Shrinking the tent of public interest journalism
Building our identity around grievance, blended finance in CEE media, local journalism innovating in print and 26 active calls.
Welcome!
This week on Media Finance Monitor
Shrinking the tent of public interest journalism
Will blended finance save the media industry in CEE?
Openness as a path to sustainability: The Salt Lake Tribune experiment
26 active calls (3 new)
Shrinking the tent of public interest journalism
Vienna is a very beige city: comfortable, slightly quirky, mostly predictable. I’m also a sucker for a good frittatensuppe. I’m there often enough that I’ve developed my preferred routes and routines, and we’re building some promising partnerships in the city. So I was especially disappointed to miss the IPI World Congress this year.
I had even more FOMO when people started texting me various links to a conversation Natalia Antelava, co-founder of Coda Story had with Richard Gingras, Google’s recently retired Vice President for News who was (is?) one of the most influential people shaping how journalism and technology intersects.
This was a direct, emotional, uncomfortable confrontation about power, accountability, and the wreckage of a relationship that defined much of the past fifteen years of digital journalism.
I’m not sure what the opposite of beige is, but it was that.
Some people told me it felt cathartic, the kind of “truth to power” moment we haven’t had enough of in journalism’s platform era. Catharsis matters. There is value in naming the things we feel have been ignored or minimized. There is dignity in saying them out loud in a room full of peers, especially to someone who sat where the decisions were made.
That said, I’m not entirely sure what the conversation achieved.
I’m increasingly preoccupied with outcomes. Not moral victories or symbolic clarity, but actual strategic advancement. What moves us closer to a stronger, healthier, more resilient information ecosystem? What helps rebuild trust, resources, capacity, or collaboration?
Perhaps the conversation offered emotional resolution but not progress. And maybe that’s fine. Maybe journalism sometimes needs a release valve. Maybe naming frustration and power imbalance out loud is part of the ecosystem processing its trauma.
I just don’t know if it takes us where we need to go next.
Antelava had multiple questions about identity, like these:
“So the first question I want to ask you is actually about pronouns. I’ve noticed in the pieces you sent me — and I know you’re no longer at Google, but even before you left — you often refer to media and journalism as “we.” Can you explain that “we”? (...) what puzzles me about you using that pronoun when you were at Google is that the relationship between the media industry and Google was very much a power relationship. And Google had the power that journalism and media didn’t. So why do you use “we” given that there was such a power asymmetry? ”
Gingras didn’t have a particularly satisfying answer.
I understand the instinct. Traditional journalism has a strong professional identity, forged around accountability, independence, and truth-seeking, all very important values. But if our industry is going to survive the next decade, I suspect our tent has to get bigger, not smaller. “We“ will increasingly include journalists, creators, social communicators, individuals providing information to others in their communities, civic technologists, and yes, sometimes people at platforms, regulators, and companies whose missions aren’t perfectly aligned with ours.
That doesn’t mean everyone shares the same values. It doesn’t mean accountability should disappear. But I’m afraid purity tests rarely produce durable coalitions and journalism needs durable coalitions more than ever.
Let me be clear: platforms have caused genuine harm. Google pulling the Navalny app under Kremlin pressure, something Antelava references, remains deeply troubling. The company’s advertising dominance hollowed out news revenues. There are credible antitrust rulings confirming market abuse. At times, platform leadership was deceptive, dismissive, or naive about their impact.
These are legitimate critiques. They should be expressed, investigated, regulated, and litigated.
But as tempting as it is to moralize, I’m not convinced it is a strategy. Policymakers, courts and regulators can and should impose guardrails. But journalism’s future won’t be secured in tribunals alone.
There’s a difference between holding power accountable and building your identity around grievance. One strengthens journalism. The other traps it. And I worry we sometimes edge toward the latter.
No one is coming to save the media. Not platforms, not donors, not governments, not legislation. Some of these can help, some more than marginally. But sustainable journalism must ultimately come from audiences finding enough value to support it, financially, civically, culturally.
I think that requires looking forward, not litigating the past as a precondition for progress.
I say this as someone who has benefited from platform support in multiple ways. Years ago, a newsroom I worked in took Google funding to build reader-revenue infrastructure. That investment helped accelerate a membership model that later allowed the organization to grow. It didn’t buy silence, we still criticized platforms when warranted. But we also built things. I was also part of a fellowship program that Google supported which didn’t stop me from criticizing them in this newsletter and elsewhere in public.
I don’t think accepting these benefits were shameful. I think it was pragmatic. Collaboration and critique can coexist. And I think this is where journalism must live now: in the contradictions, in the uneasy alliances, in the space between purity and capitulation, in a string of difficult compromises.
