A European Empire of Attention
The Trump that keeps on bumping, volatility in distribution and 26 active calls.
Welcome!
This week on the Media Finance Monitor:
A European Empire of Attention
Trump has been good for big publishers, though lifestyle products might prove even better
Is traffic collapsing?
26 active calls (3 new)
Editor’s Note: I’ll be traveling quite a bit over the next three weeks and the Hungarian foreign agent law is also proving to be a significant distraction, to say the least. We’ll aim to maintain our regular Thursday morning publishing schedule, but there may be occasional disruptions. Thanks for your patience.
A European Empire of Attention
Media funding in Europe often moves with all the urgency of a pre-industrial glacier. Every project takes months to evaluate. Each budget adjustment demands a cautious approval process. Major policy proposals can take years to unfold. Europe is not known for breakneck speed, something that becomes a liability when crisis strikes.
That’s why it was genuinely refreshing to see European decision-makers pledge more than €5 million to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) within weeks of the U.S. funding freeze. This is the kind of institutional agility that matters when you're up against regimes capable of scrubbing a million Winnie-the-Pooh memes before you can say "Xi Jinping".
But before we celebrate Europe’s newfound media muscle, we need to consider what kind of empire it’s trying to build.
Jerzy Pomianowski made a compelling argument in The Economist last week, referencing RFE/RL and invoking Churchill’s 1943 line: “The empires of the future are the empires of the mind”. His thesis is clear: Europe must invest in soft power, fill the vacuum left by U.S. retreat, and do so with urgency, because if it doesn’t, China, Russia, and Iran will. As he puts it:
"Foreign aid lays the groundwork for a strong security architecture by building both deep understanding of local contexts and trust with like-minded individuals, including those living in autocratic states. Reducing defence strategy to tanks and bunkers is strategic myopia."
There’s something unsettling about framing independent journalism as a cog in some European starcom apparatus. When media is discussed in security terms, I’d rather focus on journalism’s role in stability, crisis response, and harm reduction, not as a vehicle for projecting European influence. Still, many powerful figures share Pomianowski’s view, and it would be naive to ignore the actual contours of the debate.
Consider this: the final MFF resolution adopted by the European Parliament (which includes strong journalism references after months of intense advocacy) places "free, independent and pluralistic media" under the "Security, defence and preparedness" heading, not in the section on "Fundamental rights, Union values and the rule of law." Whether we like it or not, this is one of the dominant frames in Europe today.
And there is, undeniably, a vacuum Europe could (and perhaps should) fill.
New data from Pew Research shows that 52% of Americans believe the U.S. should focus less on international problems and more on domestic concerns. Younger people and Republicans are especially in favor of disengagement.
When Americans are asked about foreign aid priorities, “strengthening democracy” ranks fourth, and the partisan divide is stark: 77% of Democrats support strengthening democracy abroad, compared to just 45% of Republicans.
This shows us that there is currently no strong motivation for the US to reenter this space, especially while the current administration is in power, and even if they ever reengage, I wouldn't expect media support to be very high on their agendas. The constituency simply isn't there, and many young voters don't seem to care about this issue, which, depending on your worldview and location, might be the most alarming or encouraging data point. If you’re in Kyiv, it’s ominous. If you’re in Moscow, it’s a windfall.
Yet America’s retreat from media support is only one aspect of the larger shift forcing Europe to reconsider its role on the global stage.
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen was exploring this in his recent keynote at the Nordic AI in Media Summit, diving into the concept of "European platform alternatives" to the dominant big-tech American companies.
He argues that the current geopolitical situation has led to resurgent interest in this topic, driven by concerns about digital autonomy and tech sovereignty. He characterizes this as a "wicked problem" akin to climate change, defense, and welfare, suggesting that our collective choices as users, advertisers, publishers, and governments have contributed to the current reliance on these platforms.
