“If We Don’t Take the Risk, Who Else Would?” Self-perceptions of Foundations that Financially Support Journalism

ABSTRACT

This study adds to the existing literature on atypical newswork and foundation funding in journalism by exploring considerations and organizational choices foundations make when interacting with journalists in a Western-European context. The study relies on 18 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with representatives of Dutch-based foundations that support journalistic production processes on local, and/or national and international level. Using a combination of the strengths of Howard Becker’s notion of art “worlds” and Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory as theoretical scope, the interview data suggests that in their everyday practices, foundations perceive and navigate three key tensions: (1) between the allocation of grants to journalists and the precarity of (atypical) working conditions many journalists face, (2) between ideological notions of what good journalism “should be about” and the everyday realities of journalism production, and (3) between the powerful position of foundations within the world of journalism and the autonomy of journalists. The organizational choices made by foundations when confronted with these tensions highlight how and to what extent journalistic production processes are both enabled and constrained.

KEYWORDS:

• Precarity
• atypical journalists
• foundation funding
• journalism
• freelance journalists
• organization of work
• Netherlands

Introduction

Foundation funding in journalism is on the rise since the beginning of the twentieth century as a source of support and income stream for journalists in times of dwindling revenue from traditional business models (Benson 2018; Scott, Bunce, and Wright 2019) and stagnating or declining tariffs for freelance work (Hummel, Kirchhoff, and Prandner 2012; Vinken and Mariën 2021). Examples of non-profit organizations involved in foundation funding related to journalism are non-governmental organizations, philanthropic organizations, and foundations financed by government bodies. There are also for-profit backers of newswork, such as venture capital funds, banks and other commercial enterprises (Usher 2017).

Since foundations decide who is eligible for their support and how such support is organized, they hold a position of power within journalism (Birnbauer 2019). This study aims to add to the existing literature on foundation funding and the working conditions of (atypical) journalists by exploring the considerations and organizational choices foundations make in relation to the allocation of grants to individual freelance journalists as well as journalistic organizations (in The Netherlands) with a particular focus on the influence of foundations on the daily working conditions of journalists. Atypical refers to all journalists who are not permanently employed by a legacy media organization (Walters et al. 2006).

Given a dearth of studies regarding the inner workings and decision-making processes of foundations at work in the world of journalism, especially in a Western-European context, in this project we ask:

How do Foundations that Support Journalism Perceive and Navigate Their Position Within the Dutch World of Journalism?

In order to answer our inquiry, the study relies on semi-structured, in-depth interviews with representatives of foundations that support journalistic production processes in The Netherlands—a country with a relatively stable media market, and where at least half of all journalists work in a freelance or otherwise atypical capacity (Corner-Stone 2018). According to a survey among members of the Dutch Journalism Association, the income many freelance journalist in the Netherlands generate with journalistic work is not or hardly enough to make ends meet (Vinken and Mariën 2021). To illustrate the significance of foundation funding, a 2022 survey among Dutch and Belgian journalists indicates that three out of four freelance investigative journalists tried to secure external funding (Pleijter and Opgenhaffen 2023).

Using a combination of strengths of Howard Becker’s notion of art “worlds”, and Pierre Bourdieu’s field theory as our theoretical scope, a qualitative analysis of the interview data suggests that in practice, and each in their own fashion with a significant level of self-awareness, foundations continuously navigate critical tensions when active within the world of journalism. The three key tensions that circumscribe funders’ deliberative process are:

• between the allocation of grants to journalists and addressing the precarity of atypical working conditions most journalists face; precarity refers to both the feeling and the lived experience of financial and existential insecurity (Sybert 2021);

• between occupational-ideological notions of what good journalism “should be about” and the everyday complex and messy realities of journalism production; and

• between the powerful position of foundations within the world of journalism and the cherished autonomy of journalists.

The navigational choices made by foundations when confronted with these three tensions highlight how and to what extent journalistic production processes are simultaneously enabled and constrained through external funding, underscoring the anything but neutral role such organization play in contemporary newswork.

In what follows we first establish the growth and prominence of foundation funding in journalism. After identifying critical debates about the role of foundations, we locate their role within the larger world of journalism, which consists of a growing variety of people co-determining how the profession and industry continues to evolve. This sets the stage for a report on the data gathering and our analysis thereof. In conclusion, we explore the paradox of foundation funding as it supports and maintains journalism at a critical time, while simultaneously can stifle the creativity, innovation and progression of both the profession and its practitioners.

Earlier Research on Foundation Funding and Journalism

Most available research on foundation funding in journalism is relatively recent and examines the United States context in particular. To provide a sense of scale: in the period 2009–2011 over half a billion dollars was granted to journalistic endeavors in the US (Koob and Henry-Sanchez 2013). Benson (2018) argues that the reason for the significant presence of foundation funding in American journalism is related to the decline of advertising income and the hesitance in American journalistic culture to accept government support: “Caught between this ‘rock and a hard place’ of market failure and the refusal of a public policy response, reformers (…) have turned to philanthropy for a way out” (4). There are several studies that provide insights beyond the Anglo-American context (see for example Browne 2010; Scott, Bunce, and Wright 2017; 2019).

