Creating a Global Fund for Investigative Journalism

Ellen Hume and Anya Schiffrin

April 2019

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive summary ...... 3 Introduction ...... 4 Challenges of creating a Global Fund for Investigative Journalism ...... 7 Revenue streams and structures ...... 10 Overview: Europe ...... 10 Scoop ...... 12 Overview: The USA ...... 12 Community Foundations: a mix of fines, donations ...... 13 Potential funding streams ...... 14 Taxes ...... 14 Canada Media Fund (CMF) ...... 14 A Tax on Tickets Sales at the “Global Games” ...... 15 Exploring recovered assets as a funding source ...... 17 Corporate fines from corruption settlements ...... 19 Other court distributions...... 20 Direct foreign aid and international development organizations ...... 20 Private and corporate philanthropy ...... 20 Membership and subscription models ...... 21 Lottery proceeds and sovereign funds...... 21 The Alaska Permanent Fund (“APF”) ...... 22 Corporate Social Responsibility and cause marketing ...... 23 The Unique Opportunity of the tech platforms as a revenue source ...... 24 Making the case: new urgency, new tools ...... 26 Countering Russian disinformation ...... 27 Impact assessment ...... 27 Media Cloud: tracking the influence of an investigative story ...... 27 Some fundamental goals and principles ...... 28 Mechanisms for the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism ...... 29 The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) ...... 29 Recommendations, questions, and next steps ...... 31 Appendices ...... 33 What is Facebook actually funding with its new Journalism Fund? ...... 33 The Tech Dividend Funds ...... 35 Google News Initiative: a broad umbrella of tech-oriented journalism ...... 36 New Jersey: A mix on bandwidth sales and public subsidies...... 38 Investigative journalism support in Germany...... 40 France newspaper support ...... 42 Funding Canadian media ...... 43 Kazakhstan: Problems with asset returns ...... 45 EU Fund for Investigative Journalism IJ4EU ...... 46 Best Practice: Journalism Funding ...... 51 GFMD Problem Statement: the Media Landscape ...... 48 Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Examples ...... 51 Acknowledgments ...... 52

2

Executive Summary

This report was prepared for a convening in Perugia, Italy on April 5, 2019 by Drew Sullivan of the Organized Crime and Reporting Project (OCCRP) and Mira Milosevic of the Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD). This meeting will consider how to establish a Global Fund for Investigative Journalism, either as a free-standing trust fund or foundation, or as a sub fund attached to other international funding organizations.

Because corruption is global, confounding national and regional responses, journalists often work in networks, and across borders, to challenge these abuses of power. The commercial marketplace for sustaining this kind of journalism is completely inadequate. However, existing national and regional funding mechanisms also fail to sustain the watchdogs who are our front line of defense against injustice and impunity.

Working together, rather than on parallel tracks to create multiple global funds that compete for the same money, is necessary. The timing, potential, and urgent need for a journalism fund are clear.

We believe the fund should be a mixed basket of multiple public and private sources, in order to be sure no one donor influences the journalism produced from it. Ethical considerations must be addressed, to prevent “bounty journalism” that distorts journalism subject choice, content and reputation.

Instead of competing with existing journalism grant-making sources, the Fund should attract new streams of income into a mixed basket, from such potential sources as: --The tech sector, including the platform companies Facebook and Google --New taxes on media mergers, sports tickets, and other sources --Participating governments’ recoveries from corporate fines and other corruption litigation • For example, a portion of corporate fines recovered by the U.S. Department of Justice goes into a 3% fund to support future investigations, and it isn’t always dispersed fully within the DOJ. Couldn’t an argument be made that some of this should go to supporting investigative journalism, which helps originate such investigations? --New philanthropy that isn’t currently funding journalism but which wants to address “fake news,” filter bubbles, human trafficking and abuses of power, while supporting democracy and the rule of law --Other courts, government agencies and lawyers who recognize the role of investigative journalists in instigating the cases they pursue.

We examine multiple examples of how government funds such as direct grants, taxes, and court distributions can be mixed into a pooled basket with money from philanthropy and corporate contributions. This dissipates the responsibility of the donors for the specific content of the journalism, which is a key political consideration. This is happening even in the US, with community foundations, for example, despite the American journalists’ aversion to accepting government money.

The structure of the global Fund could be horizontal—giving specified types of grants anywhere in the world—or vertical, like the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) which allocates the money through national organizations.

Pooling recovered assets, corporate fines and other government funding, and distributing grants from this basket, will succeed only if the critical question of sovereignty is resolved. Under existing international rules, recovered assets must be returned to the nations from which they came. Donors also like to feel they are serving their own local or regional constituents. How can corporate fines, assessed by governments, be

3

repurposed outside their national borders, into an international fund? Designing a mechanism that reaches outside normal turf boundaries will require open minds and creative work-arounds.

Donor assessment is particularly difficult for journalists, because they must be allowed to turn down publication of a story that doesn’t pan out after months of work. However, new tools can trace the influence of a published story through the digital media landscape, to add to the significant anecdotal evidence that investigative journalists are effective watchdogs for the rule of law and democracy.

Basic principles such as what is the point of the fund, what is the firewall between the donor and the journalist, who has the power to designate the money, and what are the criteria for these grants, must be agreed in advance by all parties. Even if they seem clear at the outset, they must constantly be reinforced.

A stellar international leadership group, a crisp mechanism, and a public marketing campaign to promote the Fund, will be keys to its success.

We recommend following up the brainstorm meeting in Perugia on April 5, 2019 with small task forces to propose how best to: • Assess new funding targets (taxes, corporate fines, asset recovery, legal fees, et al.) • Design the best global mechanism for pooling and administering the new funding • Design the fairest mechanism for selecting judges and grantees • Design public campaigns and strategic partnerships in target countries and regions to support the journalists’ mission and need for the fund

Introduction

The timing is excellent for a creating a global fund with new streams for supporting investigative journalism. Potential supporters are interested because of the international crisis of anti-democratic politics and the easy spread through social media of “fake news” (propaganda) and conspiracy theories. These negative trends are occurring at the same time that public trust and the old business models are collapsing for the authoritative professional journalism that traditionally checks such abuses.

It is critical now to shore up the enabling environment for democracy, by advancing the quality, range, and public influence of watchdog journalism. The use of pseudo-journalism to disrupt the US election in 2016 and so many other democratic processes in other countries demands a multi-faceted and well-funded response.

At the same time, the high-profile murders of Jamal Khashoggi, Jan Kuciak, Daphne Caruana Galizia, and many others, illustrate that the number of attacks on watchdog journalists around the world is unprecedented, according to the Index on Censorship.1

These journalists need our public support, training, technological innovation and above all, a sustainable flow of funding. They are responding to the cross-border nature of corruption today with their own cross-border investigative networks, redefining the local journalistic traditions of hyper-competition and “scoop” culture. While all good journalism should be fact-checked and contextualized, investigative journalists see themselves as the “special forces” of the profession, deployed to go more deeply and systematically into an issue than their beat colleagues.2 They rely heavily on primary sources, including public records, computer-assisted data crunching, and a focus on social justice and accountability. It is time consuming, expensive, and its independence must be unimpeachable.3

4

But just when we need them the most, these investigative journalists have to scramble and compete for too few sources of funding. Having to approach donors constantly to fund work, that cannot always promise a measurable impact, is both debilitating and inappropriate. Having to fend off supporters’ agendas and evaluation rubrics, while trying to bear witness to dangerous criminal activities, is not a good use of journalists’ time.

For this reason, we propose the creation of a sustained basket fund that will support investigative journalists around the world.

Potential New Streams of Funding

Most funding for such a Fund will likely come from traditional sources: government aid and foundations.4 Some journalists are establishing side businesses to finance their work. However, this report introduces some potential new streams of funding for investigative journalism, and none seems riper for the picking than the big tech companies. The global media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Google, are highly vulnerable now to heavy regulation and taxation in many countries, especially in Europe.

One argument (put forward by Tim Karr at the US NGO Free Press and others) is that they should pay back now for the advertising money they have made with the journalism content they carry but did not pay for. These tech companies are under intense pressure to atone financially also for their mining and selling of private data. Hoping to offset the growing clamor for new taxes, tithes or breakups of their companies, some are starting to announce voluntary journalism support initiatives such as Facebook’s three-year $300 million program5, and Google’s European Digital News Innovation Fund spending 150 million euros over three years.6 Journalists need to work with the tech companies to figure out what are the most promising approaches.

Government lawsuits and court settlements have included journalism support from the tech companies. For example, in 2013 Google launched an $81 million media innovation fund as part of its settlement with the French government over violation of copyright laws, supporting incubation of new ideas within existing newspapers, supporting new outlets, and subsidizing research and development for a newspaper and universities that want to develop partnerships.

An even bigger—but much more difficult---source to tap would be a portion of the corporate fines and corruption assets recovered by governments and courts, thanks to journalists’ investigative work. Journalists should avoid the “bounty hunter” role that lawyers and whistleblowers can play, because this would distort their role as disinterested civil society watchdogs. Beyond the ethical risks, there are other hurdles to giving some of this recovered money to the journalists, including national sovereignty, political hazards and competing actors in the successful prosecution of corruption cases. However, we outline in this paper some possible approaches and precedents for getting and allocating some new funding.

Foreign aid is also a “slippery slope” for journalists, whose independence from government and other donors is necessary. However there are also approaches and precedents to consider. David Kaplan of Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN) and Drew Sullivan built the case for investigative journalism as a return on foreign aid investment, in 2016.7 Their argument was advanced further by Stanford University Professor James Hamilton’s 2016 study, Democracy’s Detectives, which found that for every dollar invested in an investigative story in the USA, hundreds of dollars in benefits may be returned to society. 8

A challenge for funders and investors is the more precise measurement of impact for their money. While journalists cannot promise that every tip will turn into a fruitful story, the impact of projects like the Panama Papers is obvious. Now, in addition to tallying the government resignations and asset returns generated by

5

such investigative projects, new social media instruments measuring the influence trajectory of an original investigative story are being developed at the MIT Media Lab and elsewhere.

A precondition to winning donors into a new global fund will be how it is set up to distribute the money properly. Numerous mechanisms exist for helping journalists locally and regionally with grants, subsidies and subscriptions. Some examples are offered in this report, but a global model will require special attention to overcome the sovereignty factor. The best argument against limiting journalism support within a country or region is that most corruption is now cross-border, and we need cross-border approaches to attack it.

Brainstorming a global fund

The Perugia meeting for which this report is prepared will include others who, like Sullivan and Kaplan, have been exploring the creation of such a fund for years. James Deane, director of Policy and Learning at UK NGO BBC Media action, is envisioning a Global Fund for Media that is more comprehensive than just investigative journalism. Deane argues that there is a market failure and insufficient funding for news, and that a global fund would be an efficient way of supporting media around the world. He also senses a new willingness to accept public money since the business climate for media continues to deteriorate.

Deane hosted a small meeting at Bellagio in February 2019 with media development stakeholders to brainstorm around how the idea of a global fund might work. Deane bases his argument on four assertions: 1) market failure, 2) there has not been enough discussion about non-market solutions including government support for media, 3) there is now an appetite for government help and, 4) Deane doesn’t believe that government support must lead to government control of the media. This report includes some examples, particularly in Europe, which show that government support for the media can be helpful and, with the right safeguards, remain independent of donor interference.

In addition, Mark Nelson, senior director of the Center of International Media Assistance (CIMA), has been talking to OECD donors about allocating more development assistance towards helping the media in the global south. His point is simple: only 0.4% of the $147 billion being spent annually on development assistance is being spent on media development. That estimate, about $600 million a year, includes official development assistance and funding from private foundations. Donors should commit to spending 1% on media development: “$600 million is a rounding error. Just an incremental increase would be substantial…We need to get into the $147 billion,” Nelson said in February.

The OECD has had trouble getting its member countries to enforce the anti-corruption laws. They are looking into how to get media to help with this challenge.9

To kickstart a more serious dialogue about media funding, CIMA and the Swedish government aid agency, SIDA, organized a meeting with the OECD of large private foundations and the Development Assistance Committee known as DAC. The group met from Jan 31-Feb 1, 2019 in Paris. The meeting was hosted by the Governance Network of the Development Assistance Committee (the DAC is the official forum of the 30 OECD members that give together $147 billion in ODA).

That meeting helped raise awareness among donors about the importance of supporting media and also got them to think about supporting a global fund. Representatives from two of the major European donors expressed support for a global fund and asked for a sense of what the media development community would do if it had significant funding. Nelson believes that the media development community and recipient countries could easily absorb more funding, and that creating a global Fund could unlock more donor money. More coordination is needed among recipients and media development organizations and they should think

6

about helping donors. “The big challenge is to integrate media development more systemically into how donors plan and implement their global agendas,“ Nelson said.

A major summit is being organized by the UK and Canadian governments in July on media freedom, where a global fund for journalism may be considered. Discussions are also taking place linked to the Reporters Without Borders Information and Democracy Commission https://rsf.org/en/news/rsf-launch- groundbreaking-global-information-and-democracy-commission-70-years-after-un-general

Challenges of creating a Global Fund for Investigative Journalism

There isn’t enough philanthropy supporting investigative journalism. Unless we tap new revenue streams, we may undermine the ability of some journalists who now compete for the same donors.

Unlike setting up a fund with a clear goal such as eliminating malaria, soliciting money for a journalism fund carries unique perils that could destroy the independence, credibility and public value of the journalists’ work.

This report offers a tour d’horizon of some possible new sources of funding, with the special challenges of each. We recommend further study of the most promising new funding sources, after eliminating those that seem impractical.

If the proposed Global Fund for Investigative Journalism (“Fund”) seeks a portion of recovered assets or corporate fines from courts and governments, the implications are particularly problematic. But even a seemingly benign funding mechanism such as philanthropy, government grants, or crowd-sourcing hold special dangers for investigative journalists.

Investigative Journalists are difficult to fund. The three top challenges are:

1. Independence. Unlike the lawyers or whistleblowers who make successful corruption prosecutions, journalists ethically must remain apart from personally benefitting from the specific stories they do. Therefore a straightforward “finder’s fee” doesn’t work for investigative journalists.

2. Political sensitivity. It is much easier politically to sell the idea of saving journalists from violent reprisals (a popular trend in European funding) or to fund “local” journalism (especially popular with donors in the US) because that creates a media platform where politicians can imagine getting their messages across to their constituents. “Investigative” journalism is threatening to the powerful, for good reason. Even those policy-makers who consider themselves to be good guys supporting journalism, can end up embarrassed in an exposé: as in the case of UK’s David Cameron, whose father’s offshore investments turned up in the Panama Papers.10

3. Impact. Donors may not feel they have a return for their money. Investigative journalists have to be able to pursue leads that may not work out; a return product can never be guaranteed in advance. A story’s impact, like other democracy work, requires others to follow through with action, and the journalist’s original role may be underappreciated. Subscriptions and crowd-funding become problematic if an outcome is expected. Giving away T-shirts that celebrate the journalists as superheroes only goes so far, if investigations turn up empty and corrupt officials remain in power.

7

Tapping into recovered assets, corporate fines, and other corruption case proceeds is not going to be easy. The structural issues include:

1. Sovereignty and turf Issues

It is the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) rule to return corruption proceeds to the sovereign nation from which they came, in order to compensate the victims. ● Often the funds are repatriated to the same corrupt officials See: https://www.demdigest.org/a- case-of-irresponsible-asset-return-benefits-kazakhstan-kleptocracy/ ● However, the argument can be made that corruption cases cross borders, engaging victims outside of single geographic jurisdictions, and the journalists are now networked to capture these flows. The Global Fund would be a way to ensure this networked watchdog function that is so important to recovery of corruption proceeds. ● Equity issues about turf will have to be resolved in the distribution of the funds, superseding local, national, and regional biases. A regional distribution method could help limit state capture of the grants.

2. Getting official credit for the journalists’ role in the prosecution

In addition to the sovereignty, journalism ethics and asset return elements, there are issues of shared responsibility and challenges of attribution (whistleblowers, government agencies, private attorneys).11 It takes many cooks to create a successful corruption prosecution. It is important to avoid having to prove that the journalists deserve a finder’s fee for any specific story—first of all, because this would skew their priorities and ethics, turning them into bounty hunters. In addition, journalists should not be distracted by spending time and resources to make the case that they achieved a particular outcome.

3. Mission Creep: Journalists are not the same as whistleblowers

The US Securities and Exchange Commission is authorized by Congress to provide monetary awards to eligible individuals who come forward with high-quality original information that leads to a Commission enforcement action in which over $1,000,000 in sanctions is ordered. The range for awards is between 10% and 30% of the money collected. The Commission has created an Office of the Whistleblower to handle such claims.12

While it seems natural for whistleblowers to recoup a share of the proceeds when their corruption cases result in fines and recovered assets, journalists are in a different category. If journalists are going to recoup percentages of the assets they are instrumental in helping to recover, they might have to spend resources proving their role in the maze of actors who bring a case to successful prosecution, rather than doing what journalists are supposed to do: reporting and publishing investigations. Journalists could be less likely to take on stories of importance that do not hold promise for a financial return. Perhaps most important of all, the damage to reputation from such profit-taking would be enormous, at a time when trust in journalism is already at a historic low. ”It would smell to me. It would suggest the reason you did the investigation was to get the money,” said one American donor who funds investigative journalists.

• One approach, suggested by South African Justice Richard Goldstone, who is working with Integrity Initiatives International to create an international Anti-Corruption Court, would be to bundle whistleblowers and journalists together in order to reward them together as instigating such prosecutions.13 • The Fund could lobby individual lawyers and law firms to reward voluntarily the role of investigative journalism in their cases, encouraging them to steer donated proceeds to the

8

Global Fund for Investigative Journalism. This funding stream would be ad hoc and sporadic, but given the size of the recoveries, having this return from a few public-spirited lawyers doing qui tam and cy pres work might bring some money into the Fund. • Judges and courts also should be lobbied to appreciate the role of the prestigious Fund as they assign leftover recovered money (cy pres) in class action cases and bequests.

