A thri­ving jour­na­li­stic media land­scape streng­thens democracy

Publix descri­bes itself as ‘a new home for all those who want to do jour­na­lism, shape the public sphere and streng­then demo­cracy’. A loca­tion for jour­na­li­stic inno­va­tion was opened in Berlin in Septem­ber to ensure an inde­pen­dent and diverse media landscape. 

What prompted you to found Publix?

Hans Schöpf­lin: About 20 years ago, when I was living in the US, I became a foun­ding member of Voice of San Diego. Even back then, the decline in adver­ti­sing reve­nues asso­cia­ted with digi­ta­li­sa­tion was alre­ady evident, and with it, the disin­te­gra­tion of the busi­ness model. Estab­lished media outlets were under incre­asing pressure.

How did this make itself known?

HS: Cost-cutting resul­ted in a huge loss for local jour­na­lism – and relia­ble, credi­ble infor­ma­tion. These insights led me to get invol­ved in non-profit jour­na­lism projects in San Diego in 2005. The Publix idea was born from this expe­ri­ence and an email from David Schra­ven, foun­der of the non-profit rese­arch orga­ni­sa­tion CORRECTIV, with the propo­sal to bring non-profit jour­na­lism to Germany. 

How did the speci­fic project come about?

HS: We really star­ted out with a blank sheet of paper. This was follo­wed by a multi-year, inten­sive parti­ci­pa­tory deve­lo­p­ment process invol­ving media profes­sio­nals and jour­na­li­stic non-profit orga­ni­sa­ti­ons before we opened Publix this September. 

What is your long-term goal with Publix?

HS: Our long-term goal with Publix, and indeed with the foun­da­tion, is to preserve a vibrant demo­cracy. This is our top prio­rity. Demo­cracy is under unpre­ce­den­ted pres­sure today. We are seeing forces syste­ma­ti­cally ques­tio­ning and weak­e­ning demo­cra­tic struc­tures, whether they come from Russia, China or popu­list govern­ments within Europe. We are at a point where it is no longer enough to defend oursel­ves verbally – we need to be proac­tive. Foun­da­ti­ons can make an important contri­bu­tion here by promo­ting inde­pen­dent report­ing, expan­ding educa­tio­nal oppor­tu­ni­ties in the field of media liter­acy, and raising criti­cal aware­ness in society. 

Meaning?

HS: We need to reco­g­nise that we are no longer in the opti­mi­stic post-war era, but in an era of multi-laye­red thre­ats. It is about actively protec­ting and deve­lo­ping values such as democracy.

The Media Forward Fund (MFF), set up by seve­ral foun­da­ti­ons in Berlin, Vienna and Zurich at the begin­ning of June, is also pursuing this goal. The fund was laun­ched with a call for project submis­si­ons from Germany, Austria and Switz­er­land. The projects should promote quality jour­na­lism. Have you met with a response?

Martin Koty­nek: You bet. We recei­ved 136 exci­ting appli­ca­ti­ons propo­sing inno­va­tive approa­ches for new busi­ness models. And we have come to the conclu­sion that capi­tal is often lack­ing in the growth phase. We want to change that a little bit. We provide support where a strong model has been deve­lo­ped, the product is marke­ta­ble and the first sales are alre­ady being generated. 

Do you want to close this gap in the media funding land­scape with the MFF?

MK: Exactly, after the idea phase, it is crucial that promi­sing projects for the common good find a bridge to the capi­tal market – and this is exactly where we come in. Our aim is to help ensure that inno­va­tive media is not perma­nently depen­dent on funding. They ought to be able to estab­lish a sustainable busi­ness model. This allows them to focus on their core mission, on jour­na­lism, and thus contri­bute to streng­thening demo­cracy in turn.

They star­ted out with six million in capi­tal. Has any other funding come along? 

MK: Yes, fort­u­na­tely we have recei­ved an addi­tio­nal 3 million euros in the last three months, so the fund has raised 9 million euros from 13 spon­sors. I am confi­dent that more funding will be forth­co­ming soon. It is grati­fy­ing that many private donors and foun­da­ti­ons see the need to join forces and provide funding in a common pool.

What is the advan­tage of this pooling? 

MK: In the current complex crisis of trans­for­ma­tion jour­na­lism is under­go­ing in the DACH region, the pool offers the major bene­fit of mini­mi­sing the risk compared to indi­vi­dual media funding. By funding an indi­vi­dual media outlet, phil­an­thro­pists and foun­da­ti­ons run the risk of being caught up in its mista­kes, while the MFF, on the other hand, assu­mes primary respon­si­bi­lity for funding.