Maybe the interview was necessary. Perhaps it released pressure that needed escaping. But while anger can illuminate injustice, it rarely builds sustainable futures.
We need bigger tents, not smaller ones. We need coalitions, not purity circles. We need more energy spent designing journalism’s future than litigating its past.
Everyone should read the interview, it’s revealing and raises important questions. But I hope the next stage isn’t only about what went wrong. I hope it’s about how we build what comes next.
(And speaking of this tension between catharsis and strategy: my friend and occasional co-conspirator Patrick Boehler recently published a piece titled “Your suffering isn’t a public service” You should subscribe.)
Will blended finance save the media industry in CEE?
There’s a new report out from FT Strategies (commissioned by CIMA and CIPE) on investing in independent media in Central and Eastern Europe.
It is one of the more useful recent contributions to the conversation about the future of media financing in the region, not because it promises easy money, but because it frames the real constraints and introduces concepts that media founders will increasingly need to understand.
The report’s core focus is blended finance, which is simply the idea of combining philanthropic capital, public sector resources, and private investment in the same vehicle. The philanthropic and public money is used to reduce risk for private capital. It can take the form of first-loss guarantees, concessionary terms, or other structures designed to make investors more comfortable entering a market that, on purely commercial terms, they would stay away from.
This matters because there is very little pure market capital available for media in Central and Eastern Europe. In our region, the risks are high, the margins are thin, the political environment can be unpredictable, and the exit horizons are uncertain. From a traditional investor’s perspective, these are not attractive fundamentals. As a result, if you are running a media company in CEE and dreaming that one day a a financial investor will swoop in and write a cheque based solely on financial upside, you will probably be disappointed. It is not impossible, but it is very rare.
If all of this is alien to you, I completely understand, a few years ago I had no idea what any of the previous three paragraphs meant. But I would argue you should familiarize yourselves with these concepts and terms.
If media organizations want to attract investment, even blended impact investment, they need to speak the language of finance. Understanding concepts like risk-adjusted return, capital allocation, investment readiness, governance expectations, and de-risking is about communicating seriousness, clarity of strategy, and the ability to use outside capital responsibly. Investors, including impact investors, may not expect news founders to become bankers. They do expect them to understand the fundamentals of the capital they are asking for.
In a context where external capital is scarce and competition for philanthropic support is growing, fluency in this language will increasingly determine who gets funded and who does not.
This conversation also arrives at a very relevant moment in Europe. As debates about the next EU budget continue, one of the most important questions is how public money can be used not only to fund journalism through grants, but also to catalyze private investment. The European Competitiveness Fund should also play a role in strengthening Europe’s information environment, and instruments such as loan guarantees, first-loss facilities, and concessional capital pools need to be considered alongside direct grantmaking. Grants ensure survival. Blended capital enables growth and resilience. Both are necessary if independent media is going to compete, scale, and innovate.
(We are hosting an informal, online discussion on how the EU budget negotiations are unfolding for partners and paying subscribers on Tuesday, 18 November, 15:30–17:00. We’ll walk through the state of play, what’s realistic, where the risks are, and what to prepare for. If you want in, become a partner or pick up a subscription and we’ll send the invites tomorrow.)
Openness as a path to sustainability: The Salt Lake Tribune experiment
As many publishers cut print editions and tighten paywalls, The Salt Lake Tribune is pursuing the opposite path: testing whether open access and local investment can underpin long-term sustainability. The outlet, the first U.S. daily to adopt non-profit status in 2019, has since expanded through a mix of community-led and locally tailored products. Its latest initiative, The Southern Utah Tribune, a free monthly print newspaper mailed to 40,000 homes in Washington County, targets a fast-growing area where residents said they had “no source of truth” for local news. The project aligns with a wider plan to make all Tribune journalism free, including the removal of its paywall in early 2026.
Building from audience insight. To shape the new publication, editors held listening sessions with residents and created a local advisory committee to guide coverage priorities and format. Water conservation emerged as the top concern, along with requests for a community calendar and opportunities for local voices. The 24-page debut issue reflected those findings. “We believe that the first thing we have to do is build something that people want,” CEO Lauren Gustus told Nieman Lab. Rather than beginning with a mission statement, the team started with audience evidence, treating relevance as something to be earned, not assumed.
Using free print to build presence and revenue. Launching a free paper in 2025 was strategic, if counterintuitive, move to strengthen the Tribune’s presence in a region where social media dominates and local reporting is scarce. The print serves both as a branding tool for journalism and a revenue driver that could support operations. The physical format gives advertisers and funders something tangible to associate with, turning visibility into proof of value. The publishers expect the operation to become revenue-positive by the first quarter of 2026.
