It’s time to talk about effective funding practices in local news.

By Bernardo Motta

In my last post for Local News Blues, I discussed how even well-intentioned organizations and institutions can worsen the local news crisis. The main takeaway was for funders, whether they are private philanthropies or public agencies, to take a little more responsibility for how they disburse their journalism-related funds. 

Today’s post follows up with some basic dos and don’ts to would-be financial “saviors” of local news.

1. Do not mistake mere content production for serious local journalism.

Journalism is not about writing or producing compelling stories. It is also not about beautiful graphic design and interactive features. It’s not about using the best and fanciest technology. It’s definitely not about commenting on the lives of celebrities. It’s not about creating puzzles or discussing the latest fashion fad. 

These are all artistic and entertainment endeavors of “the media,” but not what makes journalism central to a democratic society. 

2. Do understand what matters.

Journalism’s core function is to gather and verify the information the public needs to live in a democratic society, to survive crises, and to make informed choices about their government. Our central job is to hold governments accountable, to inform and educate people about civic life and public affairs, and to create a channel, a space, for the conversation a community must have about the things that actually matter. 

All the rest you see in the news media was added to sell more ad space or to indulge elitist ideas of “journalism.” 

3. Don’t force local news producers to become content mills.

This notion is absolutely fundamental for funders to understand: local news producers should not be judged simply on quantity. Publishing things on a paper or website, broadcasting them into the ether, or sharing them on social media are not the same as informing the public. 

News organizations should never be implicitly or explicitly forced to become content mills just to pay the bills. Overworked reporters cannot do the deep work of developing better relations with sources and with their communities, much less doing any type of in-depth investigations. 

4. Don’t judge local news outlets by what breaks through to the national news.

One tendency we see among news funders is to channel money to outlets that supposedly have a “big impact” because something they have reported has been swept up by big national outlets. But a news operation’s impact for its community should not be judged by whether it’s been reported in (or, often enough, stolen by) a national operation. 

Not all large news organizations are evil, although too many engage in extractive journalism and parachute journalism when it comes to local issues. But none of them are interested in measuring local work by what local communities will: a local outlet’s Investment of significant time and resources developing sources, earning the trust of their communities, and investigating the local governments, corporations, and public spaces.

A recent story published by The Washington Post making a fuss about a local reporter scooping all national media because community members trusted a local reporter over outsiders is not only pretty common, but actually how things work on a daily basis. 

And as great as scooping national media sounds, the real work of local news consists of the daily grind of keeping local governments in check, informing and often educating the public about public life and affairs, and connecting community members to local resources and to each other. It’s not the kind of sexy stuff that will get national attention. But it matters hugely in people’s lives.

5. Do consider the local economic impact of your giving.

The money you provide should go to an outlet that is incorporated in the community, hires people who live and pay taxes in the community, and spends money in the community. 

Clearly, large conglomerates and other corporate businesses rarely do that, as they send most of the money to pay for administration staff elsewhere. You should have a neighborhood-level bullseye when looking into where the money really is going. 

Making sure the money stays local means creating a better economic environment for the whole community. Bonus: This tends to reflect back toward the news organization, potentially helping it become more sustainable over time.

6. Don’t ask local outlets to cover what’s been problematic nationally for decades.

Funders have for too long relied on the traditional application process, which usually follows a formula. The grantor puts a call out saying there is money available for organizations that are willing to cover specific issues the granter wants fixed. They think local reporting is somehow going to fix the problems.

We don’t need to be particularly insightful to look around and realize that the majority of the issues this process has tried to fix are pretty much still around and, many of them – from poor health outcomes to environmental degradation, from the crisis in education to political polarization – are only worse after decades of funders saying they are working to fix these problems.

7. Relatedly, don’t pick our coverage areas for us.

Thematic grants may work if they are broad enough to be inclusive of what small hyperlocal newsrooms are already doing. But specific grant topic mandates may force already cash-strapped newsrooms to divert their work and reorganize their staff to do what you are asking, including participating in the grant application process.

Newsrooms are put between a rock and hard place when they either have to change directions to apply for a grant, twisting the whole newsroom operation to fit the grant requirements, or pass on a grant that could help keep a reporter around a little longer.

Remember that you are not the only sugar daddy in town asking for the same gymnastics and contortionism. These demands strain a newsroom and make it less effective. And topic-specific grants never address the main need every strapped local newsroom is facing: operational funding.

