Creating National Funds to Support Journalism and Public-Interest Media

"Government funds for journalism and media outlets play a critical role in bolstering public-interest journalism."

This policy brief seeks to examine funds that governments have set up to support public interest journalism within their own countries. It identifies a common set of questions countries face when setting up such funds, including how to design them and ensure they are not captured, which established funds should be emulated, and why. The paper examines existing funds and provides recommendations for governments and journalism organisations looking to establish new funds. Published by the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) International Media Policy and Advisory Centre (IMPACT), the paper forms part of GFMD's efforts to advocate for national funds for journalism (NFJs) as a key pillar in the use of public and private funds to respond to the widely acknowledged financial crisis faced by independent public interest media.

As explained in the abstract of the brief, "Global interest in funds to support journalism is on the rise, as governments and journalists seek ways to support quality information even as the business model has become more difficult. Some countries, including those in Northern Europe and the European Union, have been using these journalism funds for years, while others are just starting to consider how to set them up." Yet, as the paper notes, despite the renewed interest in journalism funds supported by government, little public literature exists on how to establish them. This paper seeks to address that gap.

The brief makes the point that "Establishing a successful journalism fund requires a nuanced understanding of the environment in which it will operate. The context surrounding journalism grants varies from country to country and even community to community, shaped by factors such as journalists' needs, public discourse, newsroom culture, and the status of the media." Despite these differences, the brief identifies six key elements that apply generally to the establishment of a government-supported journalism and media fund. The paper discusses these six areas with the help of examples. In brief, they are:

1. Identifying a need and building support for the idea of a fund - The first step in building a journalism fund is to identify an editorial or journalistic need and to ask how a fund would help meet it. This step is followed by efforts to gather support for the fund by persuading governments (and potential additional donors) that such a fund would

be useful and that it would address needs in a community.

2. Clarifying the purpose and design of the fund - A grant requires a clear purpose so that it can be distributed fairly. It needs a particular focus, as well as clear and transparent eligibility criteria. Funds can be geared toward a group based on geography, topic, or journalistic method. They can also be set aside for emergency situations, entrepreneurial efforts, or journalists of specific demographic groups or with particular skill sets. Ultimately, a well-designed and transparent grant programme can have a significant impact on the quality and sustainability of journalism.

3. Ensuring the independence of grantees and regranting bodies - In order to ensure impartiality and support truly independent and credible journalism, government funders should work with journalists to establish professional and representative management structures that protect editorial independence and avoid conflicts of interest or partisan decision making. A common thread uniting all regranting models is the desire to create an intermediary body between government funders and journalism organisations and journalists. The risk of capture within these regranting bodies is limited since they typically are part of or close to the independent journalism and media community.

4. Funding the funds - Support for journalism from government or government-regulated funds is usually allocated through budget votes. In such cases, it is important to make sure the funds have an explicit "budget line" so that the funds are earmarked for

journalism. If, for example, journalism is lumped under an arts and culture budget line, it may be more likely to be cut in the future if representatives decide to make spending cuts to that line item.

5. Establishing eligibility and editorial standards - The criteria for eligibility typically include the legal status of potential grantees (as individuals or organisations), and the design focus of the grant. For example, grants that are designed to stimulate investigative, cross-border, or data-centred journalism are typically restricted to journalists or organisations that specialise in those areas. In many cases, certain editorial standards are also cited as requirements for eligibility. The research showed that it is important that both governments providing funds to intermediaries, and the regranters providing funding to journalism organisations, must adhere to similar eligibility criteria and comply with specific guidelines to ensure that money is spent as intended, and is accounted for.

6. Avoiding capture and other pitfalls - The potential risks associated with government funding cannot be overlooked, as journalists' worries about editorial independence, capture, and undue influence are genuine. Funders, for their part, when dealing at arm's length with intermediary bodies, may have concerns regarding critical reporting or accounting regulations. The report cites a number of examples that suggest ways to mitigate such challenges through, for example, transparency requirements, reporting obligations, and audit mechanisms to ensure that government funds are distributed only to legitimate, nonpartisan media organisations that adhere to strict ethical and professional standards. The report also highlights other potential pitfalls to look out for, including competing funding structures and the idea of "donor darlings", a small group of journalists or organisations who all attend the same conferences and receive funding from the same donors.

The brief highlights a few mechanisms that can be put in place in order to safeguard independence and protect funds from influence or capture. The overarching principle of these measures is to ensure that granting is done at arm's length. This aim can be achieved by different means, including: establishing firewalls between funders and grantees through the use of intermediary bodies or regranters; incorporating anonymous and independent jurors into the selection processes to prevent external pressure; and instituting peer-review committees, whereby journalists decide which journalists or organisations receive funding.

In conclusion, the report notes the need for more academic research on this topic. This research could include, for example, a mapping of public funding mechanisms, a deeper study of the effectiveness of different public funding models, a comparison of the efficiency of direct funding to journalists versus funding to media outlets, and an assessment of the costs of creating intermediary bodies compared with the added value of funding intermediary bodies.