4. Who gets to program the money

The experience of Scoop, GAVI (the Vaccine Alliance), and regional and global basket funds from multiple donors, offers some lessons: ● It is vital to have all the donors agree at the top about what the specific goals, outcomes and assessment measurements will be. What is the problem that this money seeks to address? What does success look like? How tolerant will they be of failure, which is built in to investigative journalism if a tip doesn’t work out? ● The tension between specific national interests and cross-border, regional or global work should be addressed effectively in advance and throughout. ● Decide whether you will allocate funding according to the specific projects that emerge on the merits, or simply give a fixed percentage of funding to selected journalism organizations and let them use it as they wish. ● Consider how your fund is competing with other funding, or weakening related for-profit enterprises. ● How will you interface with other regional or country-level funding programs?

5. Turning competitors into allies?

Is it a good idea to join together and make one international journalism fund with a specific sub designation for investigative journalism? The benefits are obvious: united we can have much greater pool of funding, impact and credibility. The negatives are: 1) power struggles and priority disputes within the distribution team, 2) offering one big juicy target for enemies, and 3) jurisdictional issues.

Instead should we pursue a specific trust fund just for investigative journalism? This kind of journalism is difficult and time-consuming to produce. The danger of a joint fund is that the money may go to less expensive or less controversial journalism projects. A designated fund just for investigative journalism would ensure that it doesn’t get short shrift. However political policymakers may be reluctant to support journalists who end up exposing their own foibles.

Whether the Fund should be free-standing, or associated with an existing multinational foundation or non- governmental organization, is a related question to be considered. The EU, OECD, UN and World Bank are considered quite bureaucratic, so a smaller affiliation might prove nimbler.

9

Revenue streams and structures

• GOVERNMENT MONEY: HOW TO MAINTAIN INDEPENDENCE?

Some news organizations have re-organized their business structures into nonprofit trust funds, to protect the journalists’ independence from government and commercial pressure.

To see how we might set up a global basket fund, we looked at some existing structures of external funding for journalism, particularly in Europe, which has a vibrant history of government support for media.

Overview: Europe14

Public support for media in Europe takes a number of forms. Support can generally be classified as either indirect — tax or tariff breaks, or educational programs, for example — or direct — transfers made directly to media organizations.

Indirect subsidies, which are relatively uncontroversial from a political standpoint and inexpensive, are widespread. Many major Western European countries, including France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Norway and the UK, among others, have reduced or eliminated VAT (value added tax) rates for newspaper and magazine sales.15 However, some have argued that indirect subsidies do not go far enough to ensure the media’s long- term sustainability.16 Another common form of public support for media is public broadcasting systems. Public broadcasting systems enjoy broad popularity with both citizens and governments alike and have been shown to be more resistant to capture by the states responsible for their funding than traditional for-profit media is to capture by advertisers.17

Beyond indirect subsidies and publicly-operated outlets, many European governments are increasingly implementing programs that involve direct subsidies to media outlets. Some notable examples can be found in Sweden, France, the Netherlands, Austria, and other major Western European economies.18 These subsidies are often specifically earmarked to aid in production costs, or, less commonly, distribution costs, and are not intended to boost the profit of the beneficiary organization but rather offset costs in a way that will allow the organization to remain in operation.19

• Funding for direct subsidies comes from a number of sources. In some countries, a portion of the licensing fees generated by public broadcasting systems are diverted to private media organizations, while other countries use tax revenue from advertisers on television or radio.

• The aim of direct subsidies is generally not to allow beneficiaries to become profitable, but rather to sustain organizations that play an important social function. In Sweden, subsidies are allocated with an eye towards media plurality, as funds are often bestowed on media organizations that represent a minority voice or are the smaller of two leading outlets in a metro region.20 The same is true for Norway, which has an extensive program of government support for media.

Though there is consensus that government subsidies are not meant to solve the problem of media’s faltering business model, there is debate over the role that subsidies should play in the long-term. Živković argues that media can be considered a “public good,” and should be in large part government-funded for this reason,21 while Cairncross believes that direct government subsidies, while a necessary stopgap measure to ensure short-term viability of media outlets that operate in the public interest, should eventually be

10

supplanted by alternate funding sources. She proposes the development of an “Institute for Public News” to aid in the development of innovative solutions to journalism’s sustainability problems.22

Europe has multiple basket funds supporting journalism with both government and philanthropic funding. Here are some examples: • EEA and Norway Grants The EEA Grants and Norway Grants have donated about one billion euros over five years to fund civil society, environment and other projects with money from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. The money goes to 15 EU countries in Central and Southern Europe and the Baltics, home to some important sources of cross-border corruption, and the journalism that exposes it.

● European Journalism Centre This European fund has projects running in 47 countries. It runs grants from funders to journalists, focusing on core journalism training, health journalism, evaluations. The EJC convened a Funders’ Forum in 2017 to encourage foundations to give more to media. A Netherlands-based nonprofit, EJC has a five-year five million euro grants budget with contributions from the EU, OSF, Adessium, Gates, German stiftungs, Google, Facebook, etc. EJC believes one of its important roles is to preserve the “church/state” division between the donors and the journalists.23

● journalismfund.eu This European fund supports investigative, cross-border journalism. A subset fund offering a model for us, is the FDP Journalism Fund:24 o The FDP funding comes from the Flemish government, with a peer-review jury model to create a structural editorial independence. The model works like this: • A jury of four established and highly respected journalists, media lawyers, media scholars or other competent personalities is selected by the team of the fund • A transparent set of criteria and their respective weight is developed and made public25 • Journalists apply for a work grant, applications are handled by the team • The jury decides based upon the known criteria • The team communicates with the applicants • Team and jury oblige themselves to full confidentiality about work grants, grantees’ names and topics until a given story has been published • Jury members step in the open at an event once they conclude their 4-year term on the jury. By selecting personalities known for their competence and integrity, the trust in the jury is developed. The jury is never in contact neither with applicants nor with the Flemish government, influence in either direction is thus highly unlikely. If a jury member knows an applicant, he or she informs the rest of the jury and abstains from a vote in this case.26

● EU Fund for Investigative Journalism IJ4EU The Vienna-based International Press Institute, a 68- year-old network of journalists from 100 countries, was selected in 2018 to house a new EU-funded initiative, the Investigative Journalism for Europe fund. To protect the journalists from government interference, the group established a process that worked well in the first test year of the project, according to Barbara Trionfi, executive director of IPI.27 The funding provided almost half a million Euros as a new pot of funding for cross-border investigative projects. The grant terms required journalists from at least two member states to participate and publish, on such topics as corruption, security, human rights and the environment. It is expected to continue with more funding in 2018- 19.28

11

Scoop29

How do you hand out government money to journalists, without being accused of not being editorially independent; without being accused of geopolitical interference?

Geopolitics are the logic behind every flow of foreign ministry money to other countries, we pondered this problem and decided to go for the project anyway while being transparent, and while building in arm’s length principles throughout.

Scoop ended up with a peer-to-peer model and a workable structure, which at the same time would safeguard editorial independence.

Journalists in the project countries could file an application, which then would be screened and decided upon by journalists from the Danish Association for Investigative Journalism, FUJ. The latter were active journalists with experience from reporting in the project countries. Importantly all journalists involved in the decisions were working on a voluntary basis, donating time and expertise, only actual expenses such as travel costs would be refunded.

The construction was thus roughly the following: ● IMS (Danish media development organization) and FUJ were the legal entities, partnering on the Scoop project. ● Funding applications / tenders bids towards the Danish government were handled by IMS. ● The FUJ volunteers would handle the individual applications by the journalists and decide on who should have a grant. ● IMS would pay the funds to the journalists and handle the financial reporting. ● FUJ volunteers would accompany and when necessary mentor the grantee as well as contribute to narrative reporting. ● A final narrative and financial report was compiled by IMS for the ministry.

Sadly, in 2018 the Danish and the Swedish investigative journalism associations pulled out of the project because of disagreements on the decision-making about the selection of grantees.30

- Brigitte Alfter

Overview: The USA In the USA, journalism is supported largely by philanthropy or by largely inadequate marketplace mechanisms such as advertising and subscriptions. Despite a vibrant history of partisan party newspapers in the 19th century, and a shift back to partisanship in some media like Fox and MSNBC, mainstream US journalists shrink from taking party or government money because they believe it would compromise their independence. Relying more on advertising than government subsidies, they also have tried to fend off commercial bias over the years with mixed success. To protect their newsrooms from commercial pressure, some like the St. Petersburg and Tampa newspapers are financed through non-profit trust.31

Ironically some of the least biased journalism today comes from the government-supported National Public Radio and Public Television networks, which rely mostly on donations, but also get a small amount of funding allocated by Congress through a buffer, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“Public polling has shown that most people in the United States believe taxpayer funding for public broadcasting is money well spent,” writes Timothy Karr of Free Press. “Yet funding here pales by comparison 12

to that in other advanced democracies: While the United States spends approximately $1.40 per capita to fund public media, Japan spends nearly $60 per capita, the United Kingdom spends more than $80 and Denmark more than $100.67 . The United States’ relatively paltry allotment has remained static for more than a decade despite the strong history of public support for news distribution in the United States, dating back to the Postal Act of 1792, which subsidized lower postage rates for newspapers, pamphlets and other print media considered socially beneficial.”32

In addition to public broadcasting, we discovered several mixed public-private funding mechanisms currently in use in the USA, and others that hold promise, which might be exploited, and also extended to Europe and other regions of the world. Pooling the funds with philanthropy, bequests and other streams would be a tool for ensuring that the government funds—whether they are taxes, or the product of bandwidth sales, or recouped fines from corporations—remain detached from government agendas.

Community Foundations: A Mix of Fines, Donations Community foundations are a potential structure for distributing US corporate fines to journalism nonprofits. For example, the attorney general’s office in New York State often works with local community foundations, who serve as the endowment managers for communities and can handle some court distributions. In the case of the EXXON overcharges, the fine proceeds were spread among community foundations in the state. They were used to strengthen energy savings. The state’s fine from tobacco companies33 also flowed through community foundations whose boards had the authority to distribute to worthy local causes.

Community foundations exist in every major city in the USA, taking multiple streams of money and administering together about $70 billion in assets. They get bequests with “field of interest” funding, or donor-advised funds that want to support an area such as investigative journalism. This is a way to take multiple kids of assets—including bequests, philanthropy and proceeds of court cases-- and distribute them within a geographic boundary. These nonprofits are administered by community boards. The Knight Foundation has worked with a number of community foundations over the years to sensitize them to the importance of community-based media. For example, the Buffalo Post, an investigative paper in Buffalo, NY, got some early grants from a regional community foundation. The Rochester Area Foundation, the 46th largest in the country, awarded $30 million last year in grants from 1,300 different funds, set up by individuals. https://www.racf.org/

Some years ago, the Gannett Foundation wanted to outsource its grant-making and it issued an RFP. The Rochester Area Community Foundation won the grant and they are the now the administrative back office for Gannett’s grant-making. “We don’t launder criminal money, but other than that, we take money from any legitimate source and turn it into a philanthropic force,” said Jennifer Leonard, execute director. Two-thirds of their assets are permanently endowed.

Outside the USA, there are several thousand such community foundations in the world, including for example, the Fundacion de France. https://www.fondationdefrance.org/en/who-are-we Canada has a large network of them. The World Bank set up some in Africa, and in Latin America.

- Ellen Hume

13

▪ POTENTIAL FUNDING STREAMS

It is best to find new streams of money rather than competing with existing funding for investigative journalism. Instead of trying to solve the problem of finding a new business model to support journalism in general, this paper is looking at opening up some streams of funding from governments, corruption cases, and new donors. The examples below are not exhaustive, but illustrate the possibilities that may exist for a global pooled charity, trust or foundation to support investigative journalism.

1. TAXES

● The BBC has long served as a model for taxing television sets to support the public television service. ● In a landmark 2018 report, Dame Frances Cairncross recommended establishing a public fund for journalism and media work funded primarily by new taxes on advertisers and makers of consumer electronics, given the role these industries play in the production and consumption of news. ● A US or other government tax on banks who work with offshore accounts, when they open new accounts, would be an appropriate target for the Fund. This would require legislation or regulatory changes. But since they are unpopular and widely seen to have facilitated corruption, it might be a politically promising area to look into.34 ● A tax on defamation suits, especially those brought in the UK, could be imposed as “a price of admission to defamation courts in the UK because they are so abused,” suggested attorney Alexander Papachristou. The small tax would be paid regardless of the outcome of the suit.35 ● A tax on media mergers, as the Canadians do. For example, in the US, the Comcast-NBC Universal deal in 2013, the AT&T-Time Warner at $85 billion; Comcast-Sky at $32.5 billion, and a proposed Sprint-T-Mobile at $26 billion could have spun off money for supporting journalists, perhaps into either a pooled national fund or an array of local community foundations. 36

Canada Media Fund (CMF). Created in 2009 after the merger of the Canadian Television Fund and the Canada New Media Fund, the CMF is a public-private partnership which focuses on development and promotion of “Canadian content and relevant applications for all audiovisual media platforms.”37 It’s mandate is set by the Canadian government but it has an independent Board of Directors which manage the program and funds devoid of government influence.

The CMF’s budget of CAD $352 million for the 2018-2019 fiscal year comes from three sources: First, the Government of Canada provides CAD 134.1 million annually via federal budget expenditure, dating back to 2010.38,39,40 The second and third sources come from revenue and merger levies against Canada’s cable, satellite and internet protocol television distributors, which is collected by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).41,42 These levies are part of the CRTC’s standard conditions of holding a license in Canada for on-demand and telecommunication services. 43

-Laura Beamer

● Taxing the big tech platform companies. Emily Bell of the Tow School of Journalism calls for the tech companies to fund a “moon shot” injection of support to revive the journalism sector.44 ● Taxing sports tickets at the Olympics or the World Cup could produce a revenue source for the public good, but persuading the relevant taxing authorities that journalists should get the money instead of, for example, Syrian refugees, might be a tough sell.

14

A Tax on Tickets Sales at the “Global Games” Overview: Every four years the world celebrates extraordinary feats of athletic achievement with nationalistic pride as flags wave and face paint is smeared on the faces of young and old. Each of these excited fans wants to be present to see their country’s team or athlete achieve the win that will bring honor to the motherland—and each of these excited fans with a ticket in hand has paid dearly to attend either a FIFA World Cup match or any one of the myriad of Olympic events.

For purposes of our discussions in Perugia, there are three commonalities between the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games. These are:

• Both the FIFA World Cup and the Olympic Games occur every four years. • Both of these mega-events are representative of the global community with athletes, coaches, referees and fans coming from every country in the world as televisions beam the games simultaneously to tens of millions in every corner of the world. • Both FIFA and the Olympics have been rocked by massive corruption scandals in recent years. Background: Allegations of bribery and corruption dogged the FIFA organization for decades but in 2015, after an extensive investigation by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted approximately 30 current and former FIFA officials and associates on charges of “rampant, systemic, and deep- rooted” corruption. These arrests and investigations called into question the process of allocating World Cup tournaments, particularly the process of awarding the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, as well as electing its president, and the administration of funds, including those earmarked for improving football facilities in some of FIFA's poorer members.

Investigative journalism played a crucial role in uncovering the corruption linked to the bribery rampant throughout the Olympic organization. From the awarding of the Olympic Games to Brazil45 to allegations of bribery associated with the upcoming Olympic Games in Japan46 to state sponsored doping of athletes to allegations of bribery of referees and umpires, the ideal of the Olympic Games has become entangled in corruption.

Since the initial set of indictments, journalists have continued to uncover kickbacks and bribes at the country level in FIFA programs around the world. The World Cup is the most-watched sporting event in the world, larger even than the Olympics. It generates billions of dollars in revenue from corporate sponsors, broadcasting rights and merchandising. Along with hosting the events, countries must invest heavily in infrastructure upgrades and new developments to support millions of spectators and match facility needs.

Infrastructure and investment in public procurement is often prone to excessive bribery and grand corruption which plagued recent host countries- Brazil and Russia. Journalists across Latin America continued to connect the dots and pieced together the web of corruption and bribes that were essential to unraveling the “Operation Lava Jato” scandal across the continent. The Odebrecht construction company in Brazil admitted to $778 million in bribery and agreed to a fine of at least $3.5 billion in a case brought by the U.S. Department of Justice in December 2016 with the Governments of Brazil and Switzerland.47 Investigations are continuing in 12 countries across Latin America as well as three other continents.

Ticket sales to the FIFA World Cup and Olympic Games follow at the end of a long line of transactions that occur to bring these mega-events to a particular country so that fans can enjoy an athletic competition. The joy of sports competition has been severely tainted by corruption and both the FIFA governing body and the International Olympic Committee need to take action to clean up their image in the eyes of ordinary people.

Proposal: We the People of the World support regularly reoccurring Global Games and with a small tax of less than $0.25 included on the ticket sales of the FIFA World Cup and/or the Olympic Games, a Global Fund for Investigative Journalism could be self-sustaining and endowed with sufficient resources to support a number of

15

journalists.

At the recent Summer Olympic Games held in Brazil in 2016, tickets sales exceeded 6 million48 and ranged in price from $20 to $1,40049. Similarly, at the recent FIFA World Cup in Russia in 2018, ticket prices ranged from $105 to $1,100 per ticket for non-Russian citizens50 for the approximately 2.5 million tickets sold.

6,000,000 X .25 = $1,500,000 + 2,500,000 X .25 = $625,000 = $2,125,000

The next FIFA World Cup to be held in 2022 will be held in Qatar and the following will be held in 2026 under a unified North America bid with matches divided by Canada, Mexico and the United States. The next Olympics are scheduled to be held in Tokyo 2020, Beijing (winter) 2022, Paris 2024, and Los Angeles 2028.

Another alternative would be for the IOC and FIFA to make a contribution to the Global Fund in the amount equivalent to the ticket sales and proposed tax.

- Mary Beth Goodman

2. ASSET RECOVERY

Asset recovery is a cumbersome process, sometimes, taking up to 10 years or so from the start of a case. The World Bank and UN Office of Drugs and Crime have a joint program, the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR), whose purpose is to help bridge the gap with countries in the asset recovery process, with technical assistance and capacity building in middle income and developing countries. They work to facilitate mutual legal assistance, asset declaration and tracing, and the legal infrastructure. Efforts to improve coordination have been driven through a series of regional and global forums.