The main theme throughout the relatively scarce literature on foundation-supported journalism is (a concern about) the funding’s influence on journalists’ autonomy. Following Scott et al. (2019) it is crucial to make a distinction between “actual journalistic autonomy” and “protection of autonomy” as a performative form of boundary work where both the foundation as well as funded journalists—for instance on their websites—specifically underline that foundations have no editorial control over reporting (Scott, Bunce, and Wright 2019, 2050). The overall consensus of scholars seems that, despite efforts of foundations to not influence editorial choices of journalists, foundations do influence and change the organization of work in journalism. Based on interviews with representatives of both foundations and internationally operating non-profit journalistic organizations, Scott, Bunce, and Wright (2019) argue that foundation funding shapes journalism in three distinct ways: it encourages journalists to adopt more outcome-oriented role perceptions, motivates thematization of news, and expands the boundaries of professional practice. The latter refers to non-editorial work journalists have to do when working with foundation funding like marketing, fundraising and administration (see also Ferrucci and Nelson 2019).

Our study aims to verify, corroborate and contribute to this body of work by providing insights in foundation funding in a Western-European context, adding two key elements to the current body of literature on foundation funding and journalism. First, Western-European governments are traditionally more involved in directly or indirectly supporting journalism. The Dutch government has recently stepped up their financial involvement in foundation funding by adding a recurring yearly pledge of five million Euro to local and investigative journalism in 2018 (Rogmans 2019). This pledge expanded operations of the two largest government funded foundations operating on the national level: The Dutch Journalism Fund (Stimuleringsfonds voor de Journalistiek) and the Dutch Fund for in-depth Journalism (Fonds Bijzondere Journalistieke Projecten). According to annual reports, the latter granted approximately 375.000 Euro to 63 journalistic projects in 2017. In 2018, this amount rose to 753.000 Euro for 111 projects. Parallel to this development, local governments started funding initiatives to support local journalism. One of the pioneers of this trend is the Leiden Media Foundation, active in the Dutch city of Leiden. The foundation started in 2018, activated by reports about the decline in local news coverage. Since then, a number of similar initiatives emerged in other Dutch cities. Besides these government funded organizations, various privately owned organizations contribute financially to journalism in the Netherlands. While some of these, for instance the Foundation for Democracy and Media (Stichting Democratie en Media), finances independent journalism for decades, others are relatively new players in the world of journalism.

Second, the available literature focuses mostly on considerable grants given to mid to large sized non-profit journalistic organizations that produce English language journalism for an US and international audience. While there are also Netherlands-based philanthropic foundations providing funding to national and international news organizations, much of the foundation funding is distributed directly to individual (atypically working) journalists with the aim to give these practitioners the possibility to develop and complete a specific time-consuming journalistic project, to further train and educate themselves, or to participate in trainee programs at legacy news organizations. The first authors’ earlier interviews with freelance investigative journalists active in the Netherlands (conducted in 2018–2019; see Arends and Van ‘t Hof 2020) indicate that this kind of “micro” funding is a significant alternative source of income for Dutch journalists who seek to produce time-consuming journalism. This is corroborated by surveys among Dutch and Belgian investigative journalists (Pleijter and Opgenhaffen 2023). In practice it is quite common for a Dutch freelance journalist to pitch a story at a legacy media organization, while at the same time making a request at a foundation for a grant in order to make the production of the story financially viable.

The above described Western-European dynamic of foundation funding corresponds with Deuze and Witschge’s (2020) argument that journalism has transitioned “from a more or less coherent industry, to a highly varied and diverse range of practices” (166) where relative newcomers in the world of journalism, such as foundations, are involved in journalistic production processes (see also Fast, Örnebring, and Karlsson 2016). While the newsroom still has its place within journalism, the places where journalism is enabled, discussed, practiced, and produced reach far beyond its literal and figural walls (Anderson 2011; Örnebring et al. 2018). This example of the “liquid” (Deuze and Witschge 2020) character of contemporary journalism—specifically in the aforementioned Western-European context of foundation funding—necessitates a theoretical approach that grounds the study of how all these individuals and the organizations they represent influence the production processes of journalism.

Foundations as “Support Personnel” in the World of Journalism

Considering the growing complexity of how and where newswork takes place, and the increasing variety of organizations and individuals influencing and shaping journalism, we see a need for a theoretical framework for studying and understanding journalism that considers it as a dynamic, heterogeneous world within which newswork takes place, rather than a more or less coherent social system or institution as it has traditionally been conceptualized given the sociological roots of journalism studies. To this end, and following Lewis and Zamith (2017), we consider it useful to study contemporary journalistic production processes through the lens of Howard Beckers’ notion of “art worlds” (1982).

