Stakeholder Consultation Report Establishing a New International Fund for Public Interest Media

"Public interest media in national and international environments face enormous challenges and pressures to adapt to online delivery and increasing operating restrictions."

In September and October 2019, the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) engaged in a media development stakeholders' consultation at the request of BBC Media Action and the Luminate Foundation to solicit feedback on a proposed International Fund for Public Interest Media (the Fund). The Fund would aim to provide an effective, legitimate, and efficient way of augmenting existing support for the development, sustainability, and independence of public interest media, especially in resource-poor and fragile settings where media freedom is under pressure and where economic and political challenges and weak advertising markets threaten viability.

The purpose of the GFMD-led enquiry was to seek input on the ideas and proposals presented in Making Media Markets Work or Democracy: An International Fund for Public Interest Media: June 2019 Consultation Document, which was designed for limited circulation among media support practitioners, potential donors, media institutions, and journalists. The consultation's goal was to improve understanding of the issues related to the Fund's justification, purposes, and scope, as well as ways to structure it to be most effective in reaching the areas of greatest need. Feedback was gleaned through 21 key informant interviews (KIIs) and survey responses from 87 media development practitioners from the GFMD network, particularly from stakeholders in the Global South and from the members of the GFMD Steering Committee.

In brief, there is general agreement that the creation of the Fund is critical to address issues concerning the market's failure to support independent journalism. A significant number of interviewees and survey respondents agree that the Fund needs to be as focused as possible to address these issues effectively. To this end, many respondents signalled the need to get to the right fund structure, funding streams, and administration. Responses highlighted that donors infrequently prioritise media, and many organisations would need access to this Fund to make up for lack of donor attention.

More specifically, key findings in the report are organised around the 5 key areas of the consultation:

Area 1: Definitions and understandings of "public interest media"

• This term is not well known or defined in the same way in every region.
• Respondents from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) were generally supportive of the definition offered in the Consultation Document: "media that is free and independent, that exists to inform publics on the issues that shape their lives in ways which serve the public's rather than any political, commercial or factional interest, to enable public debate and dialogue across society, and to hold those in power to account on behalf of the public interest. It implies a focus on working in the interests of all people across all of society, not just those who have the power or money to pay for influence media."
• These LMIC respondents expressed support for a funding mechanism that would further defend and support such media in countries designated as "Global South".
• There were some disagreements from United States (US)-based interviewees on the definition, with many equating public interest media with: public service broadcasting, a "BBC-style" approach to journalism, an approach to journalism and media that is more European in terms of its values, and/or a model of journalism and media support that would jeopardise a commercial- or advertising-driven business model.
• Many respondents suggested using "independent media" instead, although issues were raised around this term as well.

Area 2: Justification for the Fund

• There was near-universal agreement that the Consultation Document sufficiently depicted the changing and challenging landscape independent media now face. All respondents agreed that the loss of independent media and journalism comes with high costs to good governance and development; nearly 99% agreed that the sector is under threat and lacks market solutions to sustain it; and 90% felt that the current structures were insufficient to meet this crisis.
• Many agreed that the creation of the Fund was an important response although not a "perfect solution" and politically difficult. For many, the real problems of media today are due to media capture by the state or by corrupt oligarchs, and that when it comes down to it, press freedom, quality journalism, and the challenges faced by public interest journalism are due to a lack of political will. In this context, additional funding for independent, public interest media will not necessarily solve the underlying challenges to democracy that in return pose major problems for democratic media. Respondents stressed the need to accompany the Fund with strong principles, guards against syphoning of scarce resources, and strategies for good governance.

Area 3: Fund structure

• More than three-quarters of survey respondents support all 3 proposed funding streams: 77% for investigative journalism, 84% for local media organisations, and 82% for international media development support organisations. Looking at "Global South" responses only regarding the 3 proposed funding streams: 94% support the investigative journalism stream, 90% support the funding of local media organisations, and 85% are on board with funding international media development support organisations.
• Some interviewees were critical of the Consultation Document's prioritisation of the Fund's structure, opining that coming up with a tighter structure for the Fund's strategy will be paramount to ensuring whether this initiative will be successful or not.
• Interviewees and survey respondents suggested that innovation in journalism and business models, as well as advocacy, policy, and research to increase awareness of the critical role of independent journalism, were high priorities.
• Several respondents felt there was already significant funding and lobbying for investigative journalism; others suggested that investigative reporting networks should have a larger role in the Fund's structure.

Area 4: Governance and administration of the Fund - The Consultation Document outlined 3 governance options, and interviewees and survey respondents weighed in, as follows:

1. 27.40% favoured a governance model akin to that of the Global Fund for AIDS, TB, and Malaria (GFATM). It would include 21 intentionally selected board members to represent the diversity of public interest media stakeholders.
2. 31.94% were partial to a governance model similar to that of the Global Innovation Fund, with a much smaller board of 9 public interest media stakeholders.
3. 43.75% preferred a governance model with a small board similar to Option 2 (or potentially even smaller) accompanied by an advisory council, with the chair of the council sitting on the board.

Area 5: Measuring the Fund's impact - Respondents felt the Fund's focus needed to be clarified before considering issues of monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Rationalising the measurement of impact with those that are already in existence (and with the Sustainable Development Goals, or SDGs) could help build a collaborative Fund that integrates with current efforts and is understood by donors.

Key recommendations:

• Capitalise on the interest respondents expressed to get engaged in the process of Fund development and to help to focus and build support, perhaps through a set of co-creation workshops facilitated by GFMD wherein there would be an organic and user-centred way of designing the Fund. Specific ideas include:
  • Through the consultations, develop a theory of change.
  • Consider starting small (perhaps under US$1 billion) and growing over time.
  • Focus the funding streams to areas of greatest need and opportunity where the Fund can make the most sustainable and systemic change (rather than limiting it to countries in the "Global South", which many felt was exclusionary to resource-poor countries that fall outside the traditional LMIC criteria).
• Carry out additional scoping of different models for the governance and administration of the Fund, recognising that the 3 models highlighted in the Consultation Document were not well known to many respondents. Suggestions include:
  • Provide members of the GFMD Steering Committee with a presentation and explanation of existing governance models and a deeper dive into failed efforts to create other media trusts or funds, e.g., in Tanzania and Zimbabwe.
  • Hire a fund development specialist to help guide the process.
  • Select a mode of governance and administration that is small, nimble, agile, and flexible; stakeholders do not want a Fund with a lot of bureaucracy or administrative hurdles.
• Build the constituency for this initiative and get feedback consistently from them, such as through:
  • Regional consultations: in-person convenings in the Global South, with anticipated regional centres of excellence in the Global South;
  • Broader consultations with civil society beyond the media development community, perhaps through additional outreach provided by GFMD; and/or
  • High-level consultations with key in-country government institutions that have the power and the ability to invest in and make institutional and structural changes that will lead to long-term investment and support of public interest media.
• Develop a strategic communications, marketing, and public relations campaign that explains the need for this Fund and convey the issues of media development in a way that nontraditional donors can understand. As part of this effort, write a short (2 pages or less) statement that would make the case for the Fund in a concise and compelling manner, orient and define potential donors, and help GFMD and other stakeholders to all use the same language and way of communicating about the Fund.

Editor's note: A detailed feasibility study setting out the case for establishing the Fund was published in April 2020. It is addressed to international development agencies, technology companies, philanthropic organisations, and others with an interest in supporting democracy and development where the market can no longer sustain independent media. (See Related Summaries, below.)