Attempts at intimidation delivers the biggest boost in journalism funding
New research on European content consumption, a deep dive into Tangle's growth strategy, the Atlantic going free for high schools and 18 active calls.
Welcome
This week on Media Finance Monitor
Attempts at intimidation delivers the biggest boost in journalism funding
The best-worst research into European media consumption
A deep dive into Tangle’s growth strategy
Free Atlantic access offered to all US high schools
18 active calls (2 new)
Attempts at intimidation delivers the biggest boost in journalism funding
Working in and around independent media in Central and Eastern Europe can sometimes feel like living 1984, or something close to it. Someone read that book and mistook it for a practical guide, trying to implement various chapters. It can be quite disheartening.
But today is not one of those days.
Today is the day I can tell you about how the Hungarian government's spring offensive against independent media resulted in record-breaking financial support for the very newsrooms the regime tried to intimidate. Maybe it's still going into the Autocracy for Dummies playbook just under the heading "What Not to Do."
This spring, the Hungarian government pushed a “foreign agents” proposal designed to stigmatize certain civil society groups and make day‑to‑day operations harder, newsrooms included. It was a watershed moment for the media scene: after a decade and a half of slow erosion, it felt like we were plunging head‑first into something much darker.
The bill was postponed at the last minute, just before Parliament was due to vote. Postponed, not abandoned. With a standing supermajority, the government could revive it any day. The sword of Damocles still hangs.
Hungary has a unique funding mechanism dating back to the 1990s: individuals can redirect 1% of their annual income tax to registered NGOs. In recent years, journalism nonprofits learned to leverage this tool (we’ve covered the scheme earlier this year). The model proved contagious, Romania, Poland and some other CEE countries adopted versions of it, and media organizations there have also begun to benefit.
Tax choices are made in spring, right as the “foreign agents” campaign hit. While the government tried to paint independent outlets as part of some nefarious network, newsrooms answered with rare solidarity and unusually plain language about what the law would do, up to and including barring them from accessing these redirected funds.
The result? A historic surge in 1% pledges for journalism.
Over the past few days, the tax authority released the numbers, and the picture is clear: every major journalism‑supporting nonprofit grew, many of them dramatically.
Telex’s foundation led the field. In its first year participating, it went from zero to nearly €1.5 million in redirected income tax.
Partizán, last year’s top media recipient, grew from ~€1.0 million to ~€1.2 million despite Telex’s meteoric entry.
In the overall NGO ranking, these two media organizations finished first and second. The national ambulance service’s foundation placed third; two children’s hospital foundations were fourth and fifth. Telex + Partizán together received more than the next three health‑care focused recipients combined.
The two main investigative non-profit newsrooms also saw healthy growth. Direkt36 roughly doubled its 1% revenue; Átlátszó grew 30%+.
While total 1% giving rose about 17% year‑over‑year, media/journalism nonprofits saw their combined income increase more than 2.5×.
Intimidation had an impact, but perhaps not the one the government intended.
Beyond the immediate financial boost, these numbers send a powerful message: certain people value independent media and won't be intimidated by government campaigns. This is fantastic news for the Hungarian media scene and could serve as a blueprint for other countries, both where similar tax facilities exist and where they could be introduced.
(I hate to be the cloud over every silver lining, but several executives I spoke to in recent days called this a high‑water mark, the product of a perfect storm: a chilling bill, a loud campaign, and tax filing season converging at once. Success at this scale is hard to repeat on command. And seeing these numbers, the government may well try to “adjust” the 1% system to make access harder for independent newsrooms.)
The best-worst research into European media consumption
(Disclaimer: I know maybe five other people who care about this as passionately as I do, but if you also get upset about poorly worded survey questions, welcome, this one is for you.)
The European Commission recently released the "Study on audiences, consumer behaviour and preferences relating to the consumption of media content", a name so catchy I’ll consider it for my boat.
The 177-page report contains quite a few interesting findings on media consumption, but I want to focus on just two. One finding about newsletters is refreshingly clear and methodologically sound. The other, about preferred media formats, reads like it was designed by someone who actively hates both surveys and the people who take them.
Let’s start with the interesting bit. The report clearly shows that newsletters attract fewer users but a higher willingness to pay. This aligns perfectly with our own findings: people who spend on journalism are frequent newsletter readers. The difference is our surveys focus on select CEE markets, while this EU-27-wide study involved 55,000 participants.
Only 8% indicated they prefer the email newsletter format, but 45% of those people pay for access. That's huge. If you're thinking about audience revenues and content monetization, newsletters are a fantastic format to experiment with and this study is another piece of evidence that confirms this assumption. (On a related note, check out our 2025 newsletter playbook for more reasons, platform guides, and 19 case studies.)
The question about preferred and non-preferred formats, however, is a masterclass in how not to write survey research questions.
At the Center for Sustainable Media, we spend considerable time thinking about audience surveys, how to ask questions, and what respondents can understand. So when it took me eight reads and about five minutes to understand this question, I knew something was wrong.
Here's the offender:
"Are there some news formats/sources you have been using more frequently and, as a consequence, less frequently in the last 12 months?"
Say what?
Basically, respondents were asked to create pairs of formats/sources and determine if, say, their increased TV consumption led to decreased print journalism consumption. At least that's my understanding after reading the relevant pages three times, I'm still not 100 percent sure.