16

Exploring Recovered Assets as a Funding Source Asset recovery has been an official priority in the fight against corruption since the 2003 adoption of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), the only legally binding universal anti-corruption instrument, now with more than 180 member-state signatories. The goal is to deprive corrupt officials of their ill-gotten gains and to return these assets to their original owners, compensating the victims of corruption.

With developing countries estimated to lose roughly USD$20-40 billion to corrupt officials each year, the aim is also to reinvest these assets into the sustainable development of the countries affected. While UNCAC gives states of origin the right to request the return of assets without conditions,51 assets are typically returned through an extensive restitution process between financial center ‘returning’ governments and state of origin ‘receiving’ governments. To maximize societal benefits, returning governments have agreed in various multilateral negotiations on guiding principles for how to pursue structured returns, backed by national regulations and legislation.

Determining whether some small percentage of foreign corruption case proceeds—often in the hundreds of millions, sometimes billions of dollars—could go to support a global fund for investigative journalism requires consideration of both asset recovery principles and related government practices.

From UNCAC to the G8 Asset Recovery Initiative’s Principles and Options for Disposition and Transfer of Confiscated Proceeds of Grand Corruption to the 2017 Global Forum on Asset Recovery Communique,52 globally recognized asset recovery principles underscore the importance of supporting efforts that combat corruption, repair the damage done by corruption, and help achieve development goals. One could therefore make a strong case for exploring support for investigative journalism that follows money across borders, exposes corruption at the highest levels, and generates leads for official investigations that deliver justice and enable the recovery of stolen assets in the first place.

At the same time, the fundamental principles of compensating victims and case-specific treatment are the key governing factors in how leading returning governments (the United States, Switzerland, the United Kingdom) approach the restitution process.

Returning governments can have distinct national legislation and practices for restitution as long as they comply with UNCAC. In the United States, the restitution process is led by the Department of Justice, which in each case negotiates the return of permissible proceeds to compensate victims in the country of origin and ensure the accountable and transparent use of funds. This means ensuring that the receiving government has a plan for spending the funds in a manner that benefits society and effective oversight; the decision to allocate funds to any given area lies with the state of origin. In cases with no identifiable victims, proceeds go to a fund to support international law enforcement cooperation or domestic law enforcement capacity.

In Switzerland, after criminal authorities have made a judgement, restitution is led by the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA), which sees it as an important pillar of Swiss policy on combating illicitly acquired assets. Codified in national legislation since 2016,53 the objective for restitution is to improve the living conditions of the population of the state of origin and strengthen the rule of law. The FDFA works closely with the receiving government to shape a treaty that specifies how the money will be used, who will manage it, and how it will be monitored, which has resulted in public financing for a range of health, education, and good governance projects. When agreement can’t be reached with the receiving government, other development projects via Swiss development institutions, the World Bank, or UNICEF are pursued to ensure that the people of the state of origin benefit from the funds.

For the UK, where the Department for International Development (DFID) closely coordinates with the foreign ministry and law enforcement throughout restitution discussions with the receiving country, the priorities are ensuring transparency and accountability for both governments and populations and advancing development in the state of origin.

17

Adherence to securing buy in from the state of origin and making each agreement case specific makes it unlikely that any of the returning governments would support new policy or legislation mandating that a fixed percentage of proceeds go to support any particular area of work in every case.

Additional challenges on the returning government side for establishing a mechanism to use some percentage of proceeds to support a global journalism fund might include concerns over perceptions of prosecution to advance a foreign policy agenda, the role of foreign assistance, and who gets to program the money. Several governments fund investigative journalism and civil society with foreign assistance, raising questions about whether authorized funds are a more appropriate contribution. Law enforcement might also see support for their in-country programming as a higher priority means of combating corruption and compensating victims.

That said, there are a few paths that merit further exploration for the potential allocation of funds in some cases, particularly cases where investigative journalism contributed to the official investigation:

• Multilateral agreement among the leading returning governments to propose in restitution negotiations that a small percentage of proceeds go to support investigative journalism via a global fund or domestically. • Dedicating a small percentage of the “reasonable expenses” deduction allowed for returning states under UNCAC54 to supporting a global fund for investigative journalism. • Lobbying by domestic civil society groups during the restitution process. Because the receiving government needs to agree to how returned funds are spent, pressure from domestic civil society groups could go the farthest to influence funding allocations. Successive asset recovery principles underscore the importance of civil society input, and civil society platforms give returning governments more room to support certain areas at the negotiating table. The receiving government might opt to establish a new national anti- corruption foundation with an independent board that could provide funding to a new global fund for investigative journalism, directly allocate funds to a global fund, or support investigative journalism domestically.

The principles and mechanics of asset recovery make it unlikely to serve as a primary or systematic source of funding, yet the potential contribution presented by some small percentage of proceeds if only on rare occasion mean it could provide a significant supplement to a mechanism funded by other means. The role of investigative journalism in holding governments accountable for the use of returned assets is also critical when many receiving governments lack strong democratic institutions to ensure societies benefit. Civil society groups in these countries might be best placed to carry that message.

– Camille Eiss

18

3. CORPORATE FINES FROM CORRUPTION SETTLEMENTS

Corporate fines provide an intriguing but tricky potential funding stream. Paying a record $1.6 billion in combined US and European fines, Siemens’ corruption settlements with the World Bank in 2009 (USD 100 million over 15 years) and the European Investment Bank in 2013 (EUR 13.5 million over 5 years) led to a long-term compliance agreement whose provisions included: “Under the umbrella of the Siemens Integrity Initiative, Siemens will disburse funds to support non-profit organizations worldwide that promote business integrity and the fight against corruption.” 55 Theoretically, this could include the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism.

Under the UN Convention Against Corruption, the goal of asset recovery is to return assets to the original victims through the governments of the nations in which they reside. Corporate fines, on the other hand, are typically retained by the governments that seize them.

In the USA:

The US is the world’s largest generator of corporate fines. How the fines are collected is a highly structured process. What happens afterwards is also subject to government regulations, and a legal diversion of this funding into a journalism fund would require Congressional or regulatory action that most deem politically impossible.56

Such corporate fines are generally deposited into the U.S. Treasury. However, there is a “3% fund” that returns money to US Department of Justice components (such as the Fraud Section) in the case of “nonjudicial resolutions” such as deferred prosecution agreements and non-prosecution agreements.57

• After 3% of the recoveries is set aside, DOJ components then petition the Coalition Resources Allocation Board (CRAB) for money from that fund to further additional corporate investigations (it has to be corporate investigations) that have a good chance of leading to additional corporate recoveries. The CRAB can and does say no. In a prior administration, the 3% was used as funding for prosecutors (they had to be assigned primarily to corporate cases), translations, forensic accounting services, etc. 58

The US laws under which corporate fines are collected include: • The False Claims Act. Ordinary US citizens may bring a corruption case on behalf of the US Government, and if successful, can reap huge financial rewards, under the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act. These citizens (usually lawyers) receive a return of some 10-15% of the funds recovered by the government. There are state as well as federal versions of the FCA. o Here is an example of how it works. o It might be difficult to structure an ethical qui tam process directly for journalists, whose reputation depends on publishing stories in the public interest without regard to personal financial return. However large law firms have pro bono practices. The global Fund could become an attractive magnet for receiving a slice of a qui tam case if the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism were set up with a prestigious profile, and was seen to generate more business for lawyers.59 However a US subsidiary fund would probably be more attractive to them. ● The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other US laws under which white collar corruption is prosecuted, turn over their fines to the U.S. Treasury.60 It would be hard to get any of this money with the exception of provisions, under some of the laws, for victims and whistleblowers (there is a whistleblower provision in the SEC statute, but the whistleblower has to have first-hand knowledge of the crime.) In some cases, the government department involved could include as part of its 19

punishment a required charitable contribution. Setting up the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism as a U.S. 501c3 charity would qualify. ● Future research could look into funding possibilities posed by such legal and governmental instruments as the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (Canada), OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, and Bribery Act (UK). Because US states like New York also have active anti-corruption laws and agencies, one also might also look at, for example, the work of the US District Court in Manhattan (such as prosecuting Danske Bank, because of NY Pension fund).

4. OTHER RARE BUT NOTABLE COURT DISTRIBUTIONS:

● Cy Pres class action suits. When a class action case has distributed money for victims, there may be some left over, which the court must allocate to a group or person whose profile is “so close” to the victim group. This has worked on occasion for US domestic journalism nonprofits, and a prestigious Global Fund for Investigative Journalism might be deemed appropriate to receive some of these distributions. ● Similarly, there are “area of interest” court bequests when the beneficiaries no longer are living. ● A keen knowledge of the law in any given jurisdiction can open journalism funding opportunities. In Albany, NY, Hearst Corp. General Counsel Eve Burton won punitive damages along with legal fees from a New York court, when corrupt state legislators were found in 2005 to have withheld documents from the Albany Times Union newspaper, violating the state’s Freedom of Information Act. The $33,000 paid by the legislators was used to open an investigative reporting budget line at the newspaper.61

5. DIRECT FOREIGN AID AND INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATIONS

Many governments fund investigative journalism and wider civil society initiatives through foreign aid, in addition to funding them through government development agencies. At the same time, some Justice departments administer their own capacity building programs, such as the US Department of Justice’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development Assistance and Training (OPDAT) and may see support for their own in-country programming as a higher priority means of benefiting the ‘victims of corruption.’

Countries known for giving foreign aid for media development, include the US, UK, Canada, China, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.

Recent reports which have surveyed the preferences of international media development funders, private foundations and other philanthropy, show that investigative journalism is rarely a top priority. Instead, there is an emphasis on the less controversial aspects of media development: digital innovation, training, local journalism, journalist safety, or thematic stories that promote development goals of the funder. See, for example: https://www.shareweb.ch/site/DDLGN/Documents/Media_Assistance_Donor_and_Lit_Review%202017.pdf

The US foreign assistance has been a major global media development force over the years,62 but now is less attractive to some journalists because of perceived US foreign policy shifts.

6. PRIVATE and CORPORATE FOUNDATION PHILANTHROPY63

There are an estimated 147,000 registered public benefit private foundations, with a collective annual expenditure of 51 billion euros.64 The European Journalism Center has convened donors to try to expand the pot of money for journalists.

20

Private and corporate philanthropy that supports journalism includes some relatively new players: Luminate (Omidyar), Craig Newmark, Gates, and others. Gates spends about $24 million each year to support health and education reporting, especially in Africa. More recently, Luminate spends about $20-25 million a year including support for investigative journalism, freedom of expression and innovation of business models. A survey of the major donors is available at: https://www.cima.ned.org/donor-profiles/.

A new European funding consortium, Civitates has pooled 4 million euros from 16 private foundations to promote democracy and solidarity in Europe. They are considering creating a sub fund for investigative journalism support.

David Kaplan of GIJN describes some of the ways in which foundations are engaged in international news.

George Soros has been the most generous private international media development funder for decades, working with independent media in risky settings, like Radio Echo, Russia’s first independent radio station, in Moscow during the coup against Yeltsin. The recent political attacks on Soros have made funding from his Open Society Foundation difficult for some journalists to take, even though together, the US government and Soros have been historically the largest funders of independent media development around the world.65 OSF spends about $25 million each year on journalism with investigative reporting one of the main areas of support.

7. MEMBERSHIP and SUBSCRIPTION MODELS

A handful of digital-only news organizations, mostly in the US and Europe, seem to be surviving largely on subscriptions, particularly if they initiate investigative reporting of national interest. In France, for example, MediaPart has played a part in exposing three major scandals, and has been a profitable news site that takes no advertising.66 In Hungary, a mixture of crowdsourcing and philanthropy supports such investigative sites as atlatso.hu and Direkt36. Google is working on tech solutions to facilitate expanding news organizations’ subscriptions and Luminate has been underwriting the Membership Project aimed at helping media outlets build their membership base.

In its efforts to encourage robust and interactive membership practices with news organizations around the world, The Membership Puzzle Project has partnered with Luminate and Democracy Fund to launch The Membership in News Fund to run through May 2020. The $700,000 fund is designed to support innovative membership models being tested at news sites as part of a global experiment to identify and clarify best practices for supporting and sustaining independent journalism in the 21st century.

8. LOTTERY PROCEEDS AND OTHER SOVEREIGN FUNDS

National and state lotteries are a natural target for the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism, to support rule of law and prevent corruption.

In Alaska, the oil and gas revenues have created a state fund that theoretically could support journalists.

21

Alaska Permanent Fund (“APF”) A new fund for investigative journalism would need to find a way to vet recipients and allocate funding so it would be very different from the Alaska Permanent Fund, which distributes a standardized dividend universally to residents. Even so there are some lessons to be drawn from Alaska’s fund which was established in 1976.

The first is that the fund should be structured for perpetuity. That means the fund would a) allocate only a fixed portion of its capital to any one year's grants, preserving the rest in an endowment of sorts and b) treat its grants as the Alaska Permanent Fund treats its dividends: cash outflows without any expectation of return or interest paid (differing from a development bank model).

The elegance of the Alaska model is its simplicity. By legislative action, 25% of all state revenues related to natural resource and minerals, such as leases, rentals, royalties and other sources, are deposited into the fund67. This number is fixed both mathematically and legally, so the capital stream into the fund is not subject to political debates.

The deposits become the fund’s ‘total principal’, but that capital is never available for spending. Instead, only income that is generated from those deposits (a second pool of capital designated as the ‘total earnings reserve account’) is available for spending. This model, with its clear, exact mechanisms for inflows68, “helps ensure the permanency of the fund” by providing a capital corpus to which all Alaskans are, and all future Alaskans would be, heirs69. To use a simple example, for every $100 the State of Alaska receives in tax revenue related to oil and other extractives, $50 is deposited into the APF and can never be redeemed. Assume that $50 is invested and, over time, generates a 2x multiple (i.e. $50 becomes $100). The $50 gain is available for spending in the total earnings reserve account, but the initial $50 principal remains in the fund into perpetuity.

The spending that springs from that total earnings reserve account is equally simple. Rather than designating it for discretionary spending related to particular policy objectives, the State issues a “simple, unconditional” cash dividend to all Alaska residents70.

Lessons Learned: Clarity of Objective from Competing Options

Part of APF’s success comes from its clarity. It knows what it is, what it is not. During its creation, three possible designs for the fund were considered, each with different objectives71. These three models are instructive for contemplating the investigative journalism trust’s key objective.

• Savings Account: o prioritizes protecting the principal of the fund and seeking to generate return on that principal o ‘best ideas win’ posture is agnostic to the underlying investments o conceit is that generating the best return on investment provides the most capital (and most stability) to fund social endeavors later on

22

• Development Bank o subsidize loans for private and public partnerships o predicated on the notion that Alaska suffered from a capital gap72 o helps foster growth by lowering the barriers to capital

• Social Focus o subsidizes investments in socially-conscious endeavors o the more direct orientation seeks to spur innovation in solving social problems

Ultimately, Alaska settled on the ‘savings account’ approach, avoiding the political complications and “feeding frenzy”73 a development bank or socially oriented investment vehicle could invite. That simplicity is attractive and potentially useful for the IJT, but it will no doubt invite complications of its own; mainly, it is easy to criticize a long- term horizon when the precarity of the current moment for investigative journalism is so pronounced.

While the Alaska model provides no example of underwriting journalism of any kind, its understanding of the dividend - an issuing of cash to meet a social, albeit unspecified, objective - is a useful proxy for the IJT’s underwriting of investigative journalism. There is no assumption on return of capital. Similarly bifurcating the IJT into two pools - a perpetually-oriented corpus and a socially-oriented spending account - may help the IJT achieve what is the most salient and attractive feature of the APF: permanence.

- Joseph J. Sass

9. CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CAUSE MARKETING74

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) dictates that a company should consider its societal impact when making business decisions. Governments mandate corporate responsibility in some areas – for example, banning harmful pesticides – and leave other CRS decisions up to the firm – for example, supply chain decisions. The latest CSR push is in data protection, especially given the prevalence of social networking and online storage of private identifiable information.

CSR can include charitable contributions, which is where the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism would come in. However it would be problematic for the journalists, unless the media independence is clearly established. It also could be awkward for a company’s CSR funding to unwittingly support an expose of the same company, even if it is mixed in a pooled fund.

CSR doesn’t have any one true template or model. Each company approaches it differently. Some create foundations, with grant-making arms. The Gates Foundation for example focuses on health and girls’ education, supply chain investments and labor rights, empowering youth in at risk communities. Companies might be persuaded that it is good for their branding to support journalism as part of “cause marketing” around transparency, anti-corruption, and pro-democracy support.

23

10. BUSINESS INVESTMENTS

One area that could be examined further is the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF) model of venture capital funding. Some for-profit funding streams for the Fund might be developed through future research. However some private foundations that now donate to investigative journalism would not want to be mixed in with commercial for-profit ventures in the same basket Fund. The business track record of journalism startups is mixed.75 Media developers have not yet devised the ideal scalable, portable, market- based model to sustain investigative journalism.

The unique opportunity of the tech platforms as a revenue source76

Getting money from Facebook or Google might be easier to arrange than having to negotiate with multiple governments. The platforms are still developing their programs for journalism support, and may be important contributors to a new Global Investigative journalism Fund.

Facebook, Google and Craig Newmark (Craig’s List) who are credited with wrecking the business model that uses advertising to support newspapers, are now funding various journalism ventures, including efforts to re- invent this business model. It is unclear what their long-term approach will be. They seem to want, most of all, to avoid being held responsible for the content on their platforms, although with the rise in hate crimes and live-blogging of massacres, this is proving unavoidable.