The invest­ment beco­mes less poli­ti­cally explosive…

MK: Yes, that’s right.

Mr Schöpf­lin, with Publix, you are truly going out on a limb. Have there been any reac­tions to this move?

HS: We have recei­ved a very posi­tive response to the foun­ding of Publix. Finan­ci­ally, we are inde­pen­dent, which is a great advan­tage and gives us strength. We have set out our values and we stand by them.

And you want to use them to shape the media landscape?

HS: We want to bring toge­ther people who are active in defen­ding demo­cracy. These include orga­ni­sa­ti­ons that promote digi­tal skills and trans­pa­rency, as well as jour­na­lists. At Publix, we create a space where these inte­rests come toge­ther. Our approach is not only to provide finan­cial support, but also to actively shape the media land­scape with new ideas and to streng­then cont­act within the community. 

How has this worked out so far?

HS: We often hear that what we do here at Publix is unique – and that shows us that we are on the right track. The first events in the ‘Publix Thurs­days’ series were sold out. We are deligh­ted with this – it’s very promising. 

Is phil­an­thro­pic media funding a neces­sary source of funds to preserve the media land­scape in the long term?

HS: The respon­si­bi­lity should not be shifted solely to foun­da­ti­ons. There is a growing number of private indi­vi­du­als and entre­pre­neurs who are willing to get invol­ved in the NGO sector. In Berlin, for instance, we bring toge­ther start-up entre­pre­neurs who have successfully sold their compa­nies and are now conside­ring how they can make an impact in the nonpro­fit sector. This dialo­gue is promi­sing and shows new ways in which such actors can invest in soci­ally rele­vant projects. This initia­tive has alre­ady enab­led us to mobi­lise seve­ral million in funding, for instance, to support projects like CORRECTIV. This shows that there are always new sources of funding and spon­sors that were not active before – and that is a valuable change!

How do you guaran­tee that foun­da­ti­ons, as spon­sors, do not influence the work of journalists?

MK: The MFF is struc­tu­red in such a way that there is a clear sepa­ra­tion. An inde­pen­dent jury deci­des on its own which projects are funded – the funding foun­da­ti­ons and impact inves­tors have no influence whatsoe­ver on which media outlets receive the funds. So Hans Schöpf­lin doesn’t know who has applied. This strict inde­pen­dence, or ‘distance from the state’, is key to the MFF’s ability to involve public support in the long term. 

So the MFF is curr­ently provi­ding tran­si­tio­nal funding?

MK: Our aim is to use private funds as an upfront contri­bu­tion to show that inde­pen­dent media funding works and deli­vers top results. In the long term, this could be a model for the public sector – such as the fede­ral, state or canto­nal autho­ri­ties – to contri­bute their own resour­ces to the fund without endan­ge­ring media inde­pen­dence. Austria shows us how important this struc­ture is: govern­ment agen­cies there often directly decide on the allo­ca­tion of public funding and lucra­tive govern­ment adver­ti­sing, which can lead to depen­dency and corrup­tion. Our model, on the other hand, is inten­ded to offer a clear alter­na­tive and prove that there is another way. 

Does this work for all three countries?

MK: Yes, abso­lut­ely. But with an adapted stra­tegy. In Germany, both the fede­ral govern­ment and the fede­ral states could be conside­red funding part­ners, while in Switz­er­land, the canto­nal level is curr­ently the more promi­sing approach because of the rejec­tion of the media package by the elec­to­rate in 2022. We are alre­ady in discus­sions with two cantons. In Austria, on the other hand, coope­ra­tion with the fede­ral govern­ment is more compli­ca­ted, which is why we tend to focus more on the regio­nal level, speci­fi­cally on the city of Vienna. 

Where does the MFF stand with the cantons in Switzerland?

MK: The recently announ­ced staff cuts at Tame­dia pose a serious threat to the diver­sity of news in French-spea­king Switz­er­land. To prevent French-spea­king Switz­er­land from turning into a news desert, we want to proac­tively estab­lish our own regio­nal funding line. To this end, we are alre­ady holding initial discus­sions with local backers. The plan is to involve the canto­nal govern­ments in the process. At the same time, we are addres­sing media profes­sio­nals directly. All appli­ca­tion proces­ses will be fully available in French. On 19 Novem­ber, we presen­ted the MFF at an event in Lausanne. At the same time, targe­ted networ­king meetings were held with donors and media profes­sio­nals in French-spea­king Switz­er­land. Inci­den­tally, we also take a simi­lar approach in eastern Germany, where we target media in struc­tu­rally weak regi­ons. In both regi­ons – French-spea­king Switz­er­land and eastern Germany – we are incre­asingly seeing a kind of jour­na­li­stic ‘steppe forma­tion’. That is why we are focu­sing parti­cu­larly on streng­thening and promo­ting media diver­sity in these regions.

