The best journalism support system has no humans in the loop
Newsroom-creator collaborations in the US backed by philanthropic funding, how local newsrooms become financially sustainable and 28 active calls.
Welcome!
This week on Media Finance Monitor
The best journalism support system has no humans in the loop
The US is betting on creator-newsroom collaborations, Europe is waiting for someone else to figure it out
The small shifts that show up as local newsrooms grow stronger
28 active calls (2 new)
Media Finance Monitor is where newsroom leaders, funders, and media entrepreneurs come to understand how money really moves through the information ecosystem.
We decode funding, business models, policy, and platform shifts and turn them into strategies you can actually use.
Paid subscribers get premium editions, full access to the archive and all our research reports, for about the cost of a pistachio éclair and a good espresso a month.
For deeper engagement, our Partnership Program offers one-on-one strategic advisory, curated briefings, and access to our internal databases and invite-only events.
Join as a free or paid subscriber.
The best journalism support system has no humans in the loop
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen published an excellent overview of the state subsidy system he and collaborators are proposing to the government of Denmark after having chaired the Commission tasked with designing a new way of media support.
(A small disclaimer: I’m not entirely impartial when it comes to Rasmus. He was the director of the Reuters Institute during my fellowship there, and over the years he’s shaped how I think about journalism, platforms, incentives, and the business models beneath them.)
The core innovation is simple: the proposed system determines eligibility and support levels through objective criteria, with almost no room for politicians or civil servants to play favorites. Outlets apply, and a formula, not a jury, decides what they receive.
Eight criteria define eligible news media: clear editorial identity, independence from political influence, minimum two full-time editorial staff (with flexibility for freelancers), public accessibility, regular publication (at least 40 times yearly), current affairs coverage, availability to anyone, and news as the primary purpose. Most of these are verifiable facts, with little judgments about quality or worthiness.
Rasmus also makes a great point in favor of cash-based “core support”:
As development economists have long pointed out, you can try to earmark support you provide in all sorts of ways, but recipients will generally (and understandably) just reallocate other resources around to ensure that their overall spending reflects their priorities, not the donor’s.
Distribution starts with each outlet’s share of total editorial investment across all qualifying applicants. Then three adjustments kick in: local/regional and independent titles get their investment weighted by 1.5x; an absolute cap limits any single outlet to DKK 12.5 million (about $2 million), rising to 18.75 million for local/regional titles; and no outlet can receive more than 35% of its editorial investment as subsidy. The system redistributes a fixed pot of money annually based on these rules, no one is picking winners.
This approach directly addresses problems Rasmus documents in his piece: existing systems prop up incumbents, create unpredictable incentives, and raise legitimate concerns about political influence when distribution mechanisms lack transparency.
Consider the contrast with Austria, where some publishers trade political favors to keep receiving support and we’ve seen media startups try to launch quarterly print magazines purely to qualify for subsidies that prioritize print editions. That’s what happens when incentives misalign with how journalism actually works now. Denmark’s proposed system avoids tying support to specific formats or business models, it’s format- and distribution-agnostic.
That said, I think the proposed framework assumes a world of newsrooms and publishers with clear institutional identities. The two-FTE threshold is relatively accessible (many creator operations could meet it), but the underlying model still presumes traditional media structures. As creators gain more currency in the information ecosystem, will the lines between “newsroom” and “creator” remain clear enough for eligibility criteria like these?
I’m not sure the public sector should be funding all individual content creation regardless of organizational form, that gets complicated fast. But I do think any subsidy system designed today needs to reckon with the reality that institutional boundaries are blurring. Denmark’s proposal doesn’t fully solve this, though its relatively low editorial staff threshold at least leaves the door open.
It was also very interesting to read his proposal as the EU is trying to redesign (or at least fine tune) its own media support programs. A lot of EU subsidies rely on competitive grants evaluated by anonymous juries. That model has its place, but the Danish framework is demonstrating an alternative where direct support flows through mechanical, transparent rules.
The US is betting on creator-newsroom collaborations, Europe is waiting for someone else to figure it out
The Lenfest Institute just launched a $1 million program backing collaborations between local newsrooms and independent creators. The News Creator Collaborative offers grants up to $100,000 for partnerships that combine “the rigor and infrastructure of established newsrooms with the innovation and cultural relevance of creators.” Alongside this, they published a broader argument for why philanthropy should invest in creator-model journalism, voices that are “independent, audience-rooted, and digitally native.”
This addresses exactly what Denmark’s elegant subsidy framework doesn’t quite capture: the blurring lines between institutional newsrooms and individual creators in the information ecosystem. The structural shift is happening whether or not our funding systems acknowledge it.