This is rarely a conscious choice, let alone something people can track retrospectively. I don't remember when YouTube replaced broadcast on my TV (probably 12 years ago, not 12 months). Even if it were happening now, I couldn't identify the trade-off while answering an abstract survey question.
The results are predictably confusing. Apparently, listening to more YouTubers on news reduces podcast consumption most, while listening to more podcasts reduces YouTuber news consumption most. Both claims seem unlikely and probably reflect respondent confusion rather than actual behavior. (For some better questions and survey design, check out our nine practical tips for audience research.)
A deep dive into Tangle’s growth strategy
Tangle is one of my favorite new media products. At its core, it's a newsletter that makes a genuine attempt to understand people across the political spectrum. Every issue focuses on a topic and shows how the left and right see it in the US, then presents their own (usually centrist) perspective.
In a media landscape filled with what I'd call tribal content—even on otherwise high-quality platforms—that dismisses people with different perspectives as either stupid, malicious, or both, Tangle stands out. This tribal approach is partly a natural reflex, but it's also incentivized by the US's audience-revenue-heavy business models. When you need to provide community and identity to your subscribers (members, donors), you create content that responds to these personal and social needs while avoiding anything that might ruffle feathers among your in-group.
Tangle's strong, unique product is coupled with an excellent growth strategy, recently analyzed by Journalists Pay Themselves.
They dive into Tangle's custom landing page that's driving free subscriptions (they're currently at over 400,000 free and 70,000 paying subscribers) coupled with an extensive paid acquisition strategy. Many people running solo creator projects or other new media ventures shy away from paid acquisition, but Tangle's example shows that with a good landing page, it can actually work.
The piece also describes their conversion and retention strategy: getting people onto paid tiers early through strategic discounts while keeping churn under 1%. That's an incredible achievement. Even some very cool and financially successful digital media products run with monthly churn up to 6%. Keeping it this low requires a refined and aligned content and product strategy, something Tangle has clearly mastered.
Free Atlantic access offered to all US public high schools
The Atlantic announced this week that it's offering free digital access to all US public high schools, an awesome move that more news publishers should copy.
This initiative generates significant goodwill for The Atlantic with minimal downside. Access is granted through whitelisted IP addresses, no account creation required. Since the free access isn't portable, only people on school networks can access the content, there's virtually no risk of losing paying customers. Students and teachers can read The Atlantic at school, but not at home unless they subscribe.
In fact, exposing young people (and their teachers) to their content and building consumption habits will likely create new subscribers down the line. The more people experience the brand and its journalism early, the more likely they are to value it later.
There's also a bigger picture here. AI companies are offering their tools to government institutions at near-zero cost, both to score political points and accelerate adoption. As these tools fundamentally change how information is consumed, it makes perfect sense for traditional publishers to get their content in front of young people as early as possible.
I don't think The Atlantic will outcompete ChatGPT on the backs of high school seniors. But publishers can only gain from these arrangements, and they might just have a positive impact on the wider information ecosystem, by building media literacy and appreciation for quality journalism in the next generation of information consumers. (How do you do, fellow next generation information consumers?)
Here are the active calls, with the largest at the top:
European Media Hubs
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 1,500,000 - 3,800,000
What is it for: to support independent reporting on EU affairs by European-level newsrooms
Deadline: September 29th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories) + Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, Ukraine. Potential candidate: Kosovo
Media Project Funding (Vienna Media Initiative)
Who: Vienna Business Agency
How much: Up to EUR 100,000 (up to 60% funding rate)
What is it for: Support the development of new media services
How long: Up to 2 years
Deadline: October 31st, 2025
Eligible countries: Austria (must be based in Vienna)
Democratic transition, (re-)building and strengthening society based on the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights
Who: European Commission
How much: From EUR 50,000 (total budget EUR 1,900,000)
What is it for: Commemorate democratic transitions and resistance to authoritarian regimes, and promote civic participation and democratic resilience
How long: 12–24 months
Deadline: October 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: EU Member States and CERV-associated countries
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: October 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: October 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
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: October 16th, 2025
Eligible countries: European countries
Work/Environment Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Up to USD 20,000
What is it for: Reporting on climate change and its effects on workers and work
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
WBF Matching Grants - NEW
Who: Western Balkans Fund
How much: Up to EUR 10,000
What is it for: Supporting regional cooperation projects in Western Balkans
How long: Up to 4 months
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia
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: Ongoing (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
Support for Small Media in the Western Balkans - NEW
Who: The SMS Facility – Small Media Support project
How much: Up to EUR 4,900
What is it for: Strengthening local media to safeguard expression and pluralism
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: October 17th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro,
Kosovo, North Macedonia, and Serbia)
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
Conflict & Peace Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Reporting on global and local conflicts, peacebuilding efforts, and their human impact
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Transparency & Governance Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Reporting on corruption, illicit finance, and related topics
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Global Health Inequities, Risks, and Solutions
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Reporting on global health inequities, emerging threats, and the impact of reduced health aid worldwide
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
AI Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Depends on project’s scope and size
What is it for: Reporting on the societal impact of AI and surveillance, focusing on accountability, equity, and human rights
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
Until the next issue, thanks for reading and take care.
Peter Erdelyi and the rest of the Center for Sustainable Media team