2️⃣ Increase the amount and effectiveness of funding
Increase financial and other forms of support to public interest media and the information environment, in order to strengthen democratic resilience.
How to use this section
For a quick self-assessment, see Checklist: Increase Funding
For practical examples and applications, see Go Deeper: Case studies and field insights
In brief
Principle 2 focuses on ensuring that funding for independent media and media development is adequate, predictable, and adapted to the realities of the media sector.
In practice, this means recognising that media organisations and media support actors operate under economic, political, and technological pressures that cannot be addressed through short-term or highly restricted funding alone. Different types of support — including core funding, project funding, and emergency support — play complementary roles.
When funding is limited, fragmented, or overly rigid, it can undermine sustainability, distort incentives, and weaken editorial independence. When designed well, funding can strengthen the resilience, plurality, and long-term viability of the media ecosystem. These dynamics are illustrated in case study 2: funding instability and system-level dependency.
Why this principle matters
Independent media and media development organisations require stable and appropriate financing to function as professional institutions and public-interest actors.
Short-term or narrowly defined funding can create cycles of dependency, limit strategic planning, and shift attention away from editorial priorities toward administrative compliance. It may also exclude smaller or local actors that lack the capacity to navigate complex funding systems (see case study 6: local leadership and adapting compliance frameworks).
These challenges are consistently reflected across the media development sector. Organisations report that short funding cycles, fragmented support, and complex compliance requirements limit their ability to plan, invest, and operate sustainably (see State of Media Development report).
Emerging models also demonstrate that funding structures can be designed to support editorial independence while maintaining accountability, for example through intermediary mechanisms that separate funding decisions from editorial processes.
At the same time, funding interventions can shape the media market. Funding approaches that are not sufficiently aligned with the principles risk distorting local media markets, creating dependency, or undermining sustainability.
Applying this principle helps ensure that funding contributes to pluralistic, independent, and economically viable media systems, rather than creating fragmentation or unintended market effects.
Where this shows up in practice
This principle is most visible in how funding decisions shape the viability, independence, and sustainability of media actors:
Funding modalities - including the balance between core and project-based funding, and between short-term and multi-year support - can limit the ability of media organisations to plan, invest, and operate sustainably
Eligibility and access requirements may exclude smaller or local actors, particularly where administrative thresholds or compliance expectations are not adapted to context
Compliance and reporting requirements can create disproportionate burdens, diverting resources away from core journalistic activities
Coordination across donors and funding instruments may be limited, resulting in fragmented support or overlapping funding streams
Crisis and emergency funding mechanisms may be absent or insufficiently accessible, reducing the ability to respond to rapidly changing conditions
Across multiple survey cycles, media organisations have highlighted that managing multiple short-term grants and reporting requirements can divert significant time and resources away from core journalistic work.
These tensions often arise in balancing flexibility and accountability, speed and due diligence, and independence and donor priorities. How these trade-offs are managed has direct implications for sustainability, market dynamics, and editorial independence.
These dynamics are illustrated in case study 2: funding stability and system-level dependency (RFE/RL).
What this looks like in practice
Do
Provide a mix of funding modalities, including core, project, and emergency support, adapted to context
Use multi-year and predictable funding where possible to enable planning and institutional stability
Ensure funding supports both media organisations and media development/support actors, recognising their interdependent roles
Adapt eligibility, compliance, and reporting requirements to partner capacity and context
Coordinate with other donors to improve coherence, predictability, and coverage
Design funding mechanisms that protect editorial independence, for example by ensuring a clear separation between funders and editorial decision-making.
Avoid
Relying exclusively on short-term or project-based funding for structural challenges
Applying uniform funding models across different media markets and political contexts
Designing funding in ways that influence editorial priorities or undermine independence
Creating administrative burdens that exclude smaller or local actors
Introducing funding that distorts local markets or displaces existing actors
Consider
What combination of funding modalities is needed to support both immediate needs and long-term sustainability
How funding decisions may affect market dynamics, competition, and incentives
Whether current funding structures allow media organisations to maintain editorial independence and audience trust
How to balance flexibility and accountability in different operational contexts
How funding can strengthen the capacity of local actors to access and manage funding directly over time
Field insight
“Short-term funding cycles make it difficult to retain staff or plan beyond immediate outputs. We spend more time applying than building something sustainable.”
- Media development practitioner
Key takeaway
Effective support requires not only increasing funding, but ensuring that it is structured, coordinated, and adapted to the realities of media systems.
Well-designed funding strengthens sustainability, independence, and resilience - and avoids the risks of fragmentation, dependency, and unintended market distortion.
For practical examples of how funding design affects sustainability, access, and system-level outcomes, see:
Further reading:
DW Akademie (2025) – State of Media Development. Sector-wide analysis based on surveys and interviews, examining funding models, coordination, localisation, and system-level approaches to media support.
Dragomir, M. (2025) – Funding Without Strings: The Case for IJ4EU’s Investigative Journalism Support Model. Analysis of funding design approaches that protect editorial independence while supporting investigative journalism.
How this links to other principles
Principle 1 (Do no harm): Funding design choices can introduce risks, including unintended consequences for safety, independence, and local markets
Principle 3 (Whole-of-system): Funding must align with regulatory, technological, and market conditions to be effective
Principle 4 (Local ownership): Access to funding and funding design directly affect the ability of local actors to lead and sustain their work
Last updated
Was this helpful?