What makes the Lenfest approach interesting is that it’s explicitly collaborative. Rather than choosing between supporting newsrooms or creators, it incentivizes them to work together, recognizing that these might be mutually beneficial relationships rather than zero-sum competition.
This is a little personal for me.
Last year, we submitted a very similar proposal to the European Commission’s journalism partnership program. Working with strong partners, we pitched a project exploring whether newsrooms and creators could learn from each other, develop new business models, and create better outcomes than either could achieve alone. We thought this was where the information ecosystem was heading.
The Commission didn’t just reject it, we got the most brutal evaluations I’ve received in a decade of EU proposals and the lowest score I’ve ever got.
Since then, I’ve had conversations with several other public and private funders in Europe. There’s interest, absolutely. But execution remains elusive. Everyone’s risk-averse, trying to figure out the “safe” way to support creators. The challenges are real: How do you fund individuals versus institutions? How do you ensure quality control? How do you handle the relative unpredictability of individuals versus established organizations? These aren’t trivial questions.
It’s useful that the US is running these experiments, at minimum, the results will make future European pitches easier to justify. But it’s also hard to watch this pattern repeat itself: the US takes risks and learns, Europe waits for proof, then waits longer, then eventually scrambles to address problems that could have been managed years earlier if anyone had been willing to move first.
For inspiration on what some of this actually looks like in practice, Project C profiled 10 journalists who work at traditional publishers but maintain creator identities across platforms, people from ProPublica, LA Times, Axios, NPR, Philadelphia Inquirer, Morning Brew, and WSJ. The profiles are useful, but the real value is clicking through to see what these journalists are actually doing in the social space. How they balance publisher work with personal brand-building. How they navigate institutional constraints while cultivating direct audience relationships.
Publishers should study these examples. Individual journalists too. The hybrid model, institutional affiliation paired with independent audience development, is already standard practice at major US outlets. European media is getting there, but slowly. Given how risk-averse both public funders and European philanthropy tend to be, the market will probably need to demonstrate viability first before anyone’s willing to back it systematically.
The small shifts that show up as local newsrooms grow stronger
From 2022 to 2024, 357 local news organizations in the U.S. and Canada participated in LION Publishers’ Sustainability Audit and Funding program. Each outlet completed a structured review of its operations, received coaching support, and got a tailored action plan along with funding to put recommended changes into practice. The resulting report brings together the insights that emerged from this work, including how participating organizations were handling their core operational and financial functions. It covers far more than we can dig here, so the points below highlight some patterns that often surfaced during steadier or growing revenue periods.
Basic operational structure often appears right before revenue growth. One notable tendency shows up when newsrooms move away from fully improvised workflows. Outlets that added a payroll system between assessments saw median revenue rise from $16,000 to almost $52,000 during that period. That doesn’t mean payroll alone explains the change, but it suggests that putting small pieces of infrastructure in place can make it easier for revenue to grow or to be managed when it does.
Similar revenue levels can mask very different levels of readiness. Across the report, outlets earning comparable amounts often looked very different behind the scenes. Some had only minimal processes; others had enough structure to take on more work without overwhelming the core team. Revenue alone didn’t seem to define stability; the ability to handle additional demand played a noticeable role.
Impact work often sits alongside stronger financial movement. Outlets that added at least one impact practice (defining impact, tracking it, or using the data) saw median revenue increase by about 145% between assessments. The trend doesn’t imply a direct cause-and-effect relationship, but it does suggest that having a clearer sense of what the newsroom is trying to achieve can support better strategic and financial decisions.
A few steady habits show up again and again in more stable organizations. Some financial practices repeatedly appeared in outlets with more predictable revenue: keeping an annual budget, setting annual revenue goals, maintaining a balance sheet, and tracking member/subscriber interactions. Individually, they’re simple. Together, they paint a picture of organizations that keep close tabs on their financial health, something that often aligns with steadier revenue over time.
Planning often appears alongside the biggest revenue jumps. Some of the strongest jumps in median revenue occurred in outlets that introduced planning tools. Adding an annual budget was associated with 84% growth; introducing revenue targets with 98%; and creating a one- or three-year plan with 137%. Planning doesn’t guarantee growth, but it frequently appeared in periods when revenue was rising more sharply.
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)
JournalismAI Innovation Challenge -NEW
Who: JournalismAI
How much: USD 50,000 - 100,000
What is it for: Experiment, implement and share best practices of AI technologies
How long: 9 months
Deadline: December 3rd, 2025
Eligible countries: Global
Global Media Defence Fund
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
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
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
Content Production Fund - NEW
Who: BIRN
How much: EUR 5,000
What is it for: Produce high-quality, cross-border journalism on local, national, or regional topics
How long: Up to 2.5 months
Deadline: December 10th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia
International Mobility Grants for the Western Balkan Media Professionals
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