Rational optimism for local journalism
Google's scariest experiment, journalism's largest exit interview, MFF consultation, chocolate recommendations for Perugia and 17 active calls.
Welcome!
This week on the Media Finance Monitor:
Rational optimism for local journalism
Google’s scariest experiment
Journalism's largest exit interview
Tell the EU to allocate more funding for journalism!
Hit me up in Perugia
17 active calls (7 new)
Rational optimism for local journalism
I borrowed this title from the Manchester Mill, a local media startup Joshi Herrmann launched in 2020 that now has sister sites in five other UK cities. What began with just Joshi during the pandemic has grown to a staff of 20+ with revenues exceeding €1 million. It sounds like a fairy tale - high-quality local watchdog journalism with both an audience and a viable business model - but it's actually real, offering important lessons for anyone working in local journalism today.
I know this, because Joshi visited Budapest during the weekend on our invitation. He was the keynote speaker of the LIMENet journalism conference (organised in collaboration with MDIG with support from the Creative Europe programme) with dozens of local and regional newsrooms in attendance from nine European countries. Joshi spoke at length about how the Manchester Mill came about and shared some of the things they learned along the way. We are still recovering from what has been a very intense few days, but I want to briefly reflect on some of the excellent points he made (and hopefully not butcher them too much in the process).
You learn from testing
It's impossible to develop the perfect editorial, engagement, monetization or whatever strategy from behind a desk. The sooner you start publishing content, the sooner you'll understand what your audience truly wants.
With digital journalism, where you can access real-time data on what people engage with, it's increasingly difficult to fool yourself - yet some newsrooms still manage to do it. Change is hard, and local journalism had rough times in recent years. But deciphering what people actually want isn't the complex puzzle many make it out to be. Even very lean newsrooms can deliver compelling content if they're willing to test, learn, and adapt based on audience behavior rather than institutional assumptions.
Interesting before important
Public Interest Journalism Is Very Important, If Only Those Silly Readers Would Take It Seriously. Let's be honest, reporters and editors can sometimes be a little arrogant. Not just others—I did this plenty of times myself. Wanting to be a capital "J" "Journalist" doing capital "J" Journalism. And of course, public interest watchdog reporting is critical, but if you only focus on that, often very few people are going to engage.
It's time to prioritize interesting, engaging stories. Some of these will indeed be "Important" in a very traditional journalistic sense, while others will simply be good stories worth reading. But, as we discussed a few weeks ago, audiences are not just voters to be educated or citizens to be informed—they're people with diverse interests, limited time, and many competing options for their attention.
Reporting effort correlates with success
We are fortunate that people tend to appreciate the stories that many good journalists actually enjoy writing. Take length, for example. Almost no reporter relishes writing very short news pieces, and most journalists enjoy working on longer, more nuanced assignments. As it turns out, people—especially those who pay for journalism—also prefer longer stories. This doesn't mean a longer piece is automatically better than a short one, but better-reported stories tend to be longer, and readers genuinely seem to value that depth.
Joshi also made an excellent point about how frontloading every article with information is a legacy from print journalism days. When space was limited and pieces were often cut significantly to fit the page, putting all important details at the beginning made practical sense. But publishing online eliminates these constraints. This approach is no longer particularly useful or engaging. Online, you have space to develop a narrative, build tension, and bring readers along on a journey—and you should use it.
People are buying AND supporting
Paying for an outlet like the Manchester Mill (or many others) is rarely a straightforward decision. It's not exclusively driven by transactional motivation ("I give you money, you give me information in exchange") nor is it purely emotional or values-based ("I support your work because I think it's important for our community"). The reality is typically a complex mixture of both.
Successful local news outlets understand this dual nature of the reader-publication relationship. They recognize that to convert casual readers into paying supporters, they need to offer both compelling value and a meaningful mission. This means creating content worth paying for - journalism that readers can't easily find elsewhere - while also articulating a clear purpose that resonates with community values.