In addition, the intensifying political outcry against having the platforms make money from private data, and from their monetizing “free” content that journalists have paid to produce, forecasts more regulation and taxation of these companies.77 To avoid the direst measures—US Sen. Elizabeth Warren and others have proposed to break up Facebook, Google and Amazon— these companies may be open to further marketing and public relations investments to offset their bad image. Some journalists are calling for compensation, arguing that the tech giants need to repay some of the money they made by using free content made by others, as well as the advertising revenue that was diverted to the platforms. Surely some sort of tithe might be in order, while the tech industry and journalists work together on more systematic changes in how online spaces are managed, markets operate, online content is measured and valued.78

Today’s journalists also rely on the platforms, of course, to amplify their original stories through social media networks. It would seem useful, at a minimum, for the platform companies to work together with journalists to spin off advertising micropayments that reward the original content providers. Media Cloud, a tool being developed at the MIT Media Lab by Ethan Zuckerman, can measure the influence of an original news story, by mapping how it travels through the digital communication landscape. So a payment scheme, rewarding the original journalist, may be within reach.

Tim Karr and Craig Aaron of Free Press analyzed how Facebook’s business model privileges lower quality entertainment content over fact-checked, more sober journalism. A 2018 MIT study found that false news reports were 70 percent more likely to be retweeted on Twitter than accurate news — and the effects were even more pronounced for false political news.79

Karr and Aaron proposed a Public Interest Media Endowment “a public-interest media system that puts civic engagement and truth-seeking before alienation and propaganda,” that would be funded by a tax on the platform companies. He estimates a 2% tax on targeted ads from these “captains of surveillance capitalism” would produce $2 billion a year for such an endowment. They noted that new taxes on the platform

24

companies are under discussion in Australia, the European Union, France, Malaysia and the United Kingdom, among other places. 80 An anti-trust exemption for the newspapers and other news organization to act against Facebook has been proposed in Congress. 81

Some Facebook news initiatives: Facebook is a primary funder of the News Integrity Initiative at CUNY, which in turn gave $2.5 million to the European Journalism Center and Internews to foster community journalism around the world. 82 Facebook’s other journalism projects, including a $6 million project in the UK, are largely focused on supporting local news, and are philanthropic drops in the bucket for the company. However one media developer whose grant-making included Facebook money concluded they are not easy partners. “When they are getting ready to hand out some money, the question is always what’s in it for Facebook, how could we monetize this. Their actual commitment to helping the journalism ecosystem with sustained partnerships, or shared fees, is an open question.”

The point man for Google’s news initiatives, Richard Gingras, says they want to “enable a sustainable ecosystem of quality journalism going forward.”83 They do this with a tech approach, trying to help the news organizations innovate their own new subscription and advertising models.84 Google began funding journalism innovation earlier than Facebook. Google’s $300 million Google News Initiative is comparable to Facebook’s similar investment.85

It is anathema for these companies to be responsible for the content that their platforms carry and monetize. Therefore their marketing and Corporate Social Responsibility budgets might actually be better targets for the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism than their news initiatives, which focus on local news and innovation.

Skeptics say that Google, Facebook and other tech companies are designed to cannibalize the advertising market that sustained journalists, so helping them create new subscription models is hardly a proportional response. Others worry that Google and Facebook will view financial support for journalism as a substitute for paying taxes or as a replacement for regulation.

Like Facebook, Google does not normally share the bounty from its own revenue mechanisms with journalists, whose content anchors Google’s business, but rather encourages them to innovate new mechanisms to capture revenues86. It has given direct grants to European news organizations, particularly to promote media literacy in response to the “fake news” epidemic.

Beyond the major companies, optimists hope the tech sector in general may be willing to invest in the enabling environment for civil society. “Silicon Valley is full of tech money, a new generation of young tech entrepreneurs, waiting to see how they can make a difference,” said one California-based journalist, interviewed for this report. “They are reluctant to give to the legacy organizations, to give the way their parents gave. The use data in innovative ways and want to see how technology can make a difference in the world.” Others, such as David Callahan, Robert Reich and Anand Giridharadas have blasted the West Coast philanthropists for focusing their support on a small range of causes that interest them personally and for being unwilling to work with existing structures and institutions instead preferring to “disrupt” and “innovate” without evidence that their “data-driven” philanthropy is any more effective than the other kind.

Measuring the journalists’ impact with data is an element of what is needed to draw these donors and investors in, the journalist noted. Overselling the impact of stories “can end up hurting us. We need to give ourselves the same standards that we apply to others. The big claims must be supported.”

25

Making the case: new urgency, new tools

The rise of international kleptocracy is a growing threat to democracy and political stability.87 Journalists have responded by forming cross-border reporting networks that have exposed some of these crimes.88 Investigative journalism remains a loss leader for traditional media, so they have had to rely on donor money to support their work.

The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP)—one of the cross-border networks at work today-- calculates that it has been responsible for more than $6 billion in fines, seizures of assets and fees against organized crime figures, businessmen, companies and other entities, since its founding. It is unlikely most of these fines would have been levied had it not been for the journalists. These fines are a boon to police and prosecutorial departments.

Yet the journalists, again for ethical and legal reasons, do not get any return for their service to society. If journalists were allowed to claim just 10 percent of such fines, global investigative reporting could be permanently funded. OCCRP would be permanently funded on just 1 percent of the fines and seizures it has helped bring about, according to Drew Sullivan, founder and editor-in-chief.

Donors famously follow their own development agendas, pursuing such important causes as malaria, media literacy or human rights trafficking. Investigative journalism is more controversial, and thus is difficult to fund. There is not enough donor money around even now, when it is a popular trend to support cross-border investigative networks like OCCRP and ICIJ. Unless we develop new streams of money to support the this increasingly expensive area of work, it will not be sustainable.

26

Making the case: Countering Russian Disinformation The Baltic to Black Sea Alliance, an international group set up to respond to Russian cyber-attacks and misinformation campaigns, advised in 2014 that a multinational European fund be set up to support the region’s media environment, including support for investigative journalism.89 “Given the scale of Russia’s information effort, national attempts to directly counter Russian propaganda can be easily overwhelmed, underscoring the need for regional cooperation and joint European responses. A strong, professional media environment is both a show of democratic strength, and the proposed response to Russia’s information offensive,” their report said. The need for such a fund was deemed urgent. “The domestic media environment in each of these countries is weak. Public information space has in some cases dissolved into separate communities, defined as much by language as worldview, leaving no common public space for a collective national conversation. Public broadcasting is underfunded; private media faces the dual challenges of small markets and upheaval in traditional funding models created by audience shifts to the Internet. This has resulted in a media community struggling to fulfil its functions in a democracy. Financial constraints, along with insufficient transparency measures related to the ownership of media outlets, affect the professional standards of journalism, making it difficult to engage in investigative work, and to preserve editorial independence in the face of financial pressures aimed at influencing editorial content,” their report found. Among their recommendations: “Create a European Fund for Professional Journalism. Such a fund would be open to countries within Europe and the Eastern Partnership countries that are vulnerable to Russian information influence. A strong, professional media, not counter-propaganda is the best response to Russian information influence, yet across the region long standing economic models of traditional media are crumbling, resulting in a weakening of the media and a drop in professional standards and diminished audience reach and engagement. Arms-length project-based funding should support the ability of qualifying media outlets to meet high professional standards, supporting activities including professional training, investigative reporting, watchdog activities, improvements in audience reach, efforts to create new revenue models. Regional funding mechanisms are preferable to national mechanisms due to credibility risks of government funding to private media, and to eliminate risks of politicization.”

-Ellen Hume

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Journalists can offer case-by-case evidence of their impact, as the IJ4EU group did for example in showing off their projects to their EU funders at a Berlin conference, or as ICIJ did after the Panama Papers and the OCCRP has done with their work.

The Global Investigative Journalism Network has gathered many examples of impact, publicizing the evidence of their influence helps keep donors interested. But it isn’t always possible to show concrete reactions to important stories, because they require others to act once the information is published.

Fortunately there are new tools to establish the influence of investigative journalism as it enters the public sphere, to bolster the important anecdotal case-by-case evidence that investigative journalism brings huge benefits to the public.

Impacto in Brazil90 and MIT’s Media Cloud tools can map the influence of a story as it travels through the digital communication universe, establishing a basis for challenging corruption and other abuses of power.

Media Cloud: Tracking the Influence of an Investigative Story We can determine how investigative stories are spread through digital social networks, and map how they have generated influence, thanks to the MIT Media Cloud tool. This may be a more reliable and useful measure, one

27

could argue, than requiring evidence of direct “impact” such as the resignation of a public official, or the conviction of an embezzler. These other “impacts” involve other actors like lawyers and prosecutors, who may claim they have played the more important role, bringing the case to success in court. But the origination of the information that spurred that chain of events—the investigative journalism—now can be measured as a social good in and of itself, a good that theoretically should be rewarded because it was foundational to the ultimate outcome.

The Media Cloud tool quantifies and maps how a news topic builds from its origin and spreads through the Internet. As Media Cloud creator Ethan Zuckerman described in a hypothetical example, the Indianapolis Star does an investigative report on Larry Nasser, the gymnastics coach accused of sexual misconduct. Zuckerman’s tech tool is able to map and quantify how the original Larry Nasser story is then spread throughout the web. “Everyone starts writing Larry Nasser stories, which they wouldn’t have one if the Indy Star hadn’t originated their reporting. You can go back and do an analysis that says ‘isn’t this interesting, nobody was talking about Larry Nasser before this research was done.’ Maybe the Indy Star should get some credit every time someone shares ‘Larry Nasser,’” Zuckerman said.91

Zuckerman views this pinpointing of the news origin as a way to more accurately credit a news originator with the ad revenue it deserves, rather than giving hits to all those who simply copy, paste, and repost the content. Theoretically, it could be just as useful for a content reward system from a trust fund.

However one wouldn’t want the journalists to be corrupted themselves, by gaming this system to get the maximum financial rewards for their work. As Zuckerman is quick to point out, investigative journalism has to come up dry from time to time because it is based often on random, lucky news tips, like the data dump to Suddeutsche Zeitung that led to the global Panama Papers exposes. Therefore, such journalism needs to be supported without requiring that it produce a consistent return on investment.

-- Ellen Hume

Some fundamental goals and principles92

Proposed principles for setting up a Global Fund for Investigative Journalism might include93:

• Create an international basket of pooled public and private funding streams • The goal is for sustainable, multiple streams of income that add to the overall pool of money for investigative journalism around the world, rather than seeking one-off donations that compete with funding given now to existing individual investigative journalism organizations • Grant-making process must not direct specific recovered funds directly to the journalists involved in that same specific case • Journalism supported has to be independent of any directives from funders • Funders cannot approach journalists for information about new or ongoing unpublished investigations • Funders are not exempt from coverage • Grantees are expected to undergo standard vetting to ensure capacity for managing the funding. Global mechanisms

It is suggested that setting up a transparent mechanism, with administrators of impeccable reputation and experience, is a necessary precondition for wooing new streams of money into a Fund. So the challenge of bringing new money in depends on how you plan to send the money out.

28

It is possible that an existing organization could become the logical clearing house for the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism. For example, The EEA Grants and Norway Grants already fund civil society. ICIJ is already used to dispensing global investigative funds and OCCRP does so regionally. One benefit of this approach would be to avoid creating an expensive new bureaucracy.

There are numerous national and regional models for this. Global models seem to rely on the sovereignty of constituent states, as well.

For example: The European Programme for Integration and Migration (EPIM) which is “an initiative of 25 private foundations with the goal of strengthening the role of civil society in building inclusive communities and in developing humane and sustainable responses to migration, based on Europe’s commitment to universal human rights and social justice.”94 Like the community foundations in the USA, this basket fund spun off sub-funds to support thematic initiatives.

The New Development Bank or so-called “BRICS Bank” is another initiative that brought together new donors for a common cause. After years of quiet negotiations, the bank was established in 2014 with $50 billion in capital to be spent on developing infrastructure in low and middle income countries. The donors agreed on the principle of one country, one vote no matter how much money they contributed. This was made possible, in part, by agreeing that side funds could be set up with more flexibility.

The founding motto was “new goals, new instruments, new governance.” China, Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa felt they didn’t have enough say in the governing of the traditional Bretton Woods institutions and, despite different interests and political systems, came together to fund the New Development Bank, pledging $10 billion each with China promising further funding that would help countries in need of extra liquidity.

Another fund inspired by the success of EPIM is the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. This donates funding through nation-states.

The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM) Figuring out how to set up a global fund, overcoming sovereignty, equity and management concerns, is daunting. An example of a global fund mechanism is the GFATM. A 2012 background draft paper by Oliver Schwank95 summarized the fund as follows:

“The Global Fund

By far the biggest of the vertical funds is The Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria (GFATM). Created in 2001 as an initiative of the United Nations and the G-8, the Global Fund has received more than $19 billion in contributions from donors between 2002 and 2010. Its funding stems overwhelmingly from traditional bilateral donors, accounting for 94 per cent of its total funding.

The Gates Foundation contributed 3.5 per cent, while UNITAID, Product (RED) and Debt2Health account for 1.9 per cent of the Global Fund’s budget (Global Fund 2010). While its funding structure thus is relatively traditional, its governance and disbursement mechanisms certainly qualify it as an innovative aid model. The Global Fund is an independent organization governed by a board consisting of representatives from donor and recipient governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities.

It has a lean structure and small secretariat, and does not implement any programmes itself. Countries submit proposals for funding to the Global Fund through the Country Coordinating Mechanism (CCM), a country-level partnership on which key stakeholders are represented. Proposals are assessed and selected for funding by a technical expert panel. Once approved, the funds are paid out to the principal recipients, usually ministries of 29

finance or health, or international. 96

Funding proposals submitted by Country Coordinating Mechanism; selection by expert panel; implementation at the country level. Financing for HIV/Aids, tuberculosis, malaria programmes, and health system strengthening $19 billion in contributions between 2002 and 2010; 94% from traditional bilateral funds, 3.5% from the Gates Foundation, 1.9% from innovative sources (UNITAID, Product(RED), Debt2Health) The Global Fund disbursed US$ 15.6 billion for grants in 153 countries between 2002 and 20115 Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI Alliance)

Countries with GNI below $1.500 receive grants to improve immunization and access to vaccines; implementation by national authorities in cooperation with UN agencies $3.3 billion (63%) from direct contributions (bilateral and others), $1.9 billion (37%) from innovative sources (IFFIm and AMC) Total disbursements amounted to US$2.8 billion by the end of 2010 UNITAID Global drug purchasing facility that uses its market power to lower prices of effective HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis treatments $1.3 billion total contributions, of which approximately 70 percent from Solidarity Airline Levy.

Between 2006 and 2010, UNITAID disbursed $955 million to its partners 11 agencies, which are nominated and overseen by the CCM, and which are responsible for implementation at the country level. An evaluation after two years determines whether targets have been met and funding should be continued for a second phase. The Global Fund thus operates as a challenge fund, rewarding the best project proposals in a process of competitive tendering for a fixed amount of resources on a global level (Isenman et al., 2010). This allocation model is in line with two core principles of the Global Fund: ownership of programmes and a focus on performance. Disbursements are always based on country-based funding proposals to ensure national ownership, and the selection of proposals occurs at the global rather than the national level on the basis of their quality.

By the end of 2011, the Global Fund has approved grants and disbursed funds of a total value of $15.6 billion. 55 per cent of disbursements were made in Sub-Saharan Africa, followed by the East Asia and Pacific and the South Asia regions with 14 and 9 per cent respectively. In terms of diseases, the focus has been HIV/AIDS, which accounts for 55 per cent of total grants, 28 per cent were dedicated to malaria and 17 per cent to tuberculosis. In November 2011, the Fund had to cancel its 11th funding window however, announcing that it will only fund projects already approved but will not issue new and additional grants until the end of 2013. This is due to sharply deteriorating funding outlook for the Global Fund itself, reflecting budgetary pressures in main donor countries.”

30

Recommendations, questions, and next steps

1. Grow the pot of money for the investigative journalism sector • Best new targets: the platform companies and corporate fines o Work with lawyers, prosecutors and public relations professionals to establish the virtue of the Global Fund for Investigative Journalism as a worthy recipient of funds from courts and lawyers, to promote rule of law (and perhaps lead to more cases.)

• Pool the money into a basket fund with government, philanthropy and other streams, so that no one donor has inappropriate influence on the journalism.

• Be as transparent as possible at all levels of the Fund’s operation

• Be inclusive, with jurors and recipients representing all the regions you wish to serve

• Establish clear goals and principles in advance. Who is the target grantee? What do they have to do to be worthy of this money? Who gets to decide how it is distributed? What assessments will be made?

• Understand the limits of impact assessment

• Create a public campaign on behalf of watchdog journalism o Engage civil society in establishing the value of investigative journalism in general. It’s one thing to get governments to go along. But Anna Myers of the Whistleblowers International Network cautions that “Unless civil society is leading the issue nationally it won’t work. The laws that are passed will be a race to the bottom.” One needs to consider a public education campaign establishing the public benefit of this investigative journalism. Given the journalists’ poll ratings in most countries, a strategic grassroots campaign seems overdue, to counteract propaganda (“fake news”) and to make policymakers support the watchdog function offered by the Fund.

31

QUESTIONS TO RESOLVE:

• Current asset recovery principles and agreements require prosecuting countries to return proceeds of a case back to the particular country where the illegal act occurred--and for that victim country government to agree to how that money is dispersed/allocated.

• Should a global mechanism for journalists direct funds back to an investigative journalism group in a particular country? Can we offer regional equity if we sidestep national sovereignties to fund cross- border projects?

• Should this fund be separate, or included in a more comprehensive journalism support fund (such as that proposed by James Deane)

• What arguments and lobbying are best for establishing this fund as being worthy of court distributions and corporate fines?

• Where should the fund be situated, and who should run it?

• How should the jurors (grant deciders) be selected, and should they remain anonymous?

• How will you evaluate and share the impact of the grants?

NEXT STEPS:

• Set up small task forces to discuss and report back in the future on: ▪ How to approach each of the most promising new targets of funding (taxes, corporate fines, asset recovery, et al.) ▪ Design the best global mechanism for pooling funds and administering the new fund ▪ Design the fairest mechanism for selecting judges and grantees ▪ Design public campaigns and strategic partnerships in target countries and regions to support the journalists’ mission and need for the Fund

• Convene a US lawyers’ group to brainstorm use of Fraudulent Claims Act and other mechanisms to capture funding for future journalism as cases are successfully prosecuted

• Work with a group of public relations professionals to establish public support for investigative journalism

o This would bolster public and private funding, court assignments, cause marketing, and arguments for CSR money to support journalism in the corporate sector

32

Appendices

Appendix 1. What is Facebook actually funding with its new Journalism Fund?