In his mapping of the work of artists (and the arts generally), Becker argues that a production of a work of art is always a collaboration between an artist, and what he calls support personnel, a term derived from military jargon. The joint activity of people collaborating to create a specific work of art is what Becker calls a collective activity. With this analytical step, Becker convincingly rejects “the romantic myth of the artist” (1982, 14) working alone. In his view, art works “are not the products of individual makers, “artists’ who possess a rare and special gift” (1982, 35), but come into being through a network of relations and interdependencies—including for example galleries, curators, and foundations. To understand journalism as a “world”, following Becker, allows for a broader mapping and understanding of the profession beyond legacy news organizations and their employees, as it would include any and all other venues, places and people involved in the production of journalism.

Becker’s concept of art as a collective activity is additionally useful for the study of journalistic production processes because it rejects the idea of journalists working in splendid isolation, and encourages us to look beyond individuals to empirical networks of “support personnel” whose everyday practices and interactions enable and constrain the production process. Support personnel such as, in the particular case of our project, foundations who provide grants to both journalistic organizations as well as individual (freelance) journalists.

Appreciating Power Dynamics During Collective Activities

While the concept of collective activity within a “world” of newswork provides the opportunity to operationalize each journalistic production process as a collective activity involving a dynamic variety of journalists and support personnel—the emphasis of Becker’s worlds perspective on empirical social ties does not provide enough theoretical tools to appreciate underlying power dynamics at play among participants of these collective activities. To this aim, we deploy Bourdieu’s concepts of capital and nomos from field theory as these have been developed for journalism studies (Benson 2006).

Field theory assumes that society differentiates into a number of semi-autonomous fields governed by their own “rules of the game”. According to Benson (1999, 464): “Fields can be differentiated both according to the kinds of specific capital that are valued therein and by their degree of relative autonomy from each other and in particular from the dominant economic and political fields”. Following Bottero and Crossley (2011) the key difference between a “worlds” and “fields” perspective is that a “worlds” perspective “prioritizes concrete ties and the networks they form” while a field perspective “explicitly rejects (…) the emphasis on ‘empirical’ ties focusing instead on the underlying ‘objective relations’ (…) that structure them” (100).

To appreciate both the aforementioned “liquid” state of the organization of contemporary production processes of journalism as well as underlying power relations at play among the various participants involved our study reflexively combines insights from both perspectives. To this aim, we deploy the aforementioned Bourdieusian concepts of capital and nomos, as appropriated by journalism scholars, to unpack the relations and dependencies between journalists and foundations when they both participate in a Beckerian collective activity.

Journalistic capital refers to recognition from peers, respect from colleagues, and occupying a favorable position within the field of journalism. Journalistic capital can occur in material form, such as awards, as well as immaterial form, through praise and better assignments due to connections with individuals who hold positions of power (Benson 2006; Willig 2016; Örnebring et al. 2018). Economic capital refers to the material conditions people and the organizations they are affiliated with can provide in order to make the production of a work of journalism happen. Nomos has in journalism studies been equaled with meta-journalistic discourse of what is deemed “good” journalism and “good journalism practice” (Maares and Hanusch 2020). Following field theory, the nomos within a given field is determined by its most powerful actors—usually those people who have the most control of (the distribution of) economic capital.

The role of foundation funding in journalism relates to journalistic capital, economic capital and nomos as these concepts help appreciate how the decision making of representatives of these foundations is informed and how the actions of foundations influence journalism in general, and the power dynamics during collective activities in particular. In other words: by entering the world of journalism by participating in a collective activity, foundations take up a position where they confer journalistic capital through economic capital, while at the same time reinforcing the traditional nomos of the field through the way they select specific projects for funding and support. This in turn to some extent explains why journalism when interpreted as a Beckerian world, focusing dominantly on empirical ties and arrangements between (freelance) journalists and “support personnel” is highly dynamic and constantly changing while, when interpreted as a Bourdieusian field, focusing dominantly on underlying social positions, journalism remains more or less the same over time.

Data Collection and Methodology

This paper is based on a corpus of (transcripts of) 18 semi-structured in-depth interviews with representatives of Netherlands-based foundations conducted by the first author. We followed this method because it provides flexibility and interactivity during the data-gathering process, with the intention to “generate interviewees accounts of their own perspectives, perceptions, experiences, understandings, interpretations and interactions” (Mason 2004, 1020).

The interviewed representatives include organizations that support (freelance) journalists and journalistic organizations on the local, national and international level of journalistic production. The interview sample includes representatives from both private funded organizations and foundations made possible by financial support from the national and local Dutch government:

Table

Representative	Government funded	Private funded	Local focus	National focus	International focus
#1		X		X	X
#2		X		X	X
#3		X		X	X
#4		X		X	X
#5		X		X
#6	X		X	X
#7	X		X	X
#8	X			X
#9		X		X	X
#10	X			X
#11	X		X
#12	X		X
#13	X		X
#14	X		X
#15	X		X
#16	X	X	X
#17	X		X

The interviews took place between March and November 2021. Ten interviews were conducted via an online video connection, and eight in person. The high number of online interviews was because of active restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The interview’s duration was between 45 and 75 min. All interviewees, their organizations and individuals they referred to are anonymized. This choice is made so the interviewees felt secure to express themselves freely. Since foundation funding is relatively small in the Netherlands, the quotes in the results section are not associated to a particular representative since this could enable readers to deduce the identities of the participants.