Needing reader revenue matters
Reader revenue brings more than just financial benefits to newsrooms. It creates a fundamental accountability mechanism that forces publications to truly focus on audience needs—which is ultimately what genuine public service journalism means.
When readers directly fund your work, you can't hide behind pageview metrics or advertiser preferences. You must consistently deliver value that readers consider worth paying for. This direct relationship creates a healthy pressure to understand what your audience genuinely values, not what you assume they should value.
This doesn't mean pandering or abandoning journalistic judgment. I believe newsrooms sometimes need to challenge their readers, which isn't easy to do when you rely heavily on their support. But most publications in most contexts can absolutely increase their focus on user needs and become better for it. The discipline of reader revenue doesn't diminish journalistic integrity—it enhances it by creating a direct line of accountability to the people you serve.
Necessary optimists
Some say doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is insanity. But in the context of local journalism, I think that’s just necessary optimism.
The Manchester Mill's success story shows that even in an era where we've grown accustomed to local news obituaries rather than birth announcements, there's room for well-executed, audience-focused journalism to thrive. Their approach isn't revolutionary - many of these principles have been discussed for years. What's different is the disciplined execution and clear-eyed focus on what actually works.
The most refreshing aspect of Joshi's presentation wasn't just the practical insights, but the underlying optimism it conveyed. Not blind optimism that ignores market realities, but a grounded belief that quality local journalism still has a place in people's lives and in their budgets—if we're willing to adapt how we create and deliver it.
Google’s scariest experiment
In late 2024, Google ran an alarming experiment: they removed news content from Search, Discover, and Google News for 1% of users across eight European countries (Italy, Spain, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Denmark, and Croatia). Their goal? Testing whether users would still come to Google if news wasn't available and how any resulting user decline might affect their overall ad revenue.
“The data showed that Search ad revenue did not change despite daily average users (DAUs) declining by 0.8 percent, which is consistent with users continuing to use Google for more commercial queries even as they used it less for news queries. The overall ad revenue impact across Search, Discover, Display Ads and other Google properties also could not be statistically distinguished from zero, either overall or by country.”
I think the fact that Google ran this experiment and the specific results should scare the hell out of European news publishers.
If you've been reading this newsletter, you know I've never been a fan of "link-tax" style levies. My concern has been that we should encourage platforms like Google to distribute more news content, not less. If they have to pay a "tax" for carrying news—and pay more the more news they feature—they'll simply stop carrying it. That's not an outcome anyone in journalism should want.
The rationale behind link-tax proposals is that Google profits significantly from news content, which supposedly generates substantial traffic and advertising revenue. This experiment was designed to confirm or disprove that assumption.
I see this as a calculated move by Google to demonstrate to both European publishers and policymakers that they don't need news content to remain commercially successful. The message is clear: if pushed too far, they're perfectly prepared to walk away from the news ecosystem entirely.
Journalism's largest exit interview
Isabelle Roughol recently updated her mega collection of testimonials from people explaining why they left journalism. While this might not seem like a direct funding issue, it connects deeply to financial sustainability. Talent recruitment, development, and retention present critical challenges for many newsrooms, and losing skilled people can have serious consequences for both quality and viability.
Understanding why people leave the industry should be a priority for newsroom managers and media executives. Finding patterns in these departures can help address systemic issues before they lead to more talent drain. Isabelle's comprehensive piece (and following her insights on LinkedIn) is a good place to start.
Tell the EU to allocate more funding for journalism!
There is an open online consultation about the next MFF, the EU’s seven year budget. We’ve spent quite a bit of time last week describing why the next big budget might matter for journalism, so if you want to have your voice heard, taking part in the consultation is a good way to do it. It’s open until the 6th of May.
Hit me up in Perugia
I'll be in Perugia next week, as I imagine many of you will be too. You can catch me Thursday afternoon on a panel organized by the European Journalism Center, where we'll be discussing funding-related issues. With Lars Boering moderating, I'm expecting quite an animated conversation.