On Tuesday, January 8th 2019, Facebook announced a three-year commitment to invest $ 300 million in a struggling industry: the news. Among the media there was skepticism about this new initiative and its concrete impact.

With a profit of 5.3 billion in the last quarter of 2018, Facebook has taken –along with digital giant Google– a vast share of the advertisement revenues, which used to be a principal source of income for local newspapers and websites. With this change, the media business model has suffered, generating a crisis on local newspapers, digital media publishers and startups. In an extreme, a group of digital publishers developed a dependency relationship with Facebook’s “news feed” function, relying on their traffic in this space to keep their numbers in green. Many of them have closed. Only in 2017, the UK lost 40 local newspapers and Facebook has been appointed as one of the factors of this massive decline.

Yet, in their recent announcement, the company declared that their new fund is going to “news programs, partnerships and content”. So the question is, what does this exactly mean? Moreover, who is this money going to? Under what conditions? What is Facebook’s ultimate goal?

The “Fund for journalism projects” is part of a new focus the company has embraced around “boosting local news”. On a recent interview, Campbell Brown, Facebook’s Vice President of global news partnerships, stated that part of the $ 300 million fund was going directly to nonprofit organizations and ventures focus on local reporting. Among the largest grant recipients are the American Journalism Project, Report for America, and the Pulitzer Center partnership, with $1, 2 and 5 million assigned, respectively. However, each organization will fulfill different commitments with the money. For instance, while Pulitzer pursues to create grants for local newsrooms to cover relevant topics for local communities, Report for America will fill local newsrooms countrywide with 1,000 new journalists.

The money is also funding partnerships to strengthen local journalism in the digital age, like the one between the Knight Foundation and the Lenfest Institute for Journalism- the latter a Philadelphian non-profit whose sole mission is to develop and support sustainable business models for great local journalism97 A $ 20 million share of the investment is further going to strengthen the ongoing Facebook’s efforts to “help news website convert readers into paying subscribers”. A way they are doing this is by running “Accelerator” pilots to help local news outlets figure out how to attain effective subscriptions and improve membership models for newsrooms. Brown has cited Miami Herald publishers’ case “tripling the number of visitors hitting the paywall”98 as an example of the success of their pilots.

Conversely, last August a Facebook Press Release (PR)99 shared some of the “lessons learned” in the Local News Subscription Accelerator: a 12-week program that gathered editors of the Seattle Times, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, Newsday and others. Further research will be done to identify additional quantitative and qualitative standards of success considered by the Facebook brand.

Separately, the fund has assigned $ 6 million to the Community News Project in the UK, a partnership of different news organizations built to train 80 “community journalists” through 2-year internships in local newsrooms. The objective, as declared by Facebook PR100 last November, is to promote the coverage of news 33

in cities that no longer have a local newspaper nor specialized journalists. The program was opening at the start of 2019 and the National Council for the Training of Journalists is the entity distributing the funds among local publishers.

Despite these numbers, a major part of the fund has not yet been allocated. By now, all the projects account for less than $ 40 million, leaving the biggest portion in an uncertain status. This takes us to the most important question: what is Facebook’s ultimate goal?

Vice president Brown has anticipated an answer to skeptics affirming that the company “is not telling any of the partner groups what to do with the money”. In most cases, she has added, “they (Facebook) will apply the funding to existing projects”101. It seems that the brand has started to acknowledge the role they have had in transforming the way millions of citizens consume news around the world. And although their executives affirm they want to support publishers but not let them be dependent on the social network, the truth is that there are still vivid concerns about the role Facebook will end up playing around the media industry.

Pie chart # 1 “Allocation of the $ 300 million Facebook Journalism Fund” – Own elaboration See endnote for Bibliography102

-- by Michelle Meza Reusche

34

Appendix 2. Tech Dividend Funds

Institute for the Future recently introduced what it calls Universal Basic Assets (UBA) as a framework for designing solutions to vast and growing wealth inequalities. It is based on an extensive body of research showing that economic returns are flowing to asset holders rather than wage earners and that without policy interventions, automation is likely to exacerbate asset inequality. If we are serious about finding solutions, we need to focus on policies that enable wider access to of all kinds. UBA framework identifies core, basic set of resources that every person is entitled to, from housing and healthcare to education and financial security. A unique characteristic of IFTF’s UBA framework is that it calls for a broad definition of assets. We define three important asset classes:

Private Assets: resources that we own individually, such as housing, land, personal money, and retirement accounts, our personal data. Public Assets: resources collectively owned by the public and managed by different types of government bodies on our behalf. These include everything from national parks to mineral and cultural resources to critical parts of physical or digital infrastructure. Open Assets: resources that are owned and managed neither privately or by a government. They are open to anyone and governed by a defined group. This Wikipedia or Open Educational Resources (OER’s).

Framing data as an economic asset is leading to various proposals for how to value, govern, and distribute returns from such assets. Two main approaches are emerging. One calls for giving people ownership of their personal data, enabling them to trade, sell, and otherwise capitalize on their data assets. The second approach views data as a public good with various proposals for governments and the larger public to share in the profits of companies that derive profits from aggregating and monetizing such data. This approach is manifested in various proposals that go under names such as “tech dividend” or “tech-based sovereign funds.”

Tech Dividend and Tech Sovereign Funds

Economist Marian Mazzucato traces the key role that public investments made by the US government have played in the development of most the technologies we widely use today—GPS, mobile phone, personal computers, computer displays, and many others. She and others argue that none of the iconic companies that exist today, from Apple to Uber and Tesla, would be around if not for public investments by the Defense Department and other government agencies in many of our public universities and research labs. Since the taxpayers served as early investors in tech, why not give them a piece of the returns, just like we do with venture capitalists? Some of the most visible efforts based on this reasoning include: ● Data dividend proposal by Chris Hughes, one of the co-founders of Facebook, calls for a 5% tax on all companies that derive insights from the data that users share with them. The estimate is that instituting such a tax could raise over $100 billion a year, resulting in about $400 per year for every adult in the country.

● Robert Reich proposes linking a universal income program (a form of a dividend) to our patent system, suggesting that 20 percent of all profits generated from patents and trademarks that the government protects.

Gavin Newsom, California governor, recently brought together a team to come up with a proposal for a digital dividend for California. In his State of the State speech, he said, “California’s consumers should also be able to share in the wealth that is created from their data..I’ve asked my team to develop a proposal for a new data dividend for Californians, because we recognize that data has value and it belongs to you.”

35

The idea of tech dividend has a long intellectual history and is based on the principle that the natural world is the common property of all persons. Chris Benner, economics professor at UC Santa Cruz writes that “With antecedents as far back as classical Athens (Holland, 2007), in the U.S. most people trace this back to Thomas Paine’s 1797 essay Agrarian Justice, in which he argued that those who possess cultivated land owe the community a ‘ground rent.’ He argues that there are two kinds of property—natural property and “artificial or acquired property, the invention of men [sic]”—and argues that every individual in the world is born with legitimate claims on this first kind of property.

It is a key principle behind the Alaska Permanent Fund, in which every resident of the state benefits from wealth generated from oil revenue. According to Benner, more than 60 countries around the world possess a Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs), many of them funded from oil or primary commodity although Alaska seems to be the only one that actually distributes dividends from the fund to the population.

--by Marina Gorbis

Appendix 3. Google News Initiative: A Broad Umbrella of Tech-Oriented Journalism Endeavors

In March 2018, Google announced the Google News Initiative, a worldwide effort that followed the lead of its previously established Europe-focused Digital News Initiative. The effort, which both launched new programs and operationalized existing programs under a single umbrella, had three specific goals: “highlight accurate journalism while fighting misinformation, particularly during breaking news events; help news sites continue to grow from a business perspective; and create new tools to help journalists do their jobs.”103 The company pledged $300 million over three years.

Google organizes the Google News Initiative into a number of separate sub-strategies: partnerships, products and programs. Though all are of course related to supporting journalism, each strategy has a separate end goal, a separate mission and a separate ‘theory of the case’ in how best to collaborate with journalists and media outlets.

Partnerships provide a way for Google to integrate with a media outlets, using Google’s suite of technology tools to improve some aspect of the media outlet’s model. Products is a lighter touch articulation of ways Google’s products can be used by media outlets to achieve many of the same goals as the partnerships segment, albeit on a smaller, more limited scale. Programs is an umbrella unto itself, combining a panoply of different training modules, fellowship and research efforts. Within the Programs segment are two efforts worth further exploration: the Google News Initiative Innovation Challenge and the Digital News Innovation Fund.

The former is a regional-specific grant-writing arm that “will empower news innovators from around the world to demonstrate new thinking in online journalism and the development of new publishing business models”104. It is an effort to spur innovation at media outlets by funding novel ideas around increasing revenue or other operational improvements. The concept’s conceit is that innovative ideas exist within organizations, but bootstrapped organizations don’t have access to the capital - often relatively small in value - necessary for undertaking those innovative strategies. Its most recent iteration, which is currently closed to new applications, focused on the Asia-Pacific Region and provided up to $300,000 for projects105.

36

The latter is a €150 million European-focused fund, a function of the legacy Digital News Initiative from which the larger Google News Initiative sprung forth, that has, to date, underwritten €94 million of investments in 461 startups across 29 European countries, focused on four (4) specific areas: battling misinformation, telling local stories, boosting digital revenues, exploring new technologies106. It functions like a media-focused venture capital platform.

Overall, the larger Google News Initiative can be viewed in two ways: either as a well-intentioned, well- funded effort to empower journalists and media organizations through better use of innovative technology or a cynical ploy to gain positive PR from a deeper imbedding of Google’s product suite within media organizations. This report’s position is that participation by established, respected institutions like The New York Times, The Washington Post and many others validates the initiative’s intention, though it’s likely still too early to determine its impact.

Partnerships At the heart of the Google News Initiative is the company’s project-based collaborations with media organizations and non-profits. Because Alphabet, Google’s parent company, is itself a diverse collection of technology platforms and tools, the partnerships effort of the Google News Initiative seeks to assist organizations to more effectively incorporate technology into specific journalism efforts across ‘storytelling’, ‘monetization’, ‘distribution & engagement’ and ‘data & infrastructure’. The outlets with whom Google partners tend to be larger and more established, providing the scale for a deeper and more meaningful collaboration.

Example partnerships include107: ● creating a virtual reality project (leveraging Google Earth imagery) with the South China Morning Post ● building a new machine learning application (the Documenting Hate News Index, powered by media reports of hate crimes collected by Google News) with ProPublica ● collaborating with BuzzFeed to use Google Surveys 360 to test advertising effectiveness ● assisting Condé Nast and The Telegraph to increase advertising revenue (by 800% and 126%, respectively) by integrating ● improving efficiency and retention for outlets Slate and The Washington Post by better using Google’s Accelerated Mobile Page open-source library Products Given Google’s size and product proliferation, it would be difficult to integrate with media outlets of all sizes as deeply as the company has integrated with some of its larger partners. The ‘products’ segment of the Google News Initiative is simply a menu of sorts.

It is a comprehensive listing of all the ways media outlets can use Google products to achieve outcomes like delivering better content, increasing reader engagement or improving monetization. It’s largely a way to message to news outlets with whom Google can’t necessarily deeply integrate, given the outlets’ sizes, that Google’s suite of products can be beneficial to the outlets’ news operations108: ● distributing content and engagement (e.g. YouTube can be an effective publishing platform for distributing video content) ● growing revenue’ (e.g. Google Ad Manager helps publishers scale and monetize interactions) ● managing data and infrastructure (e.g. Google Cloud Platform can offer powerful analytics and storage, Project Shield is a reverse proxy that can protect publishers from DDOS attacks) ● reporting and telling stories (e.g. Google Trends offers anonymized Search data, Google Earth provides detailed satellite imagery)

37

Google also offers training programs on its various tools, with more than 40 lessons designed specifically for journalists.109

Programs In addition to the tool training programs, Google has a number of other programs that seek to spur and fund innovation at media outlets, educate and train journalists to become savvier users of technology and conduct research on topics critical to journalism. In addition to the aforementioned Innovation Challenge and Innovation Fund, other programs include: ● Google News Lab, which seeks to bring together different groups and organizations to collaborate, catalyzed and empowered by Google’s technology suite ● Google News Initiative Fellowship, a program for journalism students to spend their summers developing alternative skills and experiences in other organizations around the world ● Society of Professional Journalists, where Google has developed a “train the trainer” program to scale journalist development ● Google News Initiative University Network, a collaboration with J-Schools across the country to expand the reach of Google’s trainings

--by Joseph J Sass

Appendix 4. New Jersey: A mix on bandwidth sales and public subsidies

Civic Info Bill (New Jersey Assembly Bill 3628), was passed through the NJ legislature with bipartisan support and signed by Governor Phil Murphy on August 24, 2018. It established the nonprofit New Jersey Civic Information Consortium (consortium) with the purpose to “advance research and innovation in the field of media and technology to benefit the State's civic life and evolving information needs.” In order to provide local news and civic information for NJ communities, the consortium will provide grants to organizations which support these goals, via a combination of independent fundraising and state and university funding, described further below. These grants “shall be independent from the influence of the State, a member university, and any other grantor or contributor of funds or outside source.” It comes on the heels of a two- year collaborative effort between communities, organizations, businesses and colleges, led by the nonpartisan, nonprofit Free Press Action Fund, to create community news sources after years of media conglomeration.,, The consortium is an educational and charitable nonprofit corporation which will partner with the following five “member universities:” The College of New Jersey, Montclair State University, the New Jersey Institute of Technology, Rowan University, and Rutgers, The State University.

Funding The consortium is funded in three ways. First, by public money – $5 million as written in the state budget for fiscal year 2019. This money was to come out of a fund created by the sale of two NJ public broadcasting licenses totaling $322 million., However, even as the bill was signed into law in August 2018, the earmarked $5 million had already been spent on projects for the NJ Public Broadcasting Authority., Second, according to the laws governing nonprofit corporations, the Executive Director is in charge of raising funds from external sources. Third, member universities sponsoring a particular grant must match at least 10% of the corresponding grant’s application amount. In years following the first fiscal year of the fund, the state government will only allocate $1M, as it is expected that independent fundraising and university funding will account for a larger share of funding. Grantors and fund contributors (including the state and/or member university) must guarantee in writing that they cannot and will not influence the work produced in any way.

38

Grants Grants will be awarded to projects/organizations which: improve the quality, quantity, and access to civic information for NJ communities (especially underserved communities); train local civilians/professionals/students in the field; cultivate civic engagement and dialogue; and help media outlets become more engaged with their audiences and more financially sustainable. Grants have to include collaboration between at least one faculty or graduate student of a member university and a local community/media/tech-based organization; though this does not constitute the member university’s sponsorship.

Operations and Structure The 15 board of directors (BOD) “set strategic priorities and metrics to guide the consortium's grant‐making and other initiatives, as well as to approve grants” and serve without compensation. There are never more than eight members of the same political party and never a member who serves more than two four-year terms. The BOD appoint and determine compensation of the executive director (ED), who is responsible for management and day-to-day operations, like hiring and managing staff, public engagement, and fundraising. The member universities will each specialize in a specific news or media area to increase collaboration and decrease redundancy in efforts. One member university, not yet specified, will house the consortium and provide back-office support. This housing and support counts towards the 10% funding match for whichever grants that university may sponsors.

Lessons Learned First, the fund must endeavor towards racial, ethnic, gender, and geographic diversity in hiring the BOD, ED and staff. Second, the creation of a website to make public all grant-making criteria, funding transparency, project status reports, activities of the consortium, etc. Third, once a year in each of the northern, central, and southern regions of NJ, there will be public hearings both for the board to present how funds are spent and for the public to give input on the consortium’s mission, its strategy and grants. Fourth, the requirement of a bipartisan BOD. Fifth, the active push to loop in communities and grassroots organizing. Lastly, the partnerships with universities in the state which each provide their own specialization (to decrease redundancy in efforts) and sponsored funding, if applicable. The Global Media Fund can incorporate some or all of these key legal obligations and organizing techniques.

- by Laura M. Beamer

39

Appendix 5. Investigative Journalism in Germany

The situation of Investigative Journalism in Germany - Central question: fear of state intervention in journalism, conflicts of interest; as opposed to the US; there is no longstanding tradition of investigative journalism in Germany;110 - Legal/political situation: constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression; ranks 17 out of 180 on Press Freedom index; generally considered to have high degree of quality, journalistic independence, diversity; - There are no state-funded initiatives to specifically support investigative journalism in Germany or by German journalists: mostly, it is state-funded or privately owned media that finances investigative initiatives (although this model seems to be slowly changing because of the considerable cost involved) - German media is still relatively diverse, but a country comparison study commissioned by the EU Commission found “that the main risk to media plurality in Germany is the concentration of media ownership”; the daily newspaper market and local reporting are particularly affected - Journalists’ position (Netzwerkrecherche): “it is especially important to have a kind of firewall between state financiers and the recipients. The selection of funded projects should be done by independent organizations in order to exclude political influence.”