Two initial “expert interviews” (Bogner, Littig, and Menz 2009) with individuals well-versed in the sphere of financial aid for (atypical) journalists and journalistic organizations were conducted in order to evaluate and refine the interview protocol. The broad themes of the interview protocol included questions about the history of the organization, the particular grant policy, the composition of its finances and the kind of interactions it has with journalists. Where available, annual reports of the organizations involved were consulted to provide further context for the interviews. Websites of the interviewed organizations and trade publications were also monitored for sensitizing concepts prior to the interviews.

Since the first author received foundation funding for a journalistic project, the expert interviews also functioned as a bracketing exercise. Speaking to the two experts provided the first author with the opportunity to reflect upon his own experiences with foundation funding in journalism. These reflections deepened and got contextualized during the reading of the available literature. Ultimately, this bracketing exercise led to engagements with the interviewees that were as clear and informed as possible (Tufford & Newman 2012).

For the data analysis we used a deductive or “theoretical” thematical research approach, making continuous iterations between relevant literature and the interview data (Braun and Clarke 2006). This theoretical approach to thematic analysis enabled us to code for the specific inquiry of this project, informed by the worlds and fields perspectives on how journalism works. The interviews were transcribed and coded deductively, looking for thematic patterns related to the Bourdieusian concepts of journalistic capital, economic capital and nomos, and the Beckerian worlds perspective, conceptualizing foundations as support personnel in the collective activities that produce works of journalism. The coding process resulted in three recurring tensions foundations navigate when entering the world of journalism, which we identified and labeled when codes shared connections. These three tensions are elaborated in the results section.

Results

Throughout the interviews, the participants raised a number of issues and framed their arguments in ways that we could group them in three tensions foundations who support journalism continuously navigate. These tensions are: (1) between the allocation of grants to journalists and the precarity of atypical working conditions most journalists face, (2) between ideological notions of what good journalism “should be about” and the everyday realities of journalism production, and (3) between the powerful position of foundations within the world of journalism and the autonomy of journalists.

Tension Between Allocation of Grants and Precarity in Journalism

All interviewees underline that their activities stem from the observation that journalism risks losing quality due to the decline of traditional business models and the resulting precarious working circumstances for many (atypical) journalists. This concern corresponds with a general consensus amongst journalism scholars that many risks and responsibilities of journalism production have shifted from legacy media companies towards individuals (Deuze and Witschge 2020; Örnebring et al. 2018). It seems that foundations who support journalism are aware that journalism is facing a “precarity penalty” (Cohen 2016), meaning that precarious working circumstances individuals face influence the overall quality of journalism. In reaction to this, foundations aim to provide financial and other support to individuals and groups of journalists.

While precarity in newswork is one of foundations’ main motivators to enter the world of journalism, the participants express a concern that, in many cases, their support does not structurally improve the working conditions of newsworkers. This concern is especially expressed in relation to freelance journalists:

In most cases, the funds we provide enables an individual journalist to work on a story for a few months. After that, I don’t think their working conditions are necessarily improved.

The above-described dynamic matches Norbäck’s (2022) observation that freelance journalists often perceive their professional practices as “career maintenance”, where they “direct focus and effort at avoiding downward career movement rather than achieving upward mobility” (1). While not named as such, various interviewees mentioned that they witnessed attempts of career maintenance when they received grant applications.

We received a lot of applications from journalists who argued the other way around. They see that there is a pile of money and then make up a project so they can be financially safe for a few months. For us it was very clear when a journalist just wants financial security, or when he really wants to make a specific journalistic production he is actually passionate about.

Awareness of precarity in journalism influences organizational choices of foundations. Various foundations organize forms of support specifically aimed at pre-research, so freelance journalists can allocate time and resources to investigate whether a topic may result in a journalistic production. In addition to this, several foundations enact particular programs aimed at the development of younger journalists. For instance, by financially supporting temporary work experience positions at established news organizations. Various foundations express unease with this situation:

We continue to fund temporary workplaces, but we are well aware that there is no guarantee that the journalist will eventually get a job. I think most of them will become freelancers.

The worry expressed in the quote above is paralleled by a consensus amongst scholars that work in general, and in the creative industry in particular, is increasingly casualized and flexibilized (Norbäck and Styhre 2019), making it less likely for individuals to secure full time permanent employment.

While precarity in journalism is a main motivator of foundations to enter the world of journalism, the interviewees express unease about the uneven contribution of economic capital when foundations and legacy news organizations are involved in the same journalistic collective activity:

Ideally, we want the financial contribution at least to be fifty, fifty. But that is never really the case.

Another interviewee says:

Most journalism we fund is eventually published in the outlets of one of the two major news organizations who contribute much less money than us. Which raises the question: aren’t we indirectly funding the new Ferrari of <name of CEO of legacy media organization>?