To what extent could the reader­ship be held accoun­ta­ble if they are not prepared to pay? 

MK: Consum­ing news for free is a matter of course for many. Crea­ting content is now chea­per than ever. This has chan­ged funda­men­tally with the intro­duc­tion of AI. But quality, relia­bi­lity and fair­ness – jour­na­li­stic virtues – still cost money. These are also ques­ti­ons of media liter­acy. Which are the relia­ble sources? We need to commu­ni­cate this more clearly so that readers can better distin­gu­ish between trust­wor­thy and less relia­ble sources. Today, this is a real challenge.

Wouldn’t the money be better inves­ted in media training?

MK: The tradi­tio­nal print model is under pres­sure. It can’t just be repla­ced like for like by digi­tal e‑paper subscrip­ti­ons with the same content. We need inno­va­tive online jour­na­lism in a variety of formats. This requi­res new busi­ness models and a broad spec­trum of funding opti­ons to create a sustainable foun­da­tion for high-quality jour­na­lism. This is exactly where we come in: we want to promote diver­sity in public-inte­rest jour­na­lism and make the findings from our funding projects publicly available. This will allow other media crea­tors to draw inspi­ra­tion and tap into new, sustainable funding sources.

What is the power of non-profit journalism? 

MK: In the US, for instance, non-profit jour­na­lism is now well estab­lished. At the Online News Asso­cia­tion Confe­rence in Atlanta, which I atten­ded recently, non-profit jour­na­lism was taken for gran­ted as a model – in contrast to a decade ago. Back then, it was still conside­red a niche solu­tion. Today, it has a wide range of reve­nue sources, from subscrip­ti­ons, dona­ti­ons and foun­da­tion funding to inno­va­tive ideas such as cafés and theatre formats. 

Where do we stand with non-profit journalism?

MK: There are pioneers like Bajour in Switz­er­land, Dossier in Austria and CORRECTIV in Germany. Non-profit status allows jour­na­lism in the DACH region to bene­fit from addi­tio­nal sources of reve­nue in order to achieve the neces­sary finan­cial stabi­lity and survive the transformation. 

A func­tio­ning demo­cracy needs press free­dom. In Switz­er­land, too, there are repea­ted attempts to rest­rict it. Does it stand in the way of an entre­pre­neu­rial model?

MK: Press free­dom is, unfort­u­na­tely, under pres­sure from many quar­ters today – and not just from the state. This makes it all the more important that jour­na­lism is finan­ci­ally sustainable, as commer­cial inde­pen­dence is the foun­da­tion of edito­rial inde­pen­dence. If the media are not depen­dent on a single source of reve­nue, but can draw on a variety of reve­nue streams, they have the free­dom to report inde­pendently and criti­cally. Our funding for grea­ter media diver­sity is desi­gned exactly for that purpose: to ensure press free­dom and thus streng­then demo­cracy. Without press free­dom, demo­cracy is in jeopardy, as where there is no free access to infor­ma­tion and discus­sion is no longer possi­ble, there can be no infor­med decisions.

Is libe­ral demo­cracy a prere­qui­site for the deve­lo­p­ment and growth of inde­pen­dent jour­na­lism, or is inde­pen­dent jour­na­lism neces­sary for libe­ral demo­cracy to flourish?

MK: Libe­ral demo­cracy without a free press is just as unthinkable as vice versa. Jour­na­lism is the foun­da­tion on which we are able to form a sound opinion and make the right decis­i­ons for our day-to-day lives in a demo­cracy in the first place. It provi­des a plat­form for social debate and ensu­res that the facts under­ly­ing this debate are relia­ble and acces­si­ble. After all, a demo­cracy thri­ves on constant exch­ange with itself, and that requi­res free jour­na­lism to enable this dialogue. 

So in the inte­rest of the common good?

HS: This was precis­ely one of the key points when conside­ring the MFF. We reali­sed that for a long time there was little enthu­si­asm for inno­va­tion in the media sector. This was perhaps also due to the fact that profits in tradi­tio­nal busi­ness models remained stable for many years, resul­ting in a certain struc­tu­ral stagna­tion. But now we have the oppor­tu­nity to shape and foster the digi­tal age in the inte­rests of a vibrant and demo­cra­ti­cally func­tio­ning media land­scape. If we manage to inte­grate these new tech­no­lo­gies in a meaningful way, it can create an incre­di­bly posi­tive dyna­mic for jour­na­lism and democracy.