When not fulfilling my professional obligations, my rigorously planned conference strategy includes: devouring all the pistachio gianduiotto at Pasticceria Sandri for breakfast, savoring red gorgonzola pasta at La Taverna for lunch, and enjoying mezcal sours at Brufani in the evenings. You can likely find me at any of these establishments or somewhere in transit between them.
Better yet, drop me an email so we can arrange to meet up. (Fair warning: due to the very busy and productive conference schedule outlined above, we may skip an edition next week.)
Here are the active calls, with the largest at the top:
Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (CERV)
Who: European Commission
How much: EUR 75,000 - 8,000,000
What is it for: Counter disinformation, information manipulation and interference in the democratic debate
How long: 12 - 24 months
Deadline: April 29th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU member states (including overseas countries and territories), countries associated to the CERV Programme or countries which are in ongoing negotiations for an association agreement and where the agreement enters into force before grant signature
CREA - TV and online content - NEW
Who: European Commission
How much: Up to EUR 2,000,000.
What is it for: Boost audiovisual producers' capacity to develop projects
How long: Up to 36 months
Deadline: May 14th, 2024
Eligible countries: Creative Europe participating countries (EU member states and non-EU countries associated to the Creative Europe Programme)
Global Fact Check Fund - NEW
Who: IFCN
How much: Up to USD 100,000
What is it for: Support fact-checking initiatives and curb misinformation
Deadline: April 9th, 2025
Eligible countries: Global
Enhancing Media Resilience and Quality News Journalism
Who: Open Society Institute – Sofia
How much: Up to EUR 60,000
What is it for: Enhance media resilience and promote quality news journalism
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: April 7th, 2025
Eligible countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Hungary, and Slovenia.
Boosting Fact-Checking Activities in Europe
Who: European Media and Information Fund
How much: Up to EUR 55,000
What is it for: Support fact-checking to counter 2025 election disinformation.
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: June 30th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU, EFTA and UK
Legal Defense Fund - NEW
Who: IFCN
How much: Up to USD 40,000
What is it for: Support fact-checkers facing legal or harassment threats
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global (IFCN verified signatories)
Visegrad Grants
Who: Visegrad Fund
How much: Up to EUR 30,000
What is it for: Media literacy, disinformation, transparency
How long: Up to 18 months
Deadline: June 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: V4 countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia). * Consortia required.
Visegrad+ Grants
Who: Visegrad Fund
How much: Up to EUR 30,000
What is it for: Media literacy, disinformation, transparency
How long: Up to 18 months
Deadline: June 1st, 2025
Eligible countries: V4 countries (Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia), Western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia) and the Eastern Partnership regions (Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
Business Continuity Fund - NEW
Who: IFCN
How much: Up to USD 20,000
What is it for: Support for fact-checkers disrupted by disasters/conflict/repression
Deadline: Ongoing
Eligible countries: Global (IFCN verified signatories)
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: May 22nd, 2025
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: May 22nd, 2025
Eligible countries: European countries
New Media Incubator - NEW
Who: International Press Institute
How much: Up to EUR 15,000
What is it for: Support early-stage European media to grow and scale their news product
How long: Up to 8 months
Deadline: June 6th, 2025
Eligible countries: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, North Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden or Ukraine.
Eastern Partnership “Civil Society Innovations for Open Government”
Who: Open Government Partnership
How much: EUR 15,000
What is it for: Support innovative tools for transparency, governance, and civic engagement
How long: Up to 12 months
Deadline: April 10th, 2025
Eligible countries: Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.
Pluralistic Media for Democracy
Who: Journalismfund Europe and IMS
How much: Unclear (call amount: EUR 700,000)
What is it for: Support media in "news deserts"
Deadline: June 12th, 2025
Eligible countries: EU 27 countries, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia.
Global Reporting Grants - NEW
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
Validation Booster - NEW
Who: Thomson Foundation
How much: Up to GBP 5,000
What is it for: Testing new business ideas
Deadline: Extended, April 8th, 2025
Eligible countries: Poland, Hungary, Romania & Slovakia
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
Until the next issue, thanks for reading and take care.
Peter Erdelyi and the rest of the Center for Sustainable Media team