In some cases, legacy outlets contribute to the production process of a work of journalism by making employed staff available to collaborate with freelance journalists who receive foundation funding. This could result in an improvement of the quality of work of journalism, but tends not to be seen as a lasting improvement of the working circumstances of atypical newsworkers. In fact, as the interviewed foundation staffers note, their financial involvement might perpetuate such precarity.

When asked whether it was the responsibility of foundations to negotiate terms of work of (freelance) journalists with legacy media organizations, most foundations acknowledge that they consider taking action. In practice, the majority of the foundations seem hesitant to discuss pay or the general working conditions of journalists with representatives of legacy media organizations. Various interviewees argue that freelance journalists, who are private contractors, are themselves responsible for negotiating their terms of work with a legacy media organization.

Other interviewees argue that the primary concern of their organization is not to be an arbiter for working circumstances for journalists, but to enable the production of quality journalism. These answers suggest that in some cases, explicitly or implicitly, the products the journalists make are of a higher priority to the foundation than the working conditions of the individuals involved. Following Hesmondhalgh and Baker’s (2010) model of what makes for “good work” in the media, this product focused self-interpretation of the goals of several foundations within the current precarious character of newswork could lead to a more prevalent occurrence of elements contributing to “bad work” for creative makers, such as poor remuneration, feelings of powerlessness and professional isolation.

Two interviewees specifically state that they expressed concerns about the financial responsibility of legacy media organizations with representatives of newsrooms. One of these conversations, conducted with the editor in chief of a local newspaper, resulted in a change:

We went into talks with <name editor> and said that we can’t accept a situation where our foundation pays for their freelancers, while they contribute next to nothing (…). These talks led to a better relation between us and the newsroom, and a situation we can live with.

Concerning their relation with media outlets and precarity, it seems that foundations are faced with a catch-22. The interviewees express criticism about the uneven financial contributions of legacy media organizations when they are both involved in a collective activity. At the same time, foundations are dependent on the journalistic capital attached to these organizations. In most cases, freelance journalists have to include a letter of intent written by a representative of a known journalistic organization in order to be eligible for a grant. A safeguard to make sure that the work reaches an audience and is published in an outlet perceived as journalistic. In effect, the dependance of foundations on the perceived journalistic capital of well-known media brands could diminish their negotiating position concerning the remuneration of (atypical) journalists.

Tension Between Notions of “Good” Journalism and Practical Reality

All interviewees shared what they perceive as “good” journalism that should receive support. The interviewees regularly use journalistic “god terms” (Zelizer 2004) like objectivity, autonomy and truth to communicate their interpretation of “good” journalism. These terms align with core elements attributed to the traditional occupational ideology of journalism (Deuze 2005). When asked to articulate more specific forms of journalism that adhered to these ideological standards, most foundations make an argument that “investigative journalism” or “in-depth journalism” matches most with what they consider ideal-typical journalism. “Investigative journalism” is defined in a multitude of ways by the interviewees. Examples of the given definitions are: “journalism that keeps power to account”, “journalism that exposes what others like to keep hidden”, and “journalism that digs deep in order to find wrongdoings in society”.

While the above interpretations can also be found on most websites of foundations, multiple interviewees indicate that these statements are not as set in stone as might appear. When asked what the most recurring discussions were within each organization, most interviewees refer to deliberations about journalism itself. One interviewee exemplary states:

We have a lot of discussions about the term investigative journalism. I mean what is that for God sake? Isn’t every form of good journalism some kind of investigative journalism? In my opinion, the term investigative journalism is mostly used by managers and other people who have never written an article. (…) In the end, it all comes down to personal interpretations of what is important for society, what is relevant and what is exciting.

This corroborates the assumption that “journalism is not a solid, stable thing to point to, but a constantly shifting denotation applied differently depending on context” (Carlson and Lewis 2015, 2). The interviews indicate that while most foundations share notions of a shared occupational ideology, the translation of this ideology to concrete works of journalism is embedded in specific contexts and personal preferences—as much as is the case in journalism writ large (Deuze 2005).

Whatever its specific interpretation, it seems that the term “investigative journalism” is widely associated with journalistic capital. Following Örnebring et al. (2018), such capital “not only gives prestige and sway in the journalistic world; it may have material consequences as well” (409). The interviews indicate that the journalistic capital associated with “investigative journalism” makes it easier to attract economic capital. One representative of a local foundation experienced this dynamic:

We started with the idea that a strengthening of local reporting with a local press bureau would eventually provide a feeding ground for investigative journalism. However, we were unable to convince the local government to contribute to more daily reporting because they argued that this was already done sufficiently within the region. The local politicians eventually agreed upon a proposal that our organization would focus on investigative journalism.

It seems that the prestige, or the “non-ordinariness” of investigative journalism (and in-depth journalism generally) closely relates to material conditions within and beyond the world of journalism. Only one representative of a local foundation states that they deliberately use a broad definition of journalism in order to give grants to a wide variety of projects. This for example included a project where elementary school children made a newspaper with the aim of improving media literacy.