Rather than prescribe a single solution, Nielsen outlines three models for European alternatives: building European champions (à la Airbus), creating publicly funded options (as with public service broadcasters), and fostering decentralized, open-source tools (like Mastodon). Each path involves tough questions about funding, governance, and market viability.
The issue of media pluralism and platforms is intertwined not just because of changing geopolitical dynamics and US disengagement, but because of the immense gravitational pull these platforms have over human attention, which ultimately drives all media business models. You can't have a truly autonomous European public sphere without grappling with this technological dependency.
(Incidentally, European tech, media and funding is something I'll be discussing with a bunch of very smart people in Amsterdam in two weeks at the 2025 Public Spaces Conference, ping me if you are around.)
At present, Europe is scrambling for answers to these wicked problems. The EU’s pledge to RFE/RL illustrates this urgency. I know many exceptional journalists working across their newsrooms in Europe, doing vital public-interest work. The symbolism of Europe stepping into the gap left by the U.S. is powerful, and I hope the funds reach those in the newsrooms swiftly.
But RFE/RL is a massive organization with an annual budget larger than all EU spending on journalism and news media support combined. The world, and parts of Europe, needs the journalism that RFE produces, but the massive institutional infrastructure may prove unsustainable for European budgets. Europe already subsidizes other large media entities like Euronews, and decision-makers need to be thoughtful about how they allocate limited resources.
We need broad-based investment: in technology, distribution, sustainable models, and public-interest reporting where no commercial case exists. An institution the size of RFE or Euronews may be part of the solution, but they are certainly not the whole answer. In racing to fill the U.S. vacuum, Europe must avoid replicating 20th-century structures to meet 21st-century challenges.
The empires of today are empires of attention, governed from California boardrooms and Chinese state councils. Europe’s true challenge isn’t merely reacting to a more inward-looking, disengaged, and transactional United States. It lies in building the technological and institutional foundations for a genuinely autonomous European seat of power: a pluralistic, technologically advanced vision of information sovereignty, designed around the needs of European citizens and grounded firmly in European values.
Trump has been good for big publishers, though lifestyle products might prove even better
Most people didn't expect much of a Trump bump for media this time around. During his first presidency, traffic and revenues soared for many publications, but the conventional wisdom was that a weary, news-fatigued public would tune out for Trump 2.0.
But Trump 2.0 is fundamentally different from the previous iteration. The first Trump presidency was a lot of drama and spectacle but relatively little substance. This new version is systematically tearing up the fabric of US society, the global world order, and everything in between. A lot of people are paying anxious attention, and that attention translates into good business for some publishers.
While some creators on Substack and elsewhere are certainly seeing growth, some of the largest news organizations in the world are also reaping the benefits.
The Guardian's reader revenue grew 20%, bringing them to over 1.3 million "recurring paying digital supporters" (a deliberately broad category that includes both subscribers and donors, since the Guardian still operates without a paywall). US revenues specifically grew 20%, with some of that growth attributed directly to Trump coverage. Even before the election, the Guardian proved remarkably adept at leveraging political tension for fundraising, their email campaign raised £1.8 million in just three days after the Washington Post's endorsement debacle.
Despite this growth, the Guardian still operates at a £25 million annual loss. That's considerably better than last year's £37 million deficit, but it's worth remembering that the organization can only maintain its no-paywall policy because the Scott Trust owns the paper and willingly underwrites these losses. Without a massive endowment, this remains an unsustainable business model for most publishers, regardless of how appealing free access might be.
The New York Times had an even more impressive first quarter, adding 250,000 new subscribers to finish March with 11.7 million total digital subscribers. If you compare total digital supporters between these two global newsrooms, you can really see the effectiveness of paywalls in converting audiences into paying customers. The NYT generated $92.7 million operating profits in 2025 Q1 alone.
Nearly half of their subscribers now pay for more than one product, news, Cooking, Games, Wirecutter, or The Athletic. While the core news product undoubtedly benefits from Trump-driven volatility, the NYT's business is now so much more than news journalism. I suspect the profitability of their lifestyle products may eventually overshadow the news operation entirely.
