Macroscope has developed a new discussion paper for GFMD on the emerging phenomenon of National Funds for Journalism. The draft paper is open for comments and inputs via Google Docs, and there is also a growing database of such funds to which others can contribute further examples.
Summary:
The discussion paper looks at the emergence around the world of ‘national funds for journalism’ (NFJs) as a particular instrument for providing strategic, long-term financial support to independent public interest media and media sectors and ecosystems.
It builds on recent research and consultations undertaken by GFMD IMPACT which show that, in a wide range of places, different actors are exploring or actively advocating for 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.
National Fund for Journalism (NFJ) is a dedicated structure that is designed with a strategic sectoral purpose to provide long-term funding to an independent journalism ecosystem in a particular country, region or place. It can take different forms, but in essence is designed to redress shortcomings, barriers or imbalances in a particular media market, or to incentivise, catalyse or accelerate new entrants or transformative processes in that market.
While there have been examples of NFJs in the past, there is a range of important factors driving the current wave of interest, including:
- Growing international recognition that journalism and media represent a powerful and strategic sector that contributes to democracy, economy and community – and that, as a public good, should be supported in part by public funding
- Increasing clarity that past paradigms of media support and media markets are not sufficient to counteract or fix widespread market failure
- Stronger demands across the Global South for more resources and more decision-making powers to be put directly in Global South hands, alongside pressure on Global North actors to go through processes of decolonisation
- The need to create stable, long-term funding structures that can unlock funding at scale from governments, ODA, philanthropies and tech companies, while clearly demonstrating funding sources have no influence over how funds are spent
Few actors outside of governments, bilateral donors, Big Tech and international financial institutions have the scale of resources or influence necessary to help independent media ecosystems overcome this crisis. Calls for governments in particular to do more to support and sustain media financially have accelerated during the Covid-19 pandemic, at the height of which some governments acknowledged the public benefit provided by media by designating them an ‘essential service’, and journalists as ‘key workers’.
Despite the need to unlock large-scale funding, many in the independent media sector are understandably wary of – or even opposed to – government-backed efforts to intervene in the journalism sector, however well-intentioned. There are contexts in which it may be plausible to establish NFJs that can act independently and in the public interest, but in many countries, governments are not good faith actors with regard to funding for independent media. For example, there is ample evidence of widespread abuse of government advertising budgets, the capture of regulatory bodies, the weaponisation of agencies like tax authorities, imposition of burdensome government and licensing fees, and myriad other repressive, regressive or even contradictory policies and practices aimed at weakening the media. In such contexts, a government-linked NFJ would likely be seen as politically compromised.
Does this mean, however, that NFJs should only be considered in the handful of rights-respecting places where there is no or little risk of political interference? The indications from GFMD’s research and consultations show that, despite these risks, stakeholders in a wide variety of countries and contexts are actively exploring how such funds could work, often as part of holistic plans for media reform or multi-faceted attempts to introduce more progressive media policies.
While not a Practice Guide, the discussion paper seeks to distil and crystallise some of these key questions, principles and approaches that stakeholders – media, funders, civil society, and government – may need to consider as they contemplate if, how and with whom to develop such a fund.
Read more of the summary here, and access the full discussion paper draft here.
Macroscope 