Local foundations regularly experience a tension between their notions of “good” journalism and practical reality. During the interviews, representatives of foundations active on the local level refer to the overall quality of submissions as “saddening”, “worrisome” and “downright bad”. In many cases, the interviewees find that the submissions do not qualify for the most basic requirements of their interpretation of good journalism.

A lot of submissions we got were not journalism at all, but rather PR-stories or downright activism. That is not what we are looking for.

In other instances, interviewees argue that journalists often lack fundraising skills.

We see that applying for a grant is new for a lot of journalists. Often times we see that there is a good idea, but it is not written down like a proper application.

The latter quote corroborates conclusions of earlier research that grant raising is an important new skill journalists may master in order to produce time-consuming journalism. Large news organizations like The Guardian have specific personnel whose full-time job it is to apply and account for grants (Benson 2018). Smaller scale organizations, such as Italian investigative collective IRPI, employ full time staffers who seek out and apply for funding and subsidies, especially at the European level (Deuze and Witschge 2020, 65). This workload can become a significant hurdle to overcome for an individual freelance journalist, or a small group of journalists working together. More fundamentally, the tasks and workload associated with securing, maintaining and justifying foundation funding may “encourage journalists to adopt more outcome-oriented role perceptions” (Scott, Bunce, and Wright 2019, 2049).

In reaction to the real or perceived poor quality of submissions, various local foundations expanded their operations by providing counsel and advice during the production process, broadening their role as support personnel in journalistic collective activities. The way this counseling is organized amongst the various foundations varies. In some cases, those who determine who is eligible for support are the same individuals who provide counseling. In other cases, counseling is performed by independent journalists who are not involved in the decision-making process. In some instances, the counsel and advice are a mandatory element of the support given to journalists. When asked how journalists respond to counseling, most interviewees say that journalists react positively. One interviewee states:

I think that a lot of freelance journalists genuinely value someone to spar with about their stories, since they don’t get to do that all that often.

This observation matches Lee-Wright et al.’s (2012) argument that mentoring relationships, where experienced newsroom staff supports and trains upcoming journalists, are in decline, since freelance journalists often have weak ties with newsrooms. In line with this, scholars argue that work experience places and internships throughout the media sector often lack sufficient guidance and mentoring (Peuter De, Cohen, and Brophy 2015). It seems that in some cases, foundations take over aspects of mentoring relationships, raising questions about the influence of foundations on the operational autonomy of journalists. Various representatives on the local level express criticism towards the choice of other foundations to provide counseling and coaching:

We can’t start holding the hands of journalists (…) because then you start to be some kind of editor in chief. And what, then, is your position? It becomes complicated. The only thing we do is give extensive feedback when we decline something.

Representatives of foundations active on the (inter)national level experience less tension between their preconceived interpretation of good journalism and practical reality. A reason for the higher perceived quality of journalism could be that most philanthropic organizations do not have open submission rounds for journalists or journalistic organizations. Instead, in most cases, representatives of philanthropic foundations do fieldwork in order to locate organizations and projects that match their goals. For instance, multiple interviewees state that they visit conferences like Dataharvest—the European Investigative Journalism Conference. Here, representatives of large newsrooms, but also individual (atypical) journalists looking for bottom up cross-border collaboration meet (Heft 2021). Foundations scout initiatives that might be eligible for support. The strategy of field work is chosen because of two main reasons. First, philanthropic organizations often have a specific agenda which guides their efforts. This agenda enables them to look for specific journalistic projects that match their preferences. Second, and more practical, various interviewees explain that always having open submission rounds would mean a too high workload:

The reason we approach journalists instead of the other way around is also a practical choice. There are only a couple of people working here so we just don’t have the capacity to go through a large number of applications.

Practical considerations such as these can influence which journalists secure grants. During the interviews, a particular small journalistic organization was named multiple times as a party the foundations “loved to work with”. Here, it seems that parties who have a good track record and are attached to what foundations consider journalistic capital are more likely to successfully use foundation funding as a viable business model. These findings corroborate Scott et al.’s (2019) assumption that this dynamic “may result in foundation funding being concentrated in a small number of outlets and significant barriers for potential new entrants” (2045).

Tension Between Powerful Position of Foundations and Autonomy of Journalists

All interviewees express awareness of their power position within the world of journalism. Unanimously, the foundations want journalists and journalistic organizations to experience their relationship as a collaboration around common goals, without influencing the autonomy of journalists. To achieve this goal, foundations attempt to strike a balance between creating enough distance between them and grant applicants to be critical when necessary, while simultaneously remaining transparent enough to have open conversations. Following Scott et al. (2019) the self-reflexive efforts of funders when navigating their power position can be interpreted as a form of “protection of autonomy” for journalists: “Foundations engage in protection of autonomy as a particular form of boundary-work, designed to preserve journalism’s epistemic authority by maintaining the boundary between ‘journalism’ and ‘non-journalism’” (Scott, Bunce, and Wright 2019, 2024). In practice, this effort is sometimes experienced as a challenging task by the interviewees:

You constantly have to check your own power. You have to be aware that people laugh whenever you make a joke. That people say your ideas are great.