(On a slightly related note, the Wall Street Journal is launching an exclusive executive membership program called CEO council. Want to guess what membership costs? $25,000 a year.)
Is traffic really collapsing?
One of my favorite media industry articles from last year (and certainly my favorite title) came from Andrey Boborykin, the publisher of Ukrayinska Pravda: "Life after traffic". It addressed news avoidance and fatigue, especially around Ukraine coverage, the difficult relationship with platforms, and the growing impact of AI on audience behavior. I still recommend it, not least because I 100% agree with his proposed solutions around focusing on smaller but more committed audiences. Though if you're reading something called the Media Finance Monitor, I'm probably preaching to the choir.
There's enormous volatility on the distribution side right now. Search traffic is mostly dropping, very likely because of AI overviews, and while AI referral traffic is growing, it doesn't make up for what's being lost. Nearly 60% of Google searches now end without a click. Social referrals are all over the place, up for some outlets, down for others, depending on market, niche, and publication size. Discover is still a strong traffic source for some publishers and is coming to desktop, promising even more clicks.
First, let's do a very unrepresentative poll:
Second, check out Ezra Eeman's new AI search paradigm report. It's a solid framework for thinking about distribution and discovery in this messy transition period.
Lastly, I think it will take quite some time to see clearly what the new balance looks like, even for individual outlets, let alone the industry as a whole.
In the meantime, you can and absolutely should work on building direct relationships with your audience. Those investments will pay dividends regardless of how algorithmic distribution channels evolve. And on that note, let me low-key toot our own horn a little bit.
Last week, we published
📨📨❤️The 2025 Newsletter Playbook 💸💸💸
and it's something I'm incredibly proud of. It breaks down into three main sections:
The case for newsletters – We make a rational argument for when newsletters are the right solution (and, importantly, when they might not be).
Platform comparison – We introduce and compare the most popular platforms (Substack, Ghost, Beehiiv, Mailchimp), analyzing their features, pricing structures, benefits, and limitations.
19 mini-case studies – The heart of our guide showcases successful newsletters across five thematic categories. We examine what they do well, which platforms they use, and explore their business models to provide actionable insights you can apply to your own projects.
We've already gotten tremendous feedback, and I'm grateful for every text, email, and like you sent our way. I highly recommend checking it out, we put a lot of love and effort into it.
Here are the active calls, with the largest at the top:
Pan-European reporting
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 7,500,000
What is it for: Support pan-European, multilingual reporting on EU affairs
How long: Between 12 and 24 months (depending on the topic)
Deadline: June 13th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
European Network of Fact-checkers
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 5,000,000
What is it for: Increase fact-checking capacity and coverage across the EU
How long: Between 30 to 36 months
Deadline: September 2nd, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories), as well as candidate and accession countries and countries that are associated to the Digital Europe programme.
Fighting against disinformation while ensuring the right to freedom of expression - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 3,000,000 - 3,500,000
What is it for: Research on countering disinformation in media while protecting free expression
Deadline: September 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
Advisory support and network to counter disinformation and foreign information manipulation and interference - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 3,000,000 - 3,500,000
What is it for: Scaling research into tools countering disinformation and FIMI
Deadline: September 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
Countering and preventing radicalisation, extremism, hate speech and polarisation - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 3,000,000 - 3,500,000
What is it for: Research to counter radicalisation, hate, and polarisation online and offline
Deadline: September 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
Detecting influence campaigns and boosting societal resilience
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 1,650,000
What is it for: Monitor disinformation narratives, mitigate polarisation in the EU
How long: 18 months
Deadline: June 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
Cooperation with EU citizens and Youth in the United Kingdom
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 600,000
What is it for: Strengthen EU–UK ties through citizen and youth dialogue
How long: Up to 36 months
Deadline: June 17th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states or UK
Boosting the visibility of fact-checking content in Europe
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 300,000 - 500,000
What is it for: Supports wider reach of EU fact-checks to vulnerable audiences
How long: Between 12 and 18 months
Deadline: June 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories)
European mini-slate development
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 60,000 - 310,000
What is it for: Support to develop documentary, fiction or animation for commercial release in digital platforms, cinema, or TV
How long: Up to 36 months
Deadline: September 17th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States (including overseas countries and territories), listed EEA countries and countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme
The Big Questions
Who: National Geographic Society
How much: Up to USD 100,000
What is it for: Storytelling projects on humanity, knowledge, and nature
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: June 24th, 2025
Eligible countries: Global
Boosting Fact-Checking Activities in Europe
Who: European Media and Information Fund
How much: Up to EUR 55,000
What is it for: Support fact-checking to counter 2025 election disinformation.