Financiers, publishers - Public Service Broadcasters o Public service broadcasters are an important pillar of the German media system, receiving just under €8bn every year from license fee payments o No direct state financing through tax money takes place. Despite the ban on state control, government representatives do influence the work of the broadcasters by sitting on executive boards. o State support for publishing houses takes place indirectly, including through a reduced value added tax. There are some rare cases of state support o Since the 1970s, in-depth investigative programmes by public service broadcaster that have played an important role in shaping public opinion and politics in Germany

- Publishing houses: o German private media companies are relatively small global players. Germany’s largest media group, Bertelsmann, globally ranked 11th in 2016. o Among the main financiers and supporters of investigative journalism; almost all publishing houses have established specific investigative units over the past years o Journalists often work in consortia, across media (nature, public/private) and across EU borders o Examples: Stern (PH: Gruner+Jahr), Welt (PH:Axel Springer), Rechercheverbund Süddeutsche Zeitung, WDR und NDR, Der Spiegel, Die Zeit;

- Foundations play an increasing role in financing training and education opportunities for journalists as well as investigative projects; issue: lack of transparency; - Foundations that support investigative journalism (list not exhaustive) o Rudolf Augstein Stiftung: ▪ The foundation, named after Spiegel magazine founder Rudolf Augstein, supports projects that benefit investigative journalism, encourage networking

40

between journalists, contribute to diversity in editorial staff, or offer new ways to convey media content; ▪ Have co-financed several investigative journalism projects, including Investigative Europe ▪ Grants: €800-1,000 for max. 24 months o Brost-Stiftung ▪ The foundation made initial funding available for the non-profit investigative journalism bureau Correctiv: €3m for the first three years. ▪ This is the greatest sum any foundation has ever awarded to a journalistic project operating in Germany. o Schöpflin Stiftung ▪ Since 2014 engaged in the field of nonprofit journalism; supported investigative journalism centre Correctiv in the years 2015 and 2016 to the tune of €100,000. The foundation also (in collaboration with Netzwerk Recherche) makes means available for the Grow Grants for entrepreneurs in journalism. ▪ With his Panta Rhea Foundation in the US, founder Hans Schoepflin already has long-standing experience with supporting journalistic projects, such as through his support for the Center for Investigative Reporting, and the Voice of San Diego. ▪ The foundation has also pledged €25m for the construction of the “House of non-profit journalism” (see http://haus-des-journalismus.de). o Hans-Böckler-Stiftung ▪ the foundation, which is also the Confederation of German Trade Unions, and the Hübner und Kennedy foundation are supporting the work of Investigate Europe, a multinational team of experienced investigative journalists with the aim to “point out responsible transnational structures and actors in issues of European-wide relevance to make it possible to hold them accountable”. ▪ Böckler provides €125,000, Hübner and Kennedy €60,000.

o Netzwerk Recherche/Olin/Schöpflin Stiftung ▪ Journalistic association Netzwerk Recherche e.V. (nr) is engaged primarily in the dissemination of investigative techniques, but also offers a grant programme: ▪ Together with Olin gGmbH, nr awards grants for environmental or ecological investigations. ▪ With its own means, the association awards grants for investigations in all other fields. o Max Planck Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung/Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin ▪ ‘Journalist in Residence’ model (6-12 weeks) ▪ Programme involves work on own investigative project, the possibility to participate in in-house scientific events, use of the library and online research resources for social scientists. ▪ €3,500 per month for the duration of the stay (research grant) including a fully equipped working place Trends - Non-profit journalism: o Driving force in media sector; made possible by donors, members, or foundations o Field is characterised by innovation and creativity - whether through investigative journalistic work or the construction of collaboration tools for journalists.

41

o Challenge: difficulty to register journalism projects as non-for-profit projects in Germany, since they have to abide by regulations with a high degree of specification

- Startup journalism (investigative journalism) o Correctiv: ▪ Nonprofit investigative newsroom founded in 2014; it is the first charitable research center in the German-speaking area ▪ The philanthropic model – donor-based, non-profit- is based on the US example ProPublica, which is a nonprofit newsroom particularly dedicated to investigative journalism in the public interest. ▪ All content is published throughout different media and there are no fixed supply-demand relations. ▪ Correctiv provides investigative journalism for media organizations throughout Germany for free in a way that it encourages the media organizations to use the investigations and stories researched and written by Correctiv. ▪ Correctiv is financed through charitable endowments and donations and membership fees from readers and users. The start-up financing of 3 million Euro for three years was provided by the Brost-Foundation.

- by Lea von Martius

Appendix 6. France newspaper support

Like many European governments, the French government subsidizes newspapers as well as cinema, radio, television and other forms of cultural life. Because many of the newspapers it subsidizes do investigative journalism this means that de-facto the French government does support investigative reporting.

The often-cited basis for this is the constitution of 1789 and the belief that everyone should have “equal access to knowledge” but the present day system of subsidies was set up after World War II.

The subsidies are given out by the Bureau of the Economic Regime of the press (BREP) which is part of the Ministry of Culture and part of the direction of media and cultural industries. Because there are direct and indirect subsidies such as subsidized postage and other tax advantages it’s hard to know the total amount spent supporting newspapers each year but it’s estimated to be around 500 million euros to 1.8 billion euros a year, depending on how it is defined. There are strict rules as to how an outlet can get on the list of protected newspapers and this is outlined by various government decrees and involves precise mathematical formula including looking at the sales of each issue. Only some newspapers are eligible to fit the IPG category ie newspapers that produce political and general information. The subsidies are overseen by a commission that includes the Ministry of Culture and press unions and are in keeping with the French concept of “Paritaire” or partnership which governs much of the country’s social spending. The Cour de comptes –examines the spending to make sure it is not misused.

42

There are worries that the subsidies end up rewarding papers that don’t innovate and keep alive outlets that would have died a natural death without the government support, but they are popular with journalists and very hard to modify or reduce.

The government subsidies may help to explain some of the immobility: The French state every year shells out about $540 million in direct funding to privately owned newspapers and magazines, and a further $1 billion or so in indirect aid, including a specially reduced sales tax for publications and income tax breaks for all 37,000 French journalists with an official press card. (That doesn’t include the $3.3 billion the government spends on public-sector broadcasting, part of which is recouped by a compulsory license fee.) The aim is to ensure a continuing pluralism of the press, and the money helps to keep afloat a number of publications that would otherwise have long since died, including the Communist party paper L’Humanité. But almost every title distributed in France gets to feed at the trough, including the international edition of The New York Times.111

In addition, in 2013 Google launched an $81 million innovation fund as part of its settlement with the French government over violation of copyright laws. It has three pillars a) supporting incubation of new ideas within existing newspapers b) supporting new outlets. C) R & d subsidies for a newspaper and universities that want to develop partnerships.112

- by Anya Schiffrin

Appendix 7. Funding Canadian Media

Canada has a number of active and proposed funding schemes for media and news sources from which we can learn. Two federal Heritage programs under Culture, History and Sport Funding are of particular interest: 1) The Canada Media Fund; 2) The Canada Periodical Fund.

Canada Media Fund (CMF). Created in 2009 after the merger of the Canadian Television Fund and the Canada New Media Fund, the CMF is a public-private partnership which focuses on development and promotion of “Canadian content and relevant applications for all audiovisual media platforms.”113 It’s mandate is set by the Canadian government but it has an independent Board of Directors which manage the program and funds devoid of government influence.

CMF Funding Three sources of funding exist for the CMF, which has a budget of CAD $352 million for the 2018-2019 fiscal year. First, the Government of Canada provides CAD 134.1 million annually via federal budget expenditure, dating back to 2010.114,115,116 The second and third sources come from revenue and merger levies against Canada’s cable, satellite and internet protocol television distributors, which is collected by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).117,118 These levies are part of the CRTC’s standard conditions of holding a license in Canada for on-demand and telecommunication services: 1.) 5% of gross annual revenues for on-demand broadcasting services,119,120,121 and; 2.) a set percentage of any merger/acquisition transaction of an on-demand broadcasting service, known as “tangible benefits.” Tangible benefit contributions depend on broadcaster type, television broadcasters contribute 10%122 of the transaction amount and Commercial Radio broadcasters contribute 6%.123,124

43

CRTC Recent Developments New developments in 2018 saw the CRTC discuss having ISP broadband providers and over-the-top (OTT) providers (like Netflix and Spotify) become CMF contributors. Broadcasters would pay 4% of annual revenues into the fund (instead of the historical 5%), while ISP and OTT providers would pay 1%.125 Proponents argue that broadcasters are earning less advertising revenue as audio/visual content consumption shifts more towards online platforms.126 As of February 2019, the CRTC was still reviewing possible changes to the contribution regime and broadcasting regulations; the final report is expected June 2019.127

Canada Periodical Fund (CPF). The CPF provides financial assistance ($75-million per annum)128 to Canadian print magazines, non-daily newspapers and digital periodicals via three streams: aid to publishers, business innovation, and collective initiatives (which focus on endeavors benefitting industry-wide sustainability).129 Aid to Publishers is the main component of the CPF, supporting the production and distribution of Canadian content under various stipulations. These stipulations include that 80% of an issue be Canadian editorial content, a majority original content, and be edited, designed, assembled and published in Canada.130,131,132

CPF Recent Developments June 2017, News Media Canada, a national trade association repping over 830 daily, weekly, and community papers all over Canada, proposed revamping the CPF by creating the Canadian Journalism Fund (CJF). The Canadian Journalism Fund would cast a wider net by supporting all daily newspapers and free community newspapers (print and digital) by creating a new funding stream: Canadian Civic News, which will have a fund pool of $175 million.133 It comes on the heels of falling advertising revenues for newspapers and as a way to mitigate fake news by making good journalism more affordable.134 One key component of the new proposal is that funding for the new stream is based on journalists, meaning a publication will gain more from the fund by having more journalistic endeavors.135 Lastly, the CJF aims to reform certain laws which disadvantage Canadian newspapers. For example, Canadian newspapers can accept charitable funds, sales tax is reduced for foreign competitiveness, and the copyright law is revised to adapt to near-instant digital republications. Perhaps in response to the proposal, the Canada Heritage Minister announced in January 2018 that the government wants to adapt the CPF to the digital age,136 followed shortly by the Canadian government’s announcement of a five-year $595 million tax credit package news providers and consumers.137,138 The package includes journalism organizations now able to claim a tax credit on employee salaries and apply for tax-exempt donee status, as well as consumers able to claim a tax credit on digital subscriptions.139

CPF Funding The $75 million annual budget for the CPF is financed entirely from government revenues. Funding for the proposed CJF would be a mixture of government revenues, a share of spectrum sales and levies on digital advertising sales by companies not investing in editorial operations.140

Key People Bob Cox, Chair of the Board for News Media Canada and publisher of Winnipeg Free Press.141 Jerry Dias, President of Unifor.142 Edward Greenspon, President and CEO of Public Policy Forum and award winning journalist.143 Ian Koenigsfest, President of the Radio Television Digital News Association. Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage.144

Lessons Learned There are a number of Canadian funding mechanisms that can be adopted for the Global Media Fund: set percentages of merger/acquisitions, revenue-percent contributions on digital advertising for companies not investing in editorial content and government funds. Additionally, noteworthy policies include having copyright laws and sales taxes which level the playing field for all publications, digital and print. 145

--by Laura M. Beamer

44

Appendix 8. Kazakhstan: Problems with asset returns

One of the most well-known examples involves the restitution of $115 million to Kazakhstan in 2007-8.1 In this case, an independent third-party foundation was used to ensure that the restituted money was returned to the people of Kazakhstan in a transparent manner, without government interference. Less well known is a second tranche of $48.8 million that was returned to Kazakhstan in 2012 by the Government of Switzerland via the World Bank, in a restitution process that is expected to finish in December 2020. Looking at a piece of that second tranche: $21.76 million tranche employed to fund a youth development programme known as Youth Corps.

The restituted assets were returned through a series of transactions that served to obscure their origins. Both the World Bank and Government of Kazakhstan misleadingly framed the restituted funds as Swiss development aid. After being repackaged as Swiss aid by the World Bank and Government of Kazakhstan, the assets were restituted through a high-risk return procedure, which lacked the safeguards responsible return would ordinarily require. This saw the funds pass through a series of state and parastatal institutions in Kazakhstan, a country where systemic and systematic corruption is well evidenced. As a result of these findings of fact the report concludes that the Government of Switzerland and World Bank have returned assets through a set of measures that have led to violations of norms governing responsible asset return, recently encoded in the GFAR Principles for the Disposition and Transfer of Confiscated Stolen Assets in Corruption Cases. Most seriously for the World Bank these abuses potentially violate its own Charter which forbids Bank funds from being used for political purposes.

Responsible Asset Return: The International Standard. To assist state parties responsibly return stolen assets, the UNCAC Coalition’s Civil Society Working Group on Accountable Asset Return has issued guiding principles. Drawn from international law and human rights norms, they are designed to ensure restituted funds benefit victims and are not further abused by corrupt regimes. Standard 1: Stolen assets that are recovered should be returned to the country of origin, in line with UNCAC Article 51. Standard 2: Returning and receiving countries agree to apply the highest possible standards of transparency at all stages of the recovery and return process. Standard 3: Both returning and receiving countries should commit to apply the highest possible standards of accountability in the management and disposal of recovered and returned stolen assets. Standard 4: Returned stolen assets should be used to remedy the harm their theft caused, including by providing planned services or procurements lost through their removal and in line with SDG 16. Standard 5: Where regular budgeting and accounting processes lack transparency and accountability and where a receiving country is non-compliant with UNCAC Articles 9, 10 and 13, resulting in a lack of effective oversight of returned funds, returning and receiving countries should in consultation with a broad spectrum of relevant experts and non-state actors find alternative means of managing the stolen assets.

The Government of Switzerland justified opting out from a BOTA style arrangement, arguing: “Restitution through a foundation proved to be administratively cumbersome”. NGOs are legal entities that are primarily created to address a social or political issue. They operate independently of any government, and usually have their own board, managerial team and constitution. A gongo – government- organised non-governmental organisation – by contrast is either initiated or sponsored by government, and have senior personnel closely linked to the state. Gongos tend to flourish in autocratic countries. They are used by undemocratic governments to either promote a particular message, often akin to propaganda, and/or maintain a level of control over the organisation’s personnel and beneficiaries.

Excerpt From “A Case of Irrresponsible Asset return? The Swiss-Kazakhstan $48.8 Million” - Prof. Kristian Lasslet and Thomas Mayne

45

Appendix 9. EU Fund for Investigative Journalism IJ4EU

Basic Facts: • In 2017, the European Parliament initiated a special fund to be spent exclusively on cross-border investigative journalism • Funding for the grant comes from the European Commission through the European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF), based in Leipzig, as well as the Norwegian Fritt Ord foundation, which provided an additional €25,000. • Grants are administered by the International Press Institute (IPI), based in Vienna • Projects operate fully independently from IPI, ECPMF, the European Commission and any other IJ4EU partners. • Talks of an EU fund for IJ have been around for a couple of years; in 2009, for example, a fund of 1.5 million EUR was in the talks, but finally never included in the budget

Grant structure • IJ4EU is a grant-giving program and is not involved in the editorial process of any project • The fund currently disperses a maximum of €450,000 in one funding round, i.e. per year; • Single grants are €5,000- €50,000 • IJ4EU covers 70 percent of the eligible costs of selected projects, journalists to provide 30% • Grants are given in three parts, to cover all costs necessary for production of journalistic content, including salary and staff costs, translation, research and travel. Hardware (computers) not covered. Purpose: • To support cross-border investigative journalism in the EU • To foster and strengthen collaboration among Europe-based journalists and newsrooms on revelations in the public interest and of cross-border significance • Investigations are supposed to reflect the media’s watchdog role and assist the public in holding those in power accountable • In so doing, it seeks to contribute to the sustainability of democracy and the rule of law in the EU.

Eligibility: • Grantees must be Europe-based (not necessarily EU, nor citizenship) • Cross-border teams of journalists and media outlets: must consist of at least two media outlets and/or journalists and based in at least two EU member states, non-EU journalists can be included as long as the subject is of interest to EU. Actual nationality of journalists not relevant. • Project must address a topic of cross-border relevance and aim to reveal new information. • Applications must justify the relevance of the investigation for the public in the target countries or for the broader European public sphere. • All platforms eligible, including print, broadcast, online media, documentary filmmaking and multi- platform story-telling. • Proposed projects must aim to be published (and available in publishable form) by respected news outlets or platforms in at least two EU countries

Topics: • Corruption, illicit enrichment and financial crime • Security, democracy and human rights • Environment and climate change • Proposals on other topics will be considered.

46

The IJEU will give special consideration to projects in the following areas: • Investigations involving news organizations based outside of the capitals or largest cities of EU member states • Investigations in countries where investigative journalism is under pressure, including financial and political pressure

Selection: • IPI hired two independent experts (journalists) do a first cut of applications, and offered advice to the jury, which they did not always take. The independent jury selected the projects to be funded; the jury is chaired by Wolfgang Krach, editor-in-chief of Germany’s Süddeutsche Zeitung; Krach led the paper’s investigation of the Panama Papers in cooperation with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and over 100 media organizations around the world. • The jury consisted of individuals with a thorough understanding of current journalistic needs in Europe who were practicing journalists or editors, former journalists, media lawyers, academics or other experts.

Grants awarded to date: • The first call was launched in March 2018. • In June 2018, an independent jury awarded €315,000 to 12 investigative projects. • 12 projects were awarded in 2018 (examples, a full list here): • Daphne Project: Forbidden Stories and OCCRP launched the second round of the Daphne Project, supported by a €29,000 grant from IJ4EU. The Daphne Project gathered 45 journalists from 15 countries to continue the work of murdered Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. Media participating in the project, including The Guardian, La Repubblica and the Die Zeit. • Misuse of EU funds: RISE Project Romania and BIVOL Bulgaria have teamed to investigate the unseen corrupt organizations that are siphoning off European taxpayer money. Using investigative reporting, the two media outlets are unveiling how organized crime acts at a transnational level to plunder public coffers. • A team led by the Baltic Centre for Investigative Journalism (Re:Baltica) and including journalists from Postimees (Estonia), Direkt36 (Hungary), 15min.lt (Lithuania) and Respekt (Czech Republic) the first story in a multi-part, cross-border series this October. The story, led by Direkt36, scrutinized Hungary’s relationship with Russia in light of the Skripal affair. • Vsquare, a network of independent media in the Visegrád countries and consisting of journalists from Átlátszó (Hungary), Direkt36 (Hungary), the Czech Centre for Investigative Journalism, Aktuality.sk (Slovakia) and Fundacja Reporterów (Poland), has published the first articles in a series examining the “militarization” of patriotism in the region. Articles have focused on the revival of weapons manufacturing in Hungary and the establishment of Poland’s “territorial defence forces”. • Equipping the Dictator: OCCRP and Danwatch, a Copenhagen-based independent media centre specialized in investigations of states’ and companies’ impact on human rights and the environment, have partnered to investigate the money trail from the EU to Eastern European authorities with poor human rights records • Climate Change Denial Networks in Europe: A team of journalists led by Annika Joeres and Susanne Götze published the first story in a series of reports on climate change denialism in Europe and the United States. The story examined the increasing efforts of far-right and populist movements on both sides of the Atlantic to question scientific evidence on climate change; these efforts have reached the European Parliament and the German Bundestag.