Another representative argues that it is crucial to always manage expectations:

I had to learn to not make promises and really watch my words. I always try to make it as clear as possible what the protocol is, without creating false expectations. That is really important to me.

A recurring trend in the interviews is how the representatives notice that organizations and journalists are sometimes hesitant to establish contact when a project faces delays or other problems:

It is interesting what happens when you send the exact same e-mail to a lot of people. Something like: ‘How are you doing? Could you send us an update of the project?’ Some respond enthusiastically, while others respond apologetic, like they feel caught or controlled. The latter is what we want to avoid.

In order to combat situations such as these, most foundations attempt to build relationships with the individuals and organizations they fund. Unanimously, the interviewees express that it is always possible to start a conversation when a project encounters setbacks. One interviewee argues:

Perhaps someone needs a bit more time, or more money in order to finish a project. If there is a good reason why things don’t go as planned it is always possible to start a conversation. We need to create an environment where people feel safe to have that conversation.

During the interviews it was asked how many times it happened that recipients had to refund their grant. All interviewees said that it rarely happened, even when a project fails completely. As one interviewee explains:

Of course, there is always a risk that a project fails. But if we don’t take the risk, who else would?

While the foundations express that they do not want their power position to influence the autonomy of the journalists they fund, the answers from the interviewees indicate that the advent of the power position, despite efforts to be an open conversation partner, could lead to self-censorship by journalists who depend on foundation funding.

The tension between the power position of foundations and the autonomy of journalists is further apparent when the representatives discuss how they organize their financial aid. Two recurring examples illustrate this dynamic.

First, foundations generally provide support that aligns with specific self-chosen themes like international journalism, education, (digital) privacy, social injustice and information literacy. These finding corroborate Scott et Al.’s (2019) findings that “thematization is the principal mode of foundation funding” (2048) which could influence which kind of stories journalists pursue. Here, a clear distinction can be made between (inter)national and locally operating foundations. Representatives of the latter generally do not mention any specific thematic areas or aspects of journalism that would receive support, instead expressing that they would like an increase of the quality of journalism as a whole.

Second, the choice to provide “hard” or “soft” support influences how journalists organize their work. Organizations active on the local level most often provide “hard” support to journalists. Hard support refers to support aligned to the production of a specific work of journalism, such as an article or documentary film. In practice, individuals or groups of journalists pitch a journalistic production to a foundation. Representatives of the foundation evaluate whether the production matches their goals and quality standards, and decide whether or not to allocate funding. The main reason why this kind of support is prevalent on the local level is the limited budget at exposal. One interviewee explains:

Our yearly budget is a couple hundred thousand euros, which might sound like a lot of money, but actually really isn’t. We are not able to support entire newsrooms or collectives of journalists, but we can support the production of a story or a small journalistic project that would not have existed without us. It might not be much, but it is better than nothing.

The (inter)national foundations, operating with a considerable budget compared to local foundations, most often provide “soft” support. Soft support refers to support towards organizations or collectives of journalists who produce works of journalism related to a specific theme or genre of journalism. In most cases, such foundations commit to provide financial support over a period of several years.

Among the interviewees, two main motivations emerge to prefer soft support. First, the representatives argue that, by focusing support on organizations rather than individual journalistic productions, their involvement in the daily operations of journalists would be as diminished as possible. Following Murdock (1983) soft support seems to increase the “allocative autonomy” of journalists, referring to “the ability to determine resource allocation within a news organization as well as its overall goals and scope” (Scott, Bunce, and Wright 2019, 2036). The latter argument is reason for several representatives of philanthropic foundations to express criticism towards foundations who provide hard support to journalists:

If you are so directly involved with the production of a story, you are bound to have influence on it. Our job is to provide journalists more security to do their job, not to influence the job itself.

The second motivation to provide soft rather than hard support is that it could aid longer-term development of an organization, since the journalists involved would not have to apply for a grant for each journalistic production separately. This enables journalists to allocate more time to the development of their journalism and organization. The foundations providing soft support underline that their aid is not only financial, but also provides means to strengthen an organization as a whole. For example, by providing advice on business practices, or introducing other actors from their network that could result in beneficial cooperation for the organization. One representative argues:

In my personal opinion, it is no use to just give money to journalistic organizations or groups of people. If they don’t have the know-how to use the finances effectively, you might as well throw money in a bottomless pit. I’d rather give organizational support and counseling aid first, followed by the necessary financial support second.

Overall, the interviews indicate that most foundations, including the foundations funded by local governments, would prefer to provide soft support. There seems to be an awareness amongst the representatives that hard support has a greater tendency to influence the “operational autonomy” of journalists. Referring to “news professionals’ control over day-to-day editorial production” (Scott, Bunce, and Wright 2019, 2037). However, in many cases, budget constraints would not allow such funding.