Each grant application is a potentially-catastrophic gamble for many newsrooms. If you want to really address a specific issue, make sure that a grantee is still able to use money for general operations, especially salaries. Trust that the news outlet will know how to best use the money. 

8. Do understand how funders may make it impossible for the most effective reporters to compete.

We’ve seen this all too often. You’re in a small newsroom and you realize that what a grant will bring you is just enough money to cover the time you have to dedicate to the grantor’s requirements. No time to do the work you really came for. So, do you pursue the grant so you can survive financially even though it means giving up the most important work? Or do you give up on the grants and try to survive some other way – maybe by working three jobs to pay the bills while you do the important reporting on “the side”?

So few funders seem to understand that many hyperlocal “newsrooms” are really one-person bands. (Remember John Paul, the BeaverCountian reporter who scooped the national media on the assassination attempt against former president Trump?) At many outlets, the same person is the publisher, managing editor, designer, layout artist, photographer and reporter. This is especially true in poor areas, rural communities, and for outlets owned by people of color and Indigenous people. 

These are also often the news organizations that do the most effective job in covering their communities in ways that build them up, inform and educate them, and prepare them for their democratic duties. But these outlets just can’t compete for the grants.

Applying for grants is work – usually a lot of work. When funders ask local news organizations to jump through hoops for a couple of thousand dollars, most of those they end up funding are people who have lots of time on their hands (read NOT the people who are already doing the work the funders really should want to support) or people who have specialized grant writers (or bots) and clearly don’t need that money as much as the small hyperlocal newsrooms. 

9. Don’t fund journalism-adjacent operations…unless they are generating new revenue that goes to local newsrooms.

Like trickle-down economics, giving money to the same journalism-adjacent organizations, journalism support groups, and large national newsrooms has never worked and will never work to save local journalism. It’s not that they are all bad. I am personally supportive of those needed in the greater scheme of things, but the simple truth is that they are not local news outlets and they can drain the money from those when they compete for the same sources of funding.

I see many journalism-adjacent or support organizations get grants that are supposed to go to support local news. When they act as intermediaries between journalism-funding agencies and foundations, those organizations will pay themselves first, which means less money for the local news outlets. These organizations also tend to pay their staff well. I’ve seen similar title and experience-level positions in these organizations paying up to ten times more than a local newsroom’s positions.

Journalism-adjacent and support organizations are most helpful when they develop new revenue sources that are not available to local news outlets and then distribute them to local news ops. Fully-funded reporting fellowships that use funding from private donors or from funding geared to education or workforce training are particularly useful. 

But please don’t force us to have our staff trained in specific practices or technologies as a way of access to future grants. Often, these types of training are not really helpful to what the newsroom needs the most: money to pay the bills. Most training geared to specific software, programs, or the newest gadget are completely unnecessary to our operations, but many of us publishers and reporters play along hoping to access a bigger bounty later. Discussions about the time sink that these types of funding become are common in list-servs, Slack channels, and social media.

10. Do send money. And trust us.

You have money and you want to save local news? Then just pick local newsrooms that do the best job providing civic information, accountability, and public-serving reporting, and just give them your money. 

Research has shown that poor people are experts in knowing what they need to do with money to improve their situations. The same is true for local newsrooms. They are connected with their local communities and know what people need and expect of them. They talk to each other to find out what is coming their way and what they need to prepare for. 

Not sold yet? 

Then collaborate with a locally-organized group of journalists or journalism outlets to discuss how to identify and support the outlets that are doing great work.

Invite local news outlets that have already done work you consider exemplary to tell you how to support them. And ask around in local community centers about new, and sometimes old, outlets that may be flying under your radar, especially if you want to be fair and equitable.

Prioritize small, independent, public service, nonprofit newsrooms. Those newsrooms have to be accountable in more ways than a for-profit newsroom does, because their mission is usually more aligned with the community they represent. They also have limited access to revenue streams available to for-profits, especially if they want to remain independent. 

I am not saying don’t fund for-profit news outlets. Many are excellent, but priority needs to be given to those who have limited funding possibilities in your area.

Let newsrooms use money in the way they think is most useful. They are local journalists. Figuring things out and knowing their community’s needs is the actual description of their jobs. Allow them to do their job instead of adding barriers to it.

Bernardo H. Motta is an associate professor of journalism at Roger Williams University and is the founder and editor-in-chief of the transformative journalism outlet Communities of Hope Civic Media, serving Rhode Island. He is also a member of the Local News Blues editorial board. Read more at the Local News Blues contributors page.