehabilitation of Ukrainian journalists from frontline regions.

European institutions are promoting the adaptation of conventional press councils (self-regulatory bodies for journalists) to the digital age.

UNESCO is supporting an African association to enable national ombudsmen to protect access to public information across the continent.

Many donors support initiatives aimed at developing media infrastructure. In earlier times, this involved, the construction and organization of printing houses that were open to all local newspapers, as the American help once facilitated in Kyrgyzstan. Today, Europe has offered assistance in the development of media projects in Libya.

One such initiative in Russia was the Institute of Information Law Problems at the Faculty of Journalism of Moscow State University, which the author of this text headed for more than 15 years. The Institute provided legal education for journalists, expertise for government agencies and courts, a platform for the few specialists in this field from Russia and neighboring countries, reference literature, and produced a monthly journal.

When the economic crisis hit independent Russian media in 1998, it was not the Kremlin, but Western foundations that came to their aid. George Soros' Open Society Institute (OSI) announced a contest in which $1 million was distributed to participants — from educational TV shows to publishers of journalism textbooks. The decisions of the independent board charged with making decisions about where the money should go were binding for the OSI.

Are grants toxic?

Over time, the Russian government began to perceive all things Western as harmful and subversive. Authoritarianism does not tolerate criticism from independent media or civil society, and it resists public scrutiny. Those who received foreign support began to be called “grant eaters” and “cronies of Soros.” The resulting witch hunt led to the expulsion of foreign foundations from Russia and infringement of the rights of journalists and human rights defenders, who were labeled as foreign agents and undesirable organizations. Domestic philanthropists, from Mikhail Khodorkovsky to Dmitry Zimin, also paid a high price for their attempts to offer a domestic Russian substitute for funding previously provided by Soros and USAID.

Until recently, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) was the largest donor in the world. But after Donald Trump's executive order to freeze international aid for three months pending a review of all programs, USAID announced the suspension of its operation and laid off 90% of its staff. For the populist billionaire Trump and his closest associate, Elon Musk, international charity is a meaningless waste of money.

How can journalists be considered independent if their work is financed by foundations? Simple: they remain independent so long as the grantor does not interfere in their work. What matters is that the project produces a positive result — society’s deeper knowledge of complex issues, higher levels of trust from the audience, the increased plurality of media available to consumers, and, if possible, sustainability that goes beyond the specific period of financing. Any deviation from this approach always leads to scandals and public trials, as happened when it was revealed in 2024 that the U.S. government allegedly had veto power over the selection of targets for investigative journalism carried out by the USAID-sponsored international association OCCRP (known for its stories on organized crime in Latin America and for breaking the Panama Papers scandal). In my experience, all Mark Koenig, my USAID grant “curator” in the 1990s, required was that we finish the project on time and submit a detailed financial report.

The success of Putin's Russia in mopping up independent media outlets is undeniable. The Russian experience of discrediting and limiting international assistance to independent journalism is also in demand in Hungary, Georgia, China — and now, in the U.S.

Independent journalists expose corruption and abuse of power while uniting citizens in defense of their rights. But in today's economic climate, investigative journalism is impossible without external support. Political commentary, court journalism, satire, and cartoons are on the verge of extinction. Should we let them die out, with nothing but social media to fill the vacuum? I would rather let sponsors save what can still be saved in the changing media ecosystem. Grants are needed most of all in order to support independent mass media when economic conditions render independent journalism unprofitable.