47

• Funding for the far-right: As the 2019 EU Parliament elections approach, a team of journalists led by Rue89 Stasbourg, is investigating the financing of far-right parties in Europe via the budget of the European Parliament.

Reception/Feedback to date: • General situation in the EU: hostile climate against journalists (especially Visegrad countries, Malta, Italy, etc); strong calls for policymakers, both in Member States and EU, to publicly support journalists and call out violations of press freedom; • Overall positive reception, since it is perceived that journalism is under threat across Europe, there is a need for support and cross-border cooperation; impression that a lot can be achieved despite limited funds (IPI Director); • Investigations thus far are of high quality and diversity (geographic and topics); many projects were funded that directly scrutinized the EU itself (re independence) • At the start of the project, there were worries that the reporting teams who received the grants would not be independent from funders’ own interests. As it turned out, those fears were unfounded. Indeed, two of the stories revealed, in separate cases, that EU funds were being misused in Bulgaria and Romania, and that 2.5 million euros had gone to fund the activities of far-right anti- European activists. • Journalists grateful for money to just do their jobs and not take unneeded “training.” • The structure was put in place to ensure that the grantees are selected entirely independently from the Commission, but also from IPI and ECPMF, and that they can operate without any interference by these organisations • Timely relevance: There are concerns about disinformation in the context of the upcoming elections in Europe, which increases the need for quality journalism.

- by Lea von Martius

Appendix 10. Best Practice: Journalism Funding146

Foundations that want to set up a separate committee to do their grant making in journalism would need to be clear about how they categorize their grant funding, recognizing media funding as such, and not grouping it together with other topic-area funding. Foundations could act as trustees, giving grant decision-making power to a committee of representative leaders from prominent news organizations that independently reviewed applications and came together to discuss final decisions. It is important, though, that the foundation, in evaluating the success of the journalism program, judge it on the quality of the coverage, including the impact it has had.

Other funders give grants to intermediary organizations that then allocate them to journalists. Some of these intermediary organizations exist with the explicit purpose of providing a buffer between donors and grantees. While the role of intermediaries can add another layer of bureaucracy to the process, they play an invaluable role as they have local knowledge and expertise in media. They also add a layer of opacity in cases where it could be dangerous for a journalist to report getting direct funding from a foreign organization.

Peer Review Committees Some of the groups that do grant making to journalists make sure they have groups of journalists (not donors) deciding who gets the money. One example is International Media Support (IMS) based in Copenhagen. IMS works with the Danish and Swedish Associations of Investigative Journalism (FUJ) on the

48

programme SCOOP, which has an open bidding process, where journalists can respond to a call for applications. All working with the programme assess and discuss the applications, but the final decision to support an investigation is taken by representatives from the investigative journalism associations to ensure that support is granted based on journalistic criteria for investigative journalism.

In some cases, the names of the panelists are not disclosed or are disclosed after the fact so as to avoid lobbying and pressure on donors. In a similar approach, some organizations place experts on their boards who are not journalists to make decisions about grants to support media. Foundations in this group include the Independent and Public Spirited Media Foundation in India and South Africa’s Raith foundation.

Transparency Organizations that are transparent consider it a best practice and believe the practice should spread. They are of course cognizant of the dangers to journalists who work in countries where grants from foreign donors could put the journalists in danger. But they believe whatever can be transparent should be. “Transparency, transparency, transparency. Transparency in publishing the call, in the application and in the selection process,” said Knut Neumayer at the Institute for Human Sciences in Austria. Others worry about putting grantees in danger and say they could be at risk if it were known who their funders were and resist disclosing their donors. Practices vary widely across countries and organizations. Getting a universal code of conduct is difficult, says Charles Lewis, an American University professor who has founded or co-founded several non-profit organizations and has been involved with non-profit news media for 27 years. In 2010, he formally proposed the ethics and transparency standards policy for the Institute for Non-profit News (formerly the Investigative News Network, which he co-founded), a membership requirement for the 110 non-profit INN member organizations. “Disclosure itself is complicated even in the US, outside even more so. There are no standards. Whatever standards we have here have taken decades to develop. Overseas it is even more chaotic,” Lewis said.”

Excerpt from “Same Beds, Different Dreams” by Anya Schiffrin https://www.cima.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CIMA-Media-Philanthropy_Schiffrin.pdf

Appendix 11. GFMD Problem statement: The Media Landscape

The business model for journalism and independent media is showing clear signs of decline. Globally, newspapers are on course to lose around $23.8 billion in annual advertising revenue between 2017 and 2021147. It is estimated that more than 10% of these losses, around $3 billion, will be sustained by local newspapers which were once the main providers of public service information for communities worldwide.

At the same time, state subsidies are rapidly becoming a major source of revenue for local news outlets, thereby giving governments new cudgels for keeping outspoken media to heel. According to an Open Society Foundations report on the future of digital journalism148, governments used financial pressure to control news organisations in more than half of the 56 markets examined. This proportion is widely thought to have increased over the past four years.

In addition, public trust in national media has plummeted. According to the 2018 Edelman Trust Barometer, media has become the least-trusted global institution for the first time in history. Media is distrusted in 82% of countries and in only six —Singapore, the Netherlands, UAE, India, Indonesia, and China — were trust levels reported to be above 50%.149

49

The decline of local public affairs reporting is, perhaps, one of the greatest areas of concern. In his analysis The Big Picture: Misinformation Society,150 US academic Robert Picard writes, “Today, symptoms of extreme – and largely unregulated – commercialism in our media system include the ubiquity of clickbait, sponsored content, behavioural advertising, and corporate and state surveillance in our digital news media, along with the tendency toward media monopolies, a lack of public access to high-quality information, a loss of diverse voices and viewpoints, and the evisceration of public service journalism.”

The diminishing number of trustworthy news media has been compounded by a widespread inability to monetise online content. With falling revenues and fewer journalists, this erosion is creating “news deserts,” with entire regions bereft of any meaningful coverage. In Colombia, for example, 37% of the population lacks access to locally produced news in their municipality.151

These trends have severely affected the role of journalist and are leading to unforeseen consequences for the future of both developed and emerging democracies. Without public service journalism, democracy itself is under threat, increasingly exposed to a culture of misinformation, proliferated by social media platforms. There is, therefore, a continuing and pressing need for multi-stakeholder actions which address the core problems and not just the symptoms of decline.

2.2. The media development community

Support for journalism and independent media has been a fixture in the international development agenda since the fall of the Soviet Union. As research by CIMA and others has shown, access to impartial media plays an essential role in supporting good governance, promoting human rights and eliminating poverty. More recently, donors and implementing agencies have shifted their focus to combating disinformation and propaganda in an effort to stymie state-sponsored efforts to undermine the credibility of democratic processes and institutions.

At the current time, funding for media development totals between $350 and $500 million per year – which constitutes around 2% of total support for good governance by OECD member countries and less than 0.5% of overall development assistance budgets.152 However, against the backdrop of falling revenues and political pressures, this support acts as a lifeline for beleaguered media outlets worldwide. A combination of commercial income and donor funding is rapidly becoming the new business model for the independent sector.

Despite the pledges made by the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, the donor landscape is increasingly complex and fragmented. Donors, philanthropists and intermediaries often lack the mechanisms to identify and commit to projects or organisations which have the potential to deliver long-term impact. Meaningful coordination and effective collaboration – particularly across borders – remain the exception rather than the rule.

The current crisis of sustainability and trust in media has thrown these issues into sharp relief, renewing calls for objectives to be better articulated and streamlined. There is an urgent need to drive systems change153, in particular by eliminating the obstacles which stand in the way of effective collaboration and knowledge-sharing. The imbalance of skills between the Global North and South – particularly in terms of securing and managing grants – is also a cause for concern.

--From the Global Fund for Media Development

50

Appendix 12. Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Examples

In a response to incidents of their digital programmatic advertising appearing next to offensive content and generating revenue for outlets focused on hate speech and fake news, Vodafone has created a set of elaborate advertising rules to stop its adverts from appearing on sites that create and share false news, hate speech and other offensive content. These have been added to the group's ad transparency and integrity policy in 2017.

Vodafone already has a number of rules designed to ensure transparency and integrity in the allocation of the Group's global advertising budget. The new rules focused on hate speech and false news outlets are implemented by means of a whitelist-based approach using content controls implemented by Vodafone’s global agency network (led by WPP), Google and Facebook. Those controls ensure that Vodafone advertisements are only served within selected outlets identified as highly unlikely to be focused on harmful content. 100% of Vodafone's ’s global digital advertising spend goes only to whitelisted media in the 24 markets where they advertise.The spend is directed by “predominant purpose” test, which asks two key questions: 1) Does this organisation produce propaganda, disinformation or disinformation?; 2) Does this organisation produce hate speech? These measures are reviewed regularly by Vodafone and its global agency network to ensure that the selection of outlets for whitelisting is appropriate and neither too broad nor too narrow. Vodafone's approach has led to increase in advertising revenues for news media in markets where they operate.

The model has inspired Internews’ United for News, a non-profit, mission-driven initiative, that is aiming to leverage the power of global brands and their digital ad spend to support reputable media in a wide range of emerging digital markets. United for News is planning to address media sustainability through a socially responsible digital advertising program with two elements. First is a system that channels revenue directly to trusted media. The programme, based on the United for News Index and Publisher Network, supports media sustainability while enabling brands to use their ad dollars to support robust democracies and healthy societies without sacrificing performance. Second is a program to onboard trusted media into the digital advertising markets, enabling them to participate effectively in the advertising ecosystem that will dominate this century.

Similarly, the Digital Content Next’s TrustX, is a non-profit initiative that has gathered a powerful alliance of advertisers, agencies and premium content publishers in purpose-driven, cooperative programmatic advertising marketplace. Specifically created to establish the benchmark for the sustainable future of trusted advertising, more than a dozen major agencies, representing hundreds of high-quality advertising brands, are now trading with the high quality programmatic digital inventory. Advertising traded through the TrustX marketplace aims to meet the highest standards for performance, quality, security and privacy.

These initiatives address not only issues of brand safety, misinformation and disinformation, but also widely present problem of digital ad fraud. Overall estimates of fraud vary widely, but even the most conservative estimates put the money involved worldwide into the billions annually. Recent estimates vary from $6.5 billion to as high as $19 billion, a range that points to the potential that can be addressed by global advertisers to channel advertising dollars away from fraudsters and towards credible and reputable journalism and media operations.

--by Mira Milosevic

51

Acknowledgements

This report was done in a compressed time frame, and we ask your kind forbearance, as it is far from an exhaustive exploration of the topic, and many cooks contributed to the final product.

The lead researcher and writer was Ellen Hume www.ellenhume.com. Hume is a veteran journalist, teacher and media developer. Based in Boston, MA, she continues as a non-resident research fellow at the Center for Media, Data and Society at Central European University, and an adviser to Direkt36, a Hungarian investigative journalism nonprofit. She is a founding member of the International Media Development Advisers group, and formerly served as a consultant and board member of Internews and the Center for International Media Assistance (CIMA). Hume authored the first comprehensive analysis of American media development abroad, “Media Missionaries,” for the Knight Foundation in 2004. Among her most recent projects are evaluations of the International Center for Journalists and the Global Investigative Journalism Network.

Prof. Anya Schiffrin, co-author of the report, is the director of the Technology, Media, and Communications specialization at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. Schiffrin spent 10 years working overseas as a journalist in Europe and Asia and was a Knight-Bagehot Fellow at Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism in 1999–2000. Schiffrin is on the Global Board of the Open Society Foundations. Her most recent books are African Muckraking: 75 Years of African Investigative Journalism (Jacana 2017) and Global Muckraking: 100 Years of Investigative Reporting from Around the World (New Press, 2014).

Special contributors included: • Brigitte Alfter, a Danish-German journalist, author, and director of Arena for Journalism in Europe, a foundation that works for cross-border collaborative and investigative journalism in Europe. She is an award winning journalist who worked at local and national newspapers, her latest news position was as EU correspondent for Danish newspaper Information. In her Brussels position she realised the need to collaborate across borders, practiced cross border collaborative journalism herself and then turned to developing support structures for cross border journalism in Europe. She developed the European work stipends at Journalismfund.eu and the European Investigative Journalism & Dataharvest Conference. She was the co-founder of Scoop and various other projects, and she has held board positions at the Danish Association for Investigative Journalism, (FUJ), and the German ditto (Netzwerk Recherche). • Laura Beamer, economic research fellow, Jain Family Institute • Camille Eiss, Chief of Global Partnerships and Policy at the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP). In the Obama administration, she served as Senior Advisor for Anti- corruption to the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Rights, and Labor at the State Department and as a Senior Policy Advisor at USAID. She is the former Assistant Editor of Freedom in the World and a former analyst for Freedom of the Press, the annual global report on media independence. • Mary Beth Goodman, Senior Fellow at New America focusing on the use of technology to solve social impact and governance challenges. She also serves as a consultant and senior advisor to the Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative (StAR). She previously served as the Special Assistant to President Obama and Senior Director for Development and Democracy at the National Security Council at the White House. • Marina Gorbis , Executive Director of the Institute for the Future (IFTF), a non-profit research and educational organization dedicated to systematically thinking about the future. Marina's work focuses on understanding interactions between technologies, society, and economy. She is author of The Nature of the Future: Dispatches from the Socialstructed World and "The Future as a Way of Life: Alvin Toffler's Unfinished Business"

52

• Mira Milosevic, executive director of the Global Forum for Media Development, Prior to joining GFMD Mira has managed media development programs at World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers (WAN-IFRA), and has served as chief platform officer at Indie Voices, and as director of Belgrade Media Center. She authored the World Press Trends reports on the international newspaper industry, published by WAN-IFRA. • The team of Columbia University graduate students from the School of International and Public Affairs who contributed research and writing: Lea von Martius, Michelle Meza Reusche, Joseph J Sass, and Anamaria Lopez (undergraduate).

The team wishes to acknowledge the special contributions of David Kaplan, Magda Walter, and Ana Carolina Gomez, who edited and formatted the report.

53

Endnotes (Main Report and Appendices)

1 https://theshiftnews.com/2019/01/24/daphne-caruana-galizias-death-marked-new-trend-report/ 2 See “What is Investigative Journalism?” in Ellen Hume and Susan Abbot, “The Future of Investigative Journalism: Global, Networked and Collaborative” https://cmds.ceu.edu/sites/cmcs.ceu.hu/files/attachment/article/1129/humeinvestigativejournalismsurvey.pdf 3 This definition originates with David Kaplan of the Global Investigative Journalism Network.. 4 CIMA has just published a look at the current state of funding: https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/confronting-the- crisis-in-independent-media/?_cldee=ZWxsZW5odW1lQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ%3d%3d&recipientid=contact- 4fcf0bb54f30e71180d9005056a456ce-68e271c96b464796a6d29f0a7fc15064&esid=28c2e4b3-b950-e911-80fd- 005056a456ce 5 https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/doing-more-to-support-local-news 6 https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/dnifund/report/ 7 Investigative Journalism & Foreign Aid: A Huge Return on Investment,” David Kaplan and Drew Sullivan, GIJN.org, March 17, 2016. 8 “Measuring investigative journalism’s impact on society: 8 good questions with James Hamilton,” Laurie Beth Harris, American Press Institute, Oct. 20, 2016. For a larger discussion of measuring impact, see Hamilton’s 2016 book, Democracy’s Detectives: The Economics of Investigative Journalism (Harvard, 2016) See also Anya Schiffrin and Ethan Zuckerman, “Can We Measure Media Impact? Surveying the Field,” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall 2015. 9 http://www.oecd.org/corruption/Fighting-the-crime-of-foreign-bribery.pdf 10 https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/07/david-cameron-admits-he-profited-fathers-offshore-fund-panama- papers 11 For example, OCCRP was deeply involved in illuminating the corruption at Danske Bank, but the credit for originating the case goes to “a whistleblower” and the Financial Times. https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/9107-danske-bank-sued- over-money-laundering-scandal. Assigning credit for such prosecutions would take time and resources away from doing the actual journalism. 12 https://www.sec.gov/whistleblower 13 Richard Goldstone, interview with Ellen Hume, March 18, 2019. See www.integrityinitiatives.org 14 This Europe summary was prepared by Anamaria Lopez , Columbia University graduate student 15 Corinne Schweizer, Manuel Puppis, Matthias Künzler, Samuel Studer, “Public Funding of Private Media.” The London School of Economics Media Policy Project. 2014. 16 Milan Živković, “Who Will Pay for Journalism?” South East European Media Observatory. 2016; Dame Frances Cairncross, “The Cairncross Review: A Sustainable Future for Journalism.” 2019. 17 Rodney Benson and Matthew Powers, “A Crisis of Imagination: International Models for Funding and Protecting Independent Journalism and Public Media (A Survey of 14 Leading Democracies),” Free Press. 2010. 18 Schweizer et al. 2014; Karl Erik Gustafsson, Henrik Örnebring and David A. L. Levy, “Press Subsidies and Local News: The Swedish Case.” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. 2009; Rasmus Kleis Nielsen and Geert Linnebank, “Public Support for the Media: A Six-Country Overview of Direct and Indirect Subsidies.” Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. 2011. 19 Schweizer et al. 2014. 20 Gustafsson, Örnebring, and Levy 2009. 21 Živković 2016. 22 Cairncross 2019. 23 See https://journalismfundersforum.com/uploads/downloads/jff_london_report.pdf 24 This case study was written by Brigitte Alfter, journalist, author, director of Arena for Journalism in Europe, co-Founder of Scoop, volunteer and volunteer coordinator 2003-2012, member of the FUJ board, 2002-2012 25 Criteria Fonds Pascal Decroos grants for in-depth journalism in Flanders https://pascaldecroosbeurs.org/en/rules 26 Brigitte Altfer has written a larger explanation of this, in the Appendix. 27 Interview with Ellen Hume, March 22, 2019 28 This portion of the case study was done by Lea van Martius, Columbia University graduate student 29 This case study was written by Brigitte Alfter (see above). 30 https://i-scoop.org/fgj-fuj-leaving-scoop-russia/ 31 http://company.tampabay.com:2052/times-fund 32 Karr, p. 20