Conclusion

This study reflexively combined strengths from both Howard Becker’s worlds perspective, emphasizing the ties between people and the networks they form in order to produce works of journalism, and Pierre Bourdieu’s field perspective, prioritizing underlying social discourses and positions that structure these ties. Operationalizing journalism as a heterogeneous world within which newswork takes places provided an avenue for research that incorporates today’s “liquid” state of journalism. This enabled us to address journalism’s growing complexity of how and where newswork takes place, acknowledging the increasing variety of organizations and individuals entering, influencing and shaping journalism.

Becker’s concept of collective activity emphasizes that journalists active within this world do not work in isolation. Rather, when producing journalism, newsworkers are both enabled and constrained by support personnel, such as foundations. To appreciate the underlying social positions and power relations that shape these collective activities, the concepts journalistic capital, economic capital and nomos derived from Bourdieu’s field theory were used. The combination of elements of both theoretical perspectives in this study underlines an awareness that, when focusing on concrete ties that make up the collective activities of newswork, journalism can be explained as being highly dynamic and ever-changing, while at the same time, with a focus on underlying social positions and power relations, journalism can be also explained as remaining more or less the same over time.

Using the above theoretical scope we asked:

How do Dutch Foundations Perceive and Navigate Their Position Within the Dutch World of Journalism?

The interview data suggests that Dutch foundations perceive their position within journalism with a significant level of self-awareness as three main tensions which they continuously navigate. These are (1) between ideological notions of what good journalism “should be about” and the everyday realities of journalism production, (2) between the powerful position of foundations within the world of journalism and the autonomy of journalists, and (3) between the allocation of grants to journalists and the precarity of atypical working conditions most journalists face.

The navigational choices individual foundations make when confronted with these tensions highlight how and to what extent foundation funding both enables and constrains production processes of journalism. In terms of enabling factors, the efforts of (inter)national and local foundations contribute structurally to the production of a multitude of journalistic productions that could otherwise not be realized given the precarious organization of work in journalism. Adding to the existing literature, which focuses mostly on substantial multi-year grants to mid to large journalistic organization, the data from this study indicates that foundation funding in the Netherlands provides opportunities for individual atypical journalists to allocate more time to journalism they see as worthwhile. In some cases, individual freelance journalists—who often work in relative isolation—are able to receive feedback, training and counsel from people associated with foundations and their networks. It seems that foundations take over aspects of mentoring relationships which are in decline at legacy media organizations.

However, the choices made by foundations underline several constraining factors of foundation funding on journalism production processes. In general, there seems to be a tendency to fund journalism that adheres to ideological definitions of “good” journalism. The latter is mostly associated with rather traditional heavily circumscribed “elite” forms of journalistic work, such as investigative journalism (covering “hard” news topics such as politics and the economy). This disqualifies the majority of newswork, including much journalism that could be perceived as “everyday reporting”. Getting stuck in such limited standards of journalism, especially local foundations at times experience “normative failure” since the applications they receive often do not match their preconceived renderings of what journalism is or should be. Another constraining point is that especially national and international active foundations operate on the basis of predefined (and similarly restrictive) thematic considerations, thereby influencing the decision making and autonomy of journalists applying for grants.

Especially in the case of hard support, focused on enabling a particular journalistic production or project, which was highly prevalent within the Western-European context of this study, it seems that the use of foundations as an alternative source of income within the contemporary precarious organization of work in Dutch journalism contributes to career maintenance rather than career progression of journalists. From the perspective of (atypical) journalists, foundation funding can be time-consuming, complex and difficult. Finding and securing foundation funding is a necessary yet specialized craft, which could result in a situation where freelance journalists or journalistic organizations who are already successful in securing grants are more likely to secure more foundation funding in the future. This in turn sustains the precarious working conditions most atypical newsworkers already face.

Overall, the advent of foundation funding as an alternative stream of funding in journalism provides less incentive to legacy media organizations to increase their remuneration towards (atypical) journalists, strengthening their already uneven power position when it comes to negotiating with reporters. While expressing uneasiness about this situation, we generally did not find foundations willing to engage directly about this with their counterparts in the industry. In other words, foundations have become a powerful participants in the world of journalism due to the widespread precarity the industry faces, but express hesitation or outright reject getting involved in debates and actions that would in fact challenge poor working conditions induced by legacy media organizations and the consequences thereof for the quality of journalism. In doing so and despite good intentions, foundations maintain—and run the risk of exacerbating—the systemic inequalities and uneven power dynamics they aim to correct.

While corroborating earlier research on foundation funding in journalism and adding a Western-European perspective, our study is not without limitations. Since research on this subject, especially outside the United States, is relatively new, our material provides but a general overview of interpretations of foundations of their own actions. More in-depth case studies of particular foundations (as well as the projects and journalists they support or reject) are necessary to provide more nuanced insights. Another line of inquiry could be a comparative study between the Dutch foundations questioned in this research and those in other countries, in Europe and around the world. These comparisons could provide information about the influence of national, cultural, and economic structures on the character of foundation funding, and how this changes the world of journalism.

Acknowledgement

We gratefully acknowledge the detailed and constructive comments provided by the anonymous reviewers.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Dutch Journalism Fund (Project number:20190221) and Foundation for Democracy and Media (Project number: 2019482).