Testing new models at smaller scale. The Southern Utah publication acts as a pilot for the organization’s broader transition to open access. Supported by $1.5 million in pledged funding, the Tribune is using smaller markets to observe how free access interacts with advertising, donations and audience behavior before expanding the model. Similar initiatives, such as a newsletter in Cache Valley and a free weekly paper in Moab, serve the same purpose. Together, they suggest that sustainability may depend less on one formula than on adapting structure and content to each community’s context.
Designing for diversification. From the start, the Southern Utah project was built on multiple income: local and statewide advertising, philanthropic support, and small-donor giving. The non-profit model enables access to grants unavailable to commercial publishers and ensures that any surplus is reinvested in journalism instead of being distributed to shareholders. As Gustus puts it, “if we do those things [build trust and community], we believe the business model will follow.” It’s an experiment in whether mission can lead the model.
This last piece is part of a series focusing on local and community journalism and is supported by the LimeNet project and the European Union.
Here are the active calls, with the largest at the top:
Building a trustworthy social media sphere: countering disinformation on social media for young Europeans
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 3,100,000
What is it for: Combat disinformation and boost media literacy in EU youth
How long: 18-24 months
Deadline: December 2nd, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories)
CREA - Journalism Partnerships Pluralism
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 2,500,000
What is it for: Funding local, regional, and investigative media strengthening democracy
How long: Up to 24 months
Deadline: February 4th, 2026
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
CREA - Journalism Partnerships Collaboration
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 2,000,000
What is it for: Support collaborative projects boosting media sustainability, innovation, and transformation
How long: Up to 24 months
Deadline: February 4th, 2026
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
CREA - European slate development
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 90,000 - 510,000
What is it for: Support to develop slates of fiction, animation, or documentary projects for cinema, TV, or digital release
How long: Up to 36 months
Deadline: December 3rd, 2025
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
CREA - Media Literacy
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 500,000
What is it for: Support innovative cross-border media literacy projects
How long: Up to 24 months
Deadline: March 11th, 2026
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
Information measures for the EU Cohesion policy for 2025
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 200,000
What is it for: Producing and disseminating content on EU Cohesion policy
How long: 12 months
Deadline: January 15th, 2026
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories)
CREA - European co-development
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 120,000 – 200,000 (depending on the number of partners and project type)
What is it for: Co-development of audio-visual projects (fiction, animation, or documentary) by independent European production companies
How long: Up to 30 months
Deadline: February 25th, 2026
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
CREA - TV and online content - Documentary project
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 70,000 - 2,000,000
What is it for: Develop and produce documentary works (one-off or series) intended for TV or digital platforms
How long: Up to 36 months
Deadline: December 3rd, 2025
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states, including overseas countries and territories, and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
Global Media Defence Fund - NEW
Who: UNESCO
How much: Up to USD 50,000
What is it for: Bolstering journalists’ legal safety and advancing media freedom through investigative journalism and strategic litigation
How long: Up to 18 months
Deadline: January 2nd, 2026
Eligible countries: Global
Ukraine: Relief, Resilience, Recovery - Media support
Who: German Marshall Fund
How much: Up to USD 25,000
What is it for: Support media’s role in informing audiences
How long: 3-12 months
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: 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
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: January 22nd, 2026
Eligible countries: European countries
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: January 22nd, 2026
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: January 22nd, 2026
Eligible countries: European countries
Work/Environment Reporting Grants
Who: Pulitzer Center
How much: Up to USD 20,000
What is it for: Report on climate change and its effects on workers and work
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global
WBF Matching Grants
Who: Western Balkans Fund
How much: Up to EUR 10,000
What is it for: Support to 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
Media Grants for 30×30 Marine Conservation Coverage - NEW
Who: Earth Journalism Network
How much: USD 10,000
What is it for: Fund reporting and training focused on 30x30 ocean goals
How long: 12 months
Deadline: November 24th, 2025
Eligible countries: Global (coastal countries)
Michael Jacobs Travel Writing Grant - NEW
Who: Michael Jacobs Foundation for Travel Writing
How much: USD 10,000
What is it for: Support a travel book or article on Latin America or Spain
Deadline: December 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: Global
International Mobility Grants for the Western Balkan Media Professionals - NEW
Who: Goethe-Institut and DW Akademie
How much: EUR 5,000
What is it for: Strengthen Western Balkans PSM journalists’ EU standards skills
Deadline: December 5th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro 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