54

33 See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_Master_Settlement_Agreement 34 This idea comes from Alexander Papachristou, attorney for the Cyrus Vance Center for International Justice (New York Bar) who does pro bono work for OCCRP, iCIJ and other journalists. 35 Alexander Papachristou, interview March 25, 2019 36 https://www.mediacompolicy.org/2019/03/18/campaign-to-break-big-tech-is-regulatory-overkill/ 37 Canada Media Fund. “About Us.” www.cmf-fmc.ca, 2017. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://www.cmf- fmc.ca/about-us. 38 UNESCO – Diversity of Cultural Expressions. “Canada Media Fund (CMF).” En.unesco.org, 2016. Accessed. February 25, 2019. https://en.unesco.org/creativity/policy-monitoring-platform/canada-media-fund-cmf. 39 Additional government funding was approved in February 2018 to counter the decline in Broadcasting contributions; the government will fund $172 million over five years on top of the normal $134.3 million. 40 Canada Media Fund. “CMF thanks Government of Canada for new funding contribution.” www.cmf-fmc.ca. February 28, 2018. Accessed February 24, 2019. https://www.cmf-fmc.ca/en-ca/news-events/news/february-2018/cmf-thanks- government-of-canada-for-new-funding-co. 41 The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulates TV/radio broadcasters and telecommunications carriers through licensing, approving mergers and the like, as well as collecting the applicable levies set forth in Canada’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy. 42 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. “About Us.” Crtc.gc.ca. 2019. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/org.htm. 43 See CANADA appendix for more details. 44 Bell, Emily, “How Mark Zuckerberg Could Really Fix Journalism,” Columbia Journalism Review, Feb. 21, 2017: https://www.cjr.org/tow_center/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-fix-journalism.php. 45 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/05/brazilian-police-arrest-olympics-chief-carlos-arthur-nuzman- bribery-investigation 46 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/business/japan-olympics-bribery-corruption.html 47 https://money.cnn.com/2017/04/05/news/economy/odebrecht-latin-america-corruption/index.html 48 https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/esporte/olimpiada-no-rio/en/2016/08/1806425-95-of-total-tickets-sold-for-rio- 2016.shtml 49 https://www.olympic.org/rio-2016. 50 https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/esporte/olimpiada-no-rio/en/2016/08/1806425-95-of-total-tickets-sold-for-rio- 2016.shtml 51 United Nations Convention Against Corruption, 2003. Lex Mercatoria. Accessed March 14, 2019. https://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.against.corruption.convention.2003.html 52 The World Bank, Stolen Asset Recovery Initiative. “Global Forum on Asset Recovery Communique.” December 4-6, 2017. Accessed March 14, 2017. https://star.worldbank.org/sites/star/files/20171206_gfar_communique.pdf 53 The Federal Assembly of the Swiss Confederation. 196.1 Federal Act on the Freezing and the Restitution of Illicit Assets held by Foreign Politically Exposed Persons, December 18, 2015. Accessed March 17, 2019. https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20131214/index.html 54 United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Article 57 Return and disposal of assets, 2003. Lex Mercatoria. Accessed March 20, 2019. https://www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.against.corruption.convention.2003/57.html 55 Siemens 1544192947.5b511d347aa22b5e48b799cb52c8c3caf29263a7.siemens-integrity-initiative-annual-report- 2017.pdf 56 The director of an American investigative journalism nonprofit noted that all the money they have recovered for the U.S. government has netted zero funding for their work. “The chances that in the USA, you would ever convince anybody that even 5% should be devoted this way would be zero,” he said “Other cultures are very different. In this country you will never get legislation.” 57 The Trump White House is targeting a windfall from an international banking scandal to help pay for the border wall, according to CNBC. French bank Societe Generale struck a deal with the U.S government in November to pay $1.3 billion after admitting that it violated U.S. sanctions on Cuba and Iran for years. The administration is hoping to funnel as much as $359 million from that settlement to a special account at the Treasury Department to fund the wall, CNBC said quoting an unnamed administration official. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/trump-wants-to-use-a-big-banking- settlement-to-help-build-the-wall.html 58 See https://www.gao.gov/assets/670/668928.pdf

55

59 While this seems far-fetched, several prominent US attorneys interviewed for this report appear willing (pro bono) to help the Fund think through possible approaches for using the qui tam process. On the other hand, most US investigative journalists interviewed rejected this mechanism, considering its potential for distorting journalism priorities and reputation as a public interest sector. 60 For example, Siemens paid $800 million in fines in 2008. https://www.wilmerhale.com/en/insights/publications/siemens-agrees-to-record-setting-800-million-in-fcpa-penalties- december-22-2008 61 Interview with Rex Smith, Editor, Albany Times Union, March 8, 2019 62 See Ellen Hume, The Media Missionaries (Knight Foundation, 2004) https://ellenhume.com/global-media- development-report-the-media-missionaries/ 63 See also: http://www.ariadne-network.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/An-Introduction-to-Funding-Journalism-and- Media.pdf - An Introduction to Funding Media and Journalism, developed by Ariadne and the Transparency and Accountability Initiative, aims to help funders boost their understanding of the key issues, debates and approaches in funding journalism and media. https://shorensteincenter.org/funding-the-news-foundations-and-nonprofit- media/ and https://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Journalism-Funders-Case-Studies.pdf - Harvard University’s Shorenstein Center has produced these two very useful studies. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1556321 - "Foundation Funding and the Boundaries of Journalism" by Martin Scott, Mel Bunce and Kate Wright https://www.cima.ned.org/blog/tracking-media-development-donor-support-update-2016-funding-levels/ - CIMA has tracked for number of years now investment in media and journalism https://journalismfundersforum.com/uploads/downloads/jff_london_report.pdf - reports from European Journalism Centre on https://journalismfundersforum.com/uploads/downloads/JFF-Germany-Report.pdf https://journalismfundersforum.com/uploads/downloads/Journalism-Funders-Report-Paris.pdf https://www.alliancemagazine.org/feature/media-philanthropy-space-2017/ 64 Adam Thomas, European Journalism Centre interview, March 7, 2019 65 See more about Soros’ media development efforts in Hume, Media Missionaries., op cit 66 https://promarket.org/can-investigative-journalism-profitable-frances-mediapart-shows-can/ 67 Bishop, Timothy R. "Looking "North to the Future": Modeling Pennsylvania's Development of Natural Gas on Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend." Widener Law Journal, vol. 23, no. 3, 10/01/2014, pp. 819. 68 Widerquist, Karl, and Michael W. Howard. Exporting the Alaska Model Adapting the Permanent Fund Dividend for Reform around the World. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 53. 69 Anderson, Jonathan. "The Alaska Permanent Fund: Politics and Trust." Public Budgeting & Finance, vol. 22, no. 2, 01/01/2002, pp. 66, doi:10.1111/1540-5850.00073. 70 Forget, Evelyn L. "Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend: Examining its Suitability as a Model." Eastern Economic Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, 09/01/2014, pp. 609, doi:10.1057/eej.2014.15. 71 Widerquist, Karl, and Michael W. Howard. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 102. 72 Widerquist, Karl, and Michael W. Howard. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 22. 73 Widerquist, Karl, and Michael W. Howard. Alaska’s Permanent Fund Dividend. Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, pp. 23. Figure: “Our Performance.” Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, 10 Mar. 2019, www.apfc.org. 74 See Appendix: Corporate Social Responsibility: Three Case Studies, about Vodaphone, United for News, and TrustX. P. 75 https://www.cjr.org/analysis/venture-capital-funding-vice-buzzfeed.php 76 See Appendix: The Tech Dividend Funds (Gorbis) 77 In 2018, Europe passed the strictest rules thus far to protect personal information of tech users with the EU General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). 78 This point was emphasized by Mira Milosevic, Global Forum for Media Development. 79 Vosoughi, Soroush, Deb Roy and Sinan Aral, “The Spread of True and False News Online,” Science, March 2018: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/1146. 80 Timothy Karr and Craig Aaron, Beyond Fixing Facebook, Free Press, February 2019 , p. 8 https://www.freepress.net/policy-library/beyond-fixing-facebook 81 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/opinion/facebook-antitrust-investigation.html 82 https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/doing-more-to-support-local-news 83 Richard Gingras https://medium.com/@dskok/in-conversation-with-richard-gingras-vp-of-google-news-ab2cdb53ee12

56

84 https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/ 85 See Appendix: Google (Sass) p.36 86 https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/google-news-initiative/stop-presses-how-new-publishing-platform-can- help-local-news/ 87 https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Challenge-for-Democracy.pdf 88 See, for example, https://www.occrp.org/en, and https://www.icij.org/ 89 http://bbsa.lv/en/media-policy-recommendations/ 90 http://mediashift.org/2018/03/local-newsroom-brazil-learned-track-impact/ 91 Zuckerman interview with Ellen Hume, March 4, 2019. 92 The European Journalism Centre offers blueprints for better collaboration between journalists and donors: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AMjHlNnhtH2bmawmZy2RcZbqEhyq0rs442Y9RTd7PdQ/edit#heading=h.cw2d8c 8qkroa 93 See also Appendix: Best Practices by Anya Schiffrin 94 https://www.epim.info/ 95 Oliver Schwank: Global Health Initiatives and Aid Effectiveness in the Health Sector, Background Paper World Economic and Social Survey 2012 96 Data obtained from the Global Fund website, see: http://portfolio.theglobalfund.org/en/DataDownloads/Index (12 January 2012) 97 https://www.lenfestinstitute.org/about/ 98 https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/facebook-journalism-funding.php 99 https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/inside-the-local-news-subscriptions-accelerator-publishers-share- their-results 100 https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/facebook-launches-community-news-project-in-the-uk 101 https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/facebook-journalism-funding.php 102 Bibliography /Resources reviewed: • Columbia Journalism Review: “Facebook says it plans to put $300M into journalism projects”. January 15, 2019. https://www.cjr.org/the_new_gatekeepers/facebook-journalism-funding.php • Facebook Press Release: “Introducing: The Facebook Journalism Project”. January 11, 2017. https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/introducing-the-facebook-journalism-project • CNN: “Facebook, fighting off skeptics, plans to invest $300 million in journalism programs”. January 15, 2019. https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/15/media/facebook-investment-news-programs/index.html • Recode: Full interview- Facebook's head of news partnerships & head of News Feed live from Code Media. February 12, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dU-MIj5vEjU • Gothamist: “Mic Lays Off Almost Entire Staff In Pivot To Oblivion”. November 29, 2018. http://gothamist.com/2018/11/29/mic_layoffs_bustle_media.php • Facebook Press Release: “Detalles de Local News Subscriptions Accelerator: los editores comparten los resultados”. August 2, 2018. https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/inside-the-local-news- subscriptions-accelerator-publishers-share-their-results • Knight Foundation: “Knight Foundation and The Lenfest Institute for Journalism establish $20 million fund to support a strong future for local journalism”. September 16, 2018. https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-foundation-and-the-lenfest-institute-for-journalism- establish-20-million-fund-to-support-a-strong-future-for-local-journalism • The Lenfest Institute: About us- Local journalism, Innovation and Democracy. https://www.lenfestinstitute.org/about/ • Facebook Press Release: “Facebook lanza Community News Project en el Reino Unido”. November 19, 2018. https://www.facebook.com/facebookmedia/blog/facebook-launches-community-news-project-in-the-uk • The Verge: “Facebook pledges £4.5 million to train local journalists in UK, a world first”. November 19, 2018. https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/19/18102558/facebook-journalism-fund-uk-nctj-local-news-amount 103 https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17142788/google-news-initiative-fake-news-journalist-subscriptions 104 https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/innovation-challenges/ 105 https://www.blog.google/outreach-initiatives/google-news-initiative/asia-pacific-challenge/ 106 https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/dnifund/report/ 107 https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/success-stories 108 https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/products 57

109 https://newsinitiative.withgoogle.com/training/ 110 Journalism in Germany has a strongly literary tradition, and has experienced significant censorship; there is a skepticism of “scandal journalism”: more important is the clever commentary, the beautifully formulated features, the lively reportage. 111 https://niemanreports.org/articles/plus-c%CC%A7a-change/ 112 Source: https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/google_france_ 113 Canada Media Fund. “About Us.” www.cmf-fmc.ca, 2017. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://www.cmf- fmc.ca/about-us. 114 UNESCO – Diversity of Cultural Expressions. “Canada Media Fund (CMF).” En.unesco.org, 2016. Accessed. February 25, 2019. https://en.unesco.org/creativity/policy-monitoring-platform/canada-media-fund-cmf. 115 Additional government funding was approved in February 2018 to counter the decline in Broadcasting contributions; the government will fund $172 million over five years on top of the normal $134.3 million. 116 Canada Media Fund. “CMF thanks Government of Canada for new funding contribution.” www.cmf-fmc.ca. February 28, 2018. Accessed February 24, 2019. https://www.cmf-fmc.ca/en-ca/news-events/news/february-2018/cmf-thanks- government-of-canada-for-new-funding-co. 117 The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) regulates TV/radio broadcasters and telecommunications carriers through licensing, approving mergers and the like, as well as collecting the applicable levies set forth in Canada’s Broadcasting Regulatory Policy. 118 Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. “About Us.” Crtc.gc.ca. 2019. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/acrtc/org.htm. 119 Government of Canada. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRTC 2017-138. May 10, 2017. Crtc.gc.ca. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2017/2017- 138.htm. 120 Telecommunication providers are levied differently at a 0.60 revenue-percent charge. 121 Government of Canada. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Telecom Decision CRTC 2018-441. November 28, 2018. Crtc.gc.ca. Accessed February 24, 2018. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2018/2018- 441.pdf. 122 80% of which is allocated to the Canada Media Fund, 20% to other certified independent production funds. 123 UNESCO. “Canada Media Fund (CMF).” 2016. 124 Government of Canada. Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission. Broadcasting Regulatory Policy CRT 2014-459. September 5, 2014. Crtc.gc.ca. Accessed February 24, 2018. https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2014/2014-459.htm. 125 Greenwood, Max. “CRTC Says ISP and Streaming Taxes Will Protect Traditional Media Systems.” Techvibes.com, May 31, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://techvibes.com/2018/05/31/streaming-taxes-will-protect-traditional- media-systems. 126 Jackson, Emily. “’It’s not a tax’: CRTC chair defends proposal for internet providers to contribute to Canadian content.” FinancialPost.com, November 1, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://business.financialpost.com/telecom/its-not- a-tax-crtc-chair-defends-proposal-for-internet-providers-to-contribute-to-canadian-content. 127 Shekar, Shruti. “CBC suggests Netflix doesn’t have ‘boots on the ground’ producing CanCon.” Mobilesyrup.com, January 31, 2019. Accessed February 22, 2019. https://mobilesyrup.com/2019/01/31/cbc-netflix-canadian-content/. 128 The Canadian Press. “Ottawa poised to offer financial assistance to newspapers in upcoming budget.” FinancialPost.com, January 26, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://business.financialpost.com/telecom/media/ottawa-poised-to-help-newspapers-in-upcoming-budget. 129 Government of Canada. “Canada Periodical Fund.” Canada.ca, July 14, 2017. Accessed February 23, 2018. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/periodical-fund.html. 130 The CPF replaced the Publications Assistance Program and the Canada Magazine Fund in 2009. 131 Government of Canada. “Aid to Publishers - Canada Periodical Fund.” Canada.ca, October 11, 2018. Accessed February 23,2018. https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/funding/periodical-fund/aid-publishers.html. 132 News Media Canada. “Canada Periodical Fund.” Nmc-mic.ca, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://nmc- mic.ca/public-affairs/canada-periodical-fund/. 133 News Media Canada. “Canadian Journalism Fund.” Newsmediacanada.ca, 2017. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://nmc-mic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Canadian-Journalism-Fund-FINAL-20170616.pdf. 134 News Media Canada. “Canadian Journalism Fund Proposal.” Newsmediacanada.ca, 2017. Accessed February 25, 2019. https://nmc-mic.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CJF-Fact-Sheet-FINAL-20170616.pdf

58

135 News Media Canada. “Canadian Journalism Fund Proposal.” 136 The Canadian Press. “Ottawa poised...” January 2018. 137 The new tax package does include that non-profit journalism has “donee” status for charitable funds (a part of the CJF proposal). 138 Schmidt, Christine. “Canada introduces a $595 million package in support of journalism.” NiemanLab.org. November 26, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. http://www.niemanlab.org/2018/11/canada-introduces-a-595-million-package- in-support-of-journalism/. 139 Connolly, Amanda. “Who are the winners and losers in the 2019 federal budget? Here’s what you need to know.” GlobalNews.ca. March 20, 2019. Accessed March 24, 2019. https://globalnews.ca/news/5068717/federal-budget- winners-and-losers/. 140 News Media Canada. “Canadian Journalism Fund.” 2017. 141 Cox is the lead on the CJF and has been advocating actively for its inception since June 2017. 142 Unifor is a trade union repping 12,000 members of the print, broadcast and filmmaking industries. 143 Cox, Dias and Greenspon authored an op-ed about the importance of local news, civic information, and Canadian journalism. 144 Canadian Heritage is the government program in charge of the CPF. 145 Ibid. 146 See also https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/publications/nonprofit-funding-guidance/ 147 PwC Global Entertainment & Media Outlook 2017-2021 https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/tmt/media/outlook/segment-insights/newspapers.html 148 Digital Journalism: Making News, Breaking News, 2014, Mapping Digital Media, Open Society Foundations https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/mapping-digital-media-overviews-20140828.pdf 149 Edelman Trust Barometer, 2018, https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer 150 The Big Picture: Misinformation Society, 2018, Robert Picard, http://www.publicbooks.org/the-big-picture- misinformation-society/ 151 War in Colombia is silencing local journalism, Cartografias de la informacion, FLIP, FOS and Open Society Foundations, 2017. 152 https://www.cima.ned.org/publication/slowly-shifting-field/ 153 https://ssir.org/articles/entry/a_new_model_of_collaborative_philanthropy

59