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: June 30th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU, EFTA and UK
Legal Defense Fund
Who: IFCN
How much: Up to USD 40,000
What is it for: Support fact-checkers facing legal or harassment threats
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global (IFCN verified signatories)
Visegrad Grants
Who: Visegrad Fund
How much: Up to EUR 30,000
What is it for: Media literacy, disinformation, transparency
How long: Up to 18 months
Deadline: June 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: V4 countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia). * Consortia required
Visegrad+ Grants
Who: Visegrad Fund
How much: Up to EUR 30,000
What is it for: Media literacy, disinformation, transparency
How long: Up to 18 months
Deadline: June 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: V4 countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia), Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia) and the Eastern Partnership regions (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine
Machine Learning Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Up to USD 25,000
What is it for: Strengthen data-driven reporting using data mining
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Business Continuity Fund
Who: IFCN
How much: Up to USD 20,000
What is it for: Support for fact-checkers disrupted by disasters/conflict/repression
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global (IFCN verified signatories)
Professional Development Grants for Environmental Journalism
Who: Journalismfund Europe
How much: Up to EUR 20,000
What is it for: Capacity building of environmental investigative journalists
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: October 9th, 2025
Eligible countries: European countries
Environmental Investigative Journalism
Who: Journalismfund Europe
How much: Up to EUR 20,000
What is it for: Conduct investigations about Europe's environmental affairs
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: July 24th, 2025
Eligible countries: European countries
Original reporting on artificial intelligence
Who: Tarbell Center for AI Journalism
How much: Up to USD 15,000
What is it for: Reporting on how today’s tech and policy shape AI’s future
Deadline: May 31st, 2025
Eligible countries: Global
New Media Incubator
Who: International Press Institute
How much: Up to EUR 15,000
What is it for: Support early-stage European media to grow and scale their news product
How long: Up to 8 months
Deadline: June 6th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Ukraine
SAFE: Support and Assistance Facility for Experts
Who: EMIF
How much: Up to EUR 10,000
What is it for: Financially supporting European counter-disinformation entities facing urgent threats
How long: Up to 3 months
Deadline: Rolling basis (submissions open until February 27th, 2026)
Eligible countries: EU Member States (open to EMIF grantees, EFCSN fact-checkers, and EDMO members)
Global Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Up to USD 10,000
What is it for: Support in-depth, high-impact reporting on critical issues
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Audience-Engaged Journalism Grants
Who: BIRN
How much: Up to EUR 8,000
What is it for: Produce audience-engaged stories
Deadline: June 18th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Czech Republic, Poland, Serbia and Slovakia
Sphera Media Collabs
Who: Sphera Network
How much: Up to EUR 7,000
What is it for: Short documentaries on social issues through personal narratives and human-centered storytelling
Deadline: July 12th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States and Ukraine (excluding Belgium, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Spain)
Science Misinformation Journalism Grant
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Journalism combating science denial and misinformation
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Pluralistic Media for Democracy
Who: Journalismfund Europe and IMS
How much: Unclear (call amount: EUR 700,000)
What is it for: Support media in "news deserts"
Deadline: June 12th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia