By Sebastian Gall and Uwe Krüger
Abstract: In the wake of digitalization and the economic media crisis, a new field of journalism has emerged aiming to compensate for the weaknesses of traditional news media: non-profit journalism. Instead of being financed by sales and advertising revenue (or broadcasting fees), it is primarily funded by small donations, membership fees or foundation money. However, the attempt to operate independent of market logics and to work solely in the public interest raises new questions, especially with regard to maintaining independence from donors. It also poses challenges for media organizations with regard to fundraising. This article uses ten guided interviews with employees of non-profit editorial offices to examine how their work differs from that of editorial offices financed by the private or public sector and what strategies they use to meet the above listed challenges. The results show 1) that the work differs positively from that of a traditional editorial office, especially relating to the choice of topics, research time and organizational structure; 2) that most of the organizations studied use only one type of funding; and 3) that the feared influence of large donors on content apparently does not take place, but that on the contrary, foundations supporting journalism are sometimes even more concerned about maintaining distance to the editorial offices than the other way around. At the same time, it should be noted that only few media organizations employ fundraisers, which means that this work falls onto the shoulders of management, editorial or layout staff.
1. Introduction
At the beginning of 2024, more than 3.5 million people across Germany demonstrated for democracy and against right-wing extremism. It was the largest wave of protests in the history of the country (Rucht 2024: 17; Sander 2024). The protests were triggered by an article of the investigative news outlet Correctiv about the »Potsdam secret meeting« (Bensmann et al. 2024) – a meeting of neo-Nazis, members of the German right-wing extremist party Alternative for Germany (AfD), the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and of the right-wing association Werteunion. At this meeting, the Austrian right-wing extremist Martin Sellner spoke about »remigration« and, according to Correctiv, stated that »assimilation pressure« should be exerted on citizens who resisted such assimilation, namely migrants (Zimmermann 2024). For this work, the non-profit journalism association Netzwerk Recherche (Research Network) awarded Correctiv with the »Lighthouse for special journalistic achievements« prize. The chairman of the association, Daniel Drepper, said: »Rarely has a single piece of research had such an impact and shown us all how important this type of journalism is for our democratic discourse« (Netzwerk Recherche 2024). A survey of protesters against right-wing extremism in southern Germany in 2024 shows that the high impact of the research was real and not just a claim by the awarding institution: 75 percent stated that Correctiv’s report was the decisive factor in their motivation to participate (Bitschnau/Koos 2024: 5).[1]
What makes this case special is that: Correctiv is neither a private-sector nor a public-sector medium, but it is committed to non-profit journalism (Lilienthal 2017: 660) and is financed primarily by foundation funds and donations. This type of funding has become increasingly important for journalism in recent years, but it has also been the subject of repeated criticism: How independent are editorial teams from their sponsors? The international investigative network Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) was recently in the headlines in this regard. At the end of 2024, the French investigative media outlet Mediapart accused it of being not only financially but also structurally dependent on the US government: Employees of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), from which the OCCRP received around half of its budget, said that USAID had veto power over the appointment of the network’s top staff (Philippin/Candea 2024). In response to this case, Leonard Novy from the Institute for Media and Communication Policy in Cologne, Germany, told the German public broadcaster NDR that even the appearance of partisanship is a massive problem for the credibility and legitimacy of non-profit journalistic work (Eichhorn/Becker 2024).
In the following, this article explores empirically the tensions between newly gained freedoms from market constraints and possible new dependencies on donors. By interviewing leading personnell from ten media organizations in the field of non-profit journalism in Germany, the aim is to find out how the work differs from a traditional editorial office, what the financing looks like exactly in each case, what implications this financing has for journalistic independence and what steps are taken to secure the latter.
2. Non-profit journalism: emergence, characteristics, criticism
Non-profit journalism has developed in the context of the media funding crisis and the decline in reach of traditional journalistic products resulting from the digital transformation of the public sphere (Eisenegger 2021; Krüger 2018). Non-profit journalism counts among the most relevant innovations in Western media markets of the past decade (Meier et al. 2022), although its historical roots go back further, particularly in the field of investigative journalism and in the US (cf. Krüger et al. 2019). Here, in the country where non-profit journalism originated (Homburg/Nguyen 2018: 39), it is now an important player: »In the US media landscape, such solutions have already established themselves in great diversity in the face of greater market failure and a more pronounced culture of civic engagement« (Ballwieser et al. 2011: 8). According to one count, before 2008, there were a total of 49 such newsrooms; from 2017 until 2020, the development accelerated, with over 20 new organizations being added each year (Roseman et al. 2021: 5). The Institute for Nonprofit News (INN), which commissioned the census, has 425 nonprofit newsrooms.[2] Not only the quantity of such media outlets has risen, but evidently so has their quality: Birnbauer (2019: 2) lists prestigious awards such as the Pulitzer Prize that have been won by non-profit newsrooms.
The growth of this new type of journalism is unmistakable. But how can it be conceptualized? To Schnedler and Schuster (2015: 5–6), the central attributes of non-profit journalism are an orientation towards the common good and independence from the logic of the market economy. It is »an attempt to find a balance in which business is not the most important ingredient, but rather an orientation towards the common good« (6). They identify four characteristics:
- Takes seriously the public task of journalism
- No intention to make a profit
- Significant funding from donors and sponsors
- Recognized as a non-profit organization by the authorities (6).
Reuter (2023: 112) defines the »operating model« of non-profit journalism in a similar way: »Like the public broadcasters, it is oriented towards the common good instead of profit, but combines this orientation with the agility and innovative capacity of private media organizations.« She goes on to write: »Non-profit newsrooms are to a certain extent free of the criteria that profit-oriented, private media have to follow – the fit between content and advertising, access figures, quantitative attention factors, length of stay, etc.« (116). When it comes to defining »non-profit journalism,« it is worth taking a look at Konieczna’s (2018: 62) list of characteristics of respective organizations or projects. They
- »were founded at least in part to fill the gap left as commercial news organizations or projects retreated from producing public service journalism;
- offer benefits to their community instead of advancing private interests or focusing on profits;
- produce educational content, informing on public issues and institutions;
- have professional staffs;
- don’t distribute earnings to private people;
- don’t endorse political candidates;
- are nonpartisan and transparent about funding;
- don’t advocate or lobby around any issues other than freedom of information and the press; and
- produce investigative or public service journalism« (62).
While in some aspects Konieczna is more detailed than the cited definitions from German authors, it is noticeable that she does not mention any sources of funding. Other authors offer three different types of such sources:
- Small donations/crowdfunding: These are smaller amounts through which individuals and non-professional sponsors support selected projects (Prinzing/Gattermann 2015: 189). The »possibility of financing through small and individual donations from users (crowd) is perhaps the most genuine and honest form of civil society support for journalistic content« (Weichert 2013: 223).
- Memberships: Individuals can also finance non-profit editorial offices through memberships. These include »models that rely on paid membership in a community or an organization – for example in an association« (Schnedler/Schuster 2015: 8). This form of financing has only played a subordinate role in many organizations to date (8). The principle behind it: Only members get access to the content. This can work, for example, by paying a monthly fee (Kurp 2016).[3]
- Grants from foundations: Foundations are mentioned in the research literature as the major pillar of financing. For years, experts have been discussing whether foundations can serve as a lifeline for struggling media companies. In his study, Frühbrodt (2019: 217) comes to the conclusion that 85 foundations in Germany supported non-profit journalism in various ways in 2019. He calls the number »sobering« as there are no fewer than 21,800 foundations in Germany (218). Nonetheless, foundations have already become important players in media financing: »Private capital donated by wealthy citizens and entrepreneurs has gained enormous relevance as a civil society instrument for promoting journalism« (Weichert 2013: 224). This can also be observed in the US. Benson (2017: 1063) speaks of over 300 new non-profit news organizations that emerged in 25 states between 2005 and 2012 and that are supported by almost 280 foundations. The way in which foundations promote journalism varies. They award prizes, finance field trips and support the training and further education of journalists. Sometimes, as with Correctiv, they provide start-up funding (Frühbrodt 2019: 219-220).
In the »Journalism Value Report« (Flöther/Werner 2024: 30), income from memberships, crowdfunding, donations, subscriptions, and sales is summarized under »Audience revenue« while »Foundation funding«, »Public funding« (tax funds, for example via EU grants) and »Advertising« are listed as additional sources.
Most criticism of non-profit journalism is related to the funding from foundations. The main criticism is that donors pursue their own interests by allocating funding to journalism. Holland-Letz (2018: 92), for example, asks who still does critical coverage on foundations when journalists are funded by them. Schnedler and Schuster warn that topics may not be researched and new »blind spots« (Schnedler/Schuster 2015: 45) may arise. In addition, foundations with great financial resources could try to use the leverage of journalism to introduce their talking points into the public discourse. Non-profit journalism must therefore develop strategies to maintain its independence (45).
These concerns are also expressed by other researchers. Degen and Spiller (2014: 233), for example, write that possible biases can arise, but still see little sensitivity towards the issue among the organizations they studied (232). In their study on the influence of foundation funding on journalistic work, Ferrucci and Nelson (2019: 52) come to the conclusion that no »firewall« exists between donors and editors, unlike in the case of advertisers.
Further research conducted in the US goes beyond the mere criticism of a possible dependence on specific donors and sponsors. In the literature, there is a concern that a »philanthro-journalism« is adapting the ideology of »philanthro-capitalism,« »characterized by the naturalization of pro-market ideologies, which are supportive of the current economic and political status quo of global capitalism from which most foundations have derived their wealth« (Scott et al. 2017: 168). Benson (2017) notes that non-profit journalism organizations cannot only become prisoners of foundations’ agendas, but they are also caught in a dilemma between two different expectations of foundations: they should achieve economic sustainability as quickly as possible (i.e. stand on their own two feet), and at the same time have a social impact (i.e. not only achieve high reach, but also initiate change). This creates pressure to either imitate the practices of commercial media or to target a small, powerful elite audience. With regard to the problem of measuring impact (to prove it to the donor), it should also be noted that some types of impact are easier to measure than others: The ousting of a corrupt public official or the passing of a new law would be classic social effects that investigative journalism aims to achieve and that are easy to demonstrate to funders. Journalism’s contributions to the long-term transformation of cultural norms – for example, regarding ecological sustainability or the emancipation of marginalized groups – are just as important, but less clearly visible and verifiable (Schiffrin/Zuckerman 2015: 51). This suggests that journalism funded by donations or foundations might tend to focus on topics with short-term, clearly perceptible impact.
Based on 74 interviews with foundation representatives and funded journalists, Scott et al. (2019) found that foundation funding shifts the boundaries of journalism 1) because of new, non-editorial activities in administration, fundraising and marketing, and 2) because the journalistic role now focuses more strongly on the outcome, including the production of »longer-form, off-agenda content that offers ›more bang for less buck‹« (Scott et al. 2019: 2049). With a similar method – 40 interviews with foundation and editorial representatives –, Ferrucci and Nelson (2019: 50) observed foundation impact beyond direct influence on content: 1) through technology-driven projects (i.e. when money is linked to the application of the latest trending technology, such as virtual reality or AI), 2) through »audience engagement projects« (when work »with the community« is rewarded, regardless of whether it is useful to the story or not), and 3) through stipulations that the medium must do PR for the funded project and the funder in addition to the journalistic project itself.
A multifaceted influence of foundation funding on the functioning and output of media organizations can therefore be assumed. The following empirical study primarily aims to expand the research literature on Germany and to identify possible problems and solutions that go beyond the issue of foundation funding, i.e. that are related to other sources of money.
3. Method
The study aims to answer the following research question through guided interviews with experts: How are German non-profit journalism organizations financed and what influence does financing have on these organizations with regard to journalistic work and independence?
In this case, experts are defined as persons who work in a German non-profit journalism organization. The pool from which the editorial offices were selected was the Forum Gemeinnütziger Journalismus (Forum for Non-Profit Journalism). Founded in 2019, this association of media organizations, journalist networks, foundations and trade unions has, according to its own statement, »the goal of strengthening non-profit, non-commercial journalism in Germany.«[4] As not all of the listed media organizations responded to the request, Werner’s (2022) »The New Sector« was used for further search: Part of the compilation commissioned by the German non-profit network for journalistic inquiry Netzwerk Recherche is a database of non-profit news organizations from across Europe. In the end, the local online magazine Wokreisel from the district of Dahme-Spreewald (in the federal state Brandenburg) was the only editorial office from this database to be included in the sample. A total of ten interviews were conducted (see Table 1) allowing for the exploration of a large variance in the field; we can speak of a »theoretical saturation« (Przyborski/Wohlrab-Sahr 2021: 233). It should be mentioned, however, that a kind of self-selection took place with these recruitment sources: Only media outlets that refer to themselves as part of the field, are part of a network with others or that were classified as such by an organization from the field – Netzwerk Recherche – were approached. Other media outlets that are neither privately owned nor publicly owned (cooperatives such as taz or junge Welt, community radio stations, neighborhood magazines run by citizen associations, etc.) were not included in the sample.
The expert survey was divided into three parts. The first dealt with the sources of funding, i.e. whether the media outlet is primarily financed by donations, members or foundations. The second part touched upon issues of ensuring the independence of the editorial offices, especially in relation to funding from major sponsors. Finally, the aim was to identify differences in the way non-profit editorial offices work compared to editorial offices in the private or public sector. All ten interviews were conducted via video call, nine of them via Zoom, the other on Whereby at the request of the interviewee. They took place between January 17 and April 30, 2024 and lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. During transcription, the interviews were slightly smoothed out linguistically. The interviews were analyzed using the content-structuring content analysis according to Mayring (2022) with the MAXQDA software. All statements made by the participants were authorized before publication.
Table 1
Overview of the interviewees[5]
|
Organization |
Interviewee (function) |
|
Anna Biselli (Co-Editor-in-Chief) |
|
|
FragDenStaat |
Vera Deleja-Hotko (Head of Research) |
|
Finanztip |
Hermann-Josef Tenhagen (Editor-in-Chief) |
|
Veto Magazin |
Susanne Kailitz (Founder) |
|
MedWatch |
Sigrid März (Managing Editor) |
|
Investigate Europe |
Harald Schumann (Founder) |
|
Relevanzreporter Nürnberg |
Alexandra Haderlein (Founder and Managing Director) |
|
Belltower News |
Stefan Lauer (Editor-in-Chief) |
|
Wokreisel (Dahme-Spreewald) |
Dörthe Ziemer (Founder) |
|
Abgeordnetenwatch |
Martin Reyer (Head of Research) |
4. Results of the survey
4.1 Financing: Sources and selections of donors
The media organizations surveyed are financed from different sources and the ratio between small donations, membership fees and foundation funding varies. Netzpolitik.org and Abgeordnetenwatch are financed to over 90 percent by small donations of between 5 and 20 euros. Investigate Europe, on the other hand, is 90 percent financed by funds from foundations. Finanztip, an editorial team specializing in consumer services, is a special case. The employees test various products and recommend them to their readers. The providers of the products can pay to link directly to their products in the articles (affiliate links).
The majority of the organizations surveyed are predominantly financed by only one type of funding, be it individual donations or funds from larger donors. The smaller proportion is financed via a mixed funding. According to the interviewees, small individual donations ensure autonomy. »Smaller donations guarantee us maximum independence« (Martin Reyher, Abgeordnetenwatch). Relevanzreporter Nürnberg and Finanztip were developing a donation or subscription model at the time of the interviews.
It is striking that three organizations currently receive or have received state funding in the past. Abgeordnetenwatch received funding for election-related projects from the Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (Federal Agency for Civic Education) and a Landeszentrale für politische Bildung (State Agency for Civic Education in one federal state). Veto Magazine is partially funded by the Bundespresseamt (Federal Press Office). Wokreisel is mainly funded by grants, including the local journalism program of the Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg (Media Authority Berlin-Brandenburg, MABB), which is funded by the state of Berlin. The start-up funding for the online magazine also came from the MABB; at the same time, funds have been provided in the past through the federal funding program »Talk with each other« (»Miteinander reden«). According to Stefan Lauer from Belltower News, this journalistic platform of the Amadeu Antonio Foundation is mainly financed by private donations, unlike other projects of the foundation.
It should therefore be noted that non-profit journalism in Germany is partly financed by taxpayers’ money. This source of funding has not played a significant role in either German or US literature to date. However, this fact is already known from public debate, as Correctiv, for example, has been heavily criticized for receiving subsidies from federal and state funds – primarily by politicians and publicists from the right-wing and liberal-conservative spectrum (Becker 2024; von Castell 2022).
After financing, the interviews focused on fundraising. The aim was to find out what premises the editorial teams have for their choice of donors, whether the editorial team has a say in this, who is responsible and how fundraising takes place.
When it comes to selecting donors, media organizations financed by small donations are excluded as they cannot choose who donates. What all foundation-funded organizations have in common is that it is particularly important to them that the foundations either fit in thematically, represent shared values or decidedly promote journalism. Alexandra Haderlein from Relevanzreporter Nürnberg gave an example:
»The most important thing for us is that the values match. In other words, the values and purposes according to the tax code, which the respective foundation and we have set out in our statutes and which guide us in our work.«
Harald Schumann from the Investigate Europe cooperative went on record:
»The most important premise, and this is what makes it so difficult, is that donors have to agree to fund journalists, which is fundamentally different from funding researchers or civil society initiatives. Because journalists, that’s the sine qua non, want and have to decide for themselves what content they work on.«
The experts clearly articulated in the interviews who they would and would not want to receive funding from. The majority said that political or party-affiliated foundations are not desirable sources of funding. Vera Deleja-Hotko from FragDenStaat gives an example of this: »We also receive support from foundations, but the fact is that we do not receive money from state foundations, for example, nor do we receive money from party-affiliated foundations.«
For the most part, the surveyed media outlets also check the foundations. At the same time, some of the interviewees say that once a foundation has been collaborating for a certain length of time or is well known, it no longer needs to be checked. The editorial teams mainly look at what else the sponsors are funding. »If it doesn’t fit in with what the editorial team stands for, funding is out of the question« (Vera Delaja-Hotko, FragDenStaat). However, Harald Schumann points out:
»There is no such thing as clean money. There is only more or less dirty money. But you can’t really stay completely clean. It’s in the nature of capitalism that you can’t keep track of that. That’s why you shouldn’t get carried away when it comes to these criteria.«
A foundation that earns its money with »fossil fuels, nuclear weapons and pesticide production« he would »pick up gingerly.« On the other hand, there is the Schöpflin Foundation, which is »first class« when it comes to promoting journalism, lobby criticism and human rights NGOs.
»Of course we’re happy to take money from them, we’re happy to be part of it. But we’d rather not know exactly how Mr. Schöpflin earned his money. Because we know that he earned his money as a venture capitalist in America. And very, very much so.«
When foundations are selected, all but one of the interviewees see themselves and/or their colleagues to have a say in the matter. According to Alexandra Haderlein, the editorial team is aware of the organization’s financial situation. At the same time, she was involved in the development of the subscription and supporter model that was being set up at the time of the interviews. The situation is similar at MedWatch, where financing is a topic of discussion in editorial meetings. Not only topics for coverage are being discussed, but also the structure and organization of the editorial team, which includes financial aspects. Decisions are made in a smaller circle, but not against the editorial team. The Wokreisel team works together to find programs and funding agencies that are eligible for financing. According to Harald Schumann, the constitution of Investigate Europe as a cooperative ensures an institutionally anchored right to have a say. Martin Reyher from Abgeordnetenwatch also believes that he and his colleagues are able to intervene in the event of a critical large donation:
»So the question always is: how likely is it that the donor will be the subject of critical reporting from us because they are playing the whole lobbying game? I myself take a more radical position in the team, saying: let’s do without corporate donations as a matter of principle. I haven’t been able to get my way with this so far, but I can now live with the decision to make all donations of 1,000 euros or more a year public so that everyone can take a look for themselves and critically scrutinize them.«
»In the beginning, it was just Stefan Wehrmeyer, the founder. Then Arne Semsrott joined, and the two of them ran it as a duo for a relatively long time, until one or two others joined. And when Judith joined, as I was told, […] it was another leap in stability, because one person really takes care of the financial side and not just the content. […] It’s good when one person does it, so it has developed from a hobby project into stable jobs.«
In the other editorial teams, fundraising responsibilities are shared among several people. In three cases, the work takes place at the founder or management level. Two people said that fundraising is done by employees alongside their actual work. Anna Biselli said that at Netzpolitik.org it is mainly »our graphic and creative design person, […] because it’s always about external communication and he takes on many, many of these tasks without fundraising campaigns and the like being part of his job description when he was hired.« Hermann-Josef Tenhagen reports that employees at Finanztip are responsible for finding companies that would like to advertise their products via affiliate links. Several editors said that, though they would like to, they could not afford someone who was exclusively responsible for fundraising.
Small donations are acquired online by the organizations: for example, directly via the homepage or via newsletters that advertise their own research. Martin Reyher from Abgeordnetenwatch and Vera Deleja-Hotko from FragDenStaat also stated that larger investigations in conjunction with other media often lead to an increase in small donations. According to Deleja-Hotko, this is similar for foundations. Her editorial team is the only one that was directly approached by foundations. Other media organizations contact large foundations by telephone, e-mail or mail. Often, application forms for funding are also filled out online. In general, media outlets try to establish a trusting relationship with the foundations, who often show up at journalism conferences. Alexandra Haderlein from Relevanzreporter Nürnberg comments:
»The journalism bubble isn’t that big, which means that those who support journalism are also at conferences, of course you know them. The foundations themselves, depending on their commitment, also offer their own events where you can meet them and other funded projects.«
4.2 Safeguarding independence
The autonomy of editorial teams in relation to their sponsors is a central topic of research into non-profit journalism. There are fears that wealthy foundations and patrons are buying influence over public discourse. Whether and how this occurs in the organizations surveyed in Germany, how they protect themselves against it, and whether there are conflicts of interest between editors and donors was clarified in the next part of the interviews.
First, interviewees were asked whether they were aware of any attempts to exert influence on the part of their donors and, if so, what these attempts looked like. All interviewees from organizations that are partially or fully funded by individual private donations reported receiving emails or phone calls from people aiming to influence them in one direction or another. Martin Reyher from Abgeordnetenwatch comments:
»People pretend that they can imagine supporting us and say: ›I would support you if such and such happens‹. It also happens that people say: ›I’ve supported you for years now, but because the newsletter is gendered, I’m withdrawing my support.‹«
Sigrid März and Anna Biselli made similar statements about Medwatch and Netzpolitik.org. Unsurprisingly, given the phenomenon of social desirability (cf. Schnell et al. 2023: 325), none of the interviewees stated that this type of attempt to exert influence had ever worked. The editorial offices that are financed by foundations, on the other hand, unanimously stated that there were no attempts to influence content. Vera Deleja-Hotko, for example, said: »They know what we do and we don’t get any interference at all. There is no one who tells me anything as a journalist.« Two of the interviewees even reported the opposite case, so to speak: contacts from the editorial team asking for expertise or contacts for research were blocked. Alexandra Haderlein comments:
»For example, with the Schöpflin Foundation as our first and long-standing start-up funder, I asked for their expertise because of the experience they had in non-profit journalism. And then they said: ›I’d like to say something now, but I’m not allowed to‹. And it’s actually in their funding agreement that they simply won’t comment on certain things.«
Similarly, Harald Schumann reported that he had asked the communication office of a larger foundation, which also financed its editorial team, for a contact for research. The foundation refused. The foundation’s reaction suggests that there is a high level of awareness of the issue of independence between sponsor and sponsored party:
»Then he gave me a good shitting and said: ›So now, to make this clear once and for all: Our funding and your content-related work do not belong together. And that‘s why you’ll never ask me a question about content again.‹ They were more dogmatic than we were in that case.«
In order to protect themselves from possible influence, four of the media outlets have written codes of conduct in which they stipulate that they work independently. There seems to be an awareness in all editorial offices that funding from major donors can be problematic. Alexandra Haderlein gives an example of this:
»I think our safety mechanism, even if it’s not in a written manifesto, is to realize that money is not independent. That there could be influencers and we think about how we would deal with it if that were to happen.«
In addition, the editorial teams try to ensure that journalistic freedom is respected when selecting donors. According to Harald Schumann, this already becomes clear during the first talk with each other. Hermann-Josef Tenhagen says that the independence of Finanztip is ensured by the fact that the journalistic employees are not the same people who take care of the affiliate links.
4.3 Differences in journalistic work
Journalists in non-profit organizations work differently than their colleagues in traditional media. The majority of interviewees stressed an essential difference: Clicks do not play the predominant role, especially in comparison to other online media. All of the media outlets surveyed are published online. »But we are not dependent on generating a lot of clicks in order to generate advertising revenue,« said Anna Biselli from Netzpolitik.org. Clickbait articles are not an issue. Susanne Kailitz from Veto Mag said that there is no »pressure to sell,« which is »something pleasant.« Martin Reyher from Abgeordnetenwatch mentioned other advantages of his work:
»Firstly, complete independence in the choice of topics. No one in the team has ever told me what to do. Sufficient time, so all the time in the world. No production pressure. And I also have to say, a really good work-life balance.«
It can be stated that non-profit journalism is produced outside the logic of the market and that journalists are free to pursue topics they assume are in the public interest and not just in the cumulative private interest. Nevertheless, journalists stated that of course they want their pieces to be read.
Another difference in the way non-profit editorial offices work is their greater willingness to cooperate with other media. The reasons for this vary. Editorial teams are often dependent on cooperating with media with a wider reach in order to make their topics accessible to a larger audience. Martin Reyher from Abgeordnetenwatch said:
»In the beginning, it was like this: we did some research, gave it to media and said: ›Do you want this exclusively?‹ And then they reported on it. The second step was that we asked media outlets whether we could do further research and investigate a story together.«
Vera Deleja-Hotko from FragDenStaat, who had already worked with the German national weekly newspaper Die Zeit and the public broadcaster RBB, among others, reported something similar. She said her editorial team had probably been in contact with every investigative editorial team in Germany:
»Because we wanted our content to be shared, in the beginning, we often sent articles to editors and hoped they would report on it because we thought it was worth reporting on, without insisting that they mention us.«
Anna Biselli from Netzpolitik.org said that her editorial team feels a great deal of freedom to cooperate:
»We don’t have to be the ones who get the clicks for this story, but we want the story to have the widest possible reach. Regardless of whether it goes directly to our site or is published somewhere else. We are free to say that we can work with you without any competitive behavior. And I believe that […] makes journalism important that is oriented towards the common good and financed differently.«
Harald Schumann from Investigate Europe also emphasized the relevance of cooperation:
»All this exclusivity hype is just the original logic of our commercial employers, which for absurd reasons the public broadcasters have also adopted, even though they have no commercial pressure at all.«
Schumann said that his editorial team is currently working together with the research network of the public broadcasters WDR and NDR and the national daily newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung. Further, the non-profit organizations of this study are partly specialized in certain subject areas. Other journalists and media companies approach them accordingly in order to benefit from their expertise and receive advice.
At the same time, the type of financing also changes the editorial structure. Harald Schumann comments:
»The difference is like night and day. As a normal employee in the newsroom, you have superiors who tell you: today you do this and tomorrow you do that. And if you can, you’ll do the second article afterwards. So it’s assembly line production and an incredible hierarchy. We have a common selection of topics.«
The interviewees differed in their assessment of whether there is more work put onto journalists in non-profit media outlets. Four of the ten interviewees said that their funding model did not result in an additional work burden for the staff. Others reported that extra work is mainly seen at the management and founder level. According to Dörthe Ziemer, who is both the founder of Wokreisel and a journalist, working time has to be spent on funding applications and administrative tasks. Stefan Lauer noted that at Belltower News, all work relating to the journalistic product, such as editing, social media and CMS (Content Management System), is in the hands of just a few people. However, this has probably more to do with the size of the editorial team than with the type of funding.
How editorial offices (have to) prove their impact depends on how they are financed. Organizations that rely on small donations do not have to provide formal proof of their work. However, they demonstrate their impact in order to generate new donations. All but one of the organizations funded by foundations provide evidence of their impact on an annual basis. Susanne Kailitz from Veto Mag reported that the foundations ask for access figures, for example. Relevanzreporter Nürnberg are not explicitly asked for their figures, Alexandra Haderlein noted:
»The contracts with the donors state what the target is, i.e. what the money is for. You also have to submit a budget plan with figures that prove and demonstrate what you are doing. We haven’t yet had any explicit follow-up queries about this in this form.«
Only a few interviewees have heard that funding is linked to conditions. Sigrid März from MedWatch said: »The Media Lab in Bavaria, for example, has always said: ›The funded project must be innovative. And that’s how we define innovation.‹ That’s very strict. And if you don’t fit in, then it won’t work.«
5. Conclusion
The study shows that non-profit journalism in Germany is financed in various ways. Previously known financing schemes such as crowd funding, memberships or foundations are used either exclusively or in combination. At the same time, other avenues are also being explored, such as financing through taxpayers’ money, for example via state funding programs for journalism, the Federal Press Office and Federal or State Agencies for Civic Education. Fundraising takes place online, for example via newsletters, e-mails or appeals for donations on their own homepages, with past successful investigative stories being used as promotional material. On the other hand, funding is applied for from larger foundations or initiated in personal encounters at journalism conferences. The duration of these processes varies greatly depending on the donors’ regulations and ranging between eight weeks and nine months.
In terms of content, the interviews did not show any dependence of the editorial offices on their sponsors, which in view of social desirability was to be expected; on the other hand, it is plausible that direct influence is prevented by a value-based pre-selection of donors. In some cases, media outlets are definitely financially dependent on the funders. Organizations are under pressure to keep coming up with new sources of money. Accordingly, some of the interviewees spoke of their at times financially precarious situations. In addition, it can be assumed that more and more non-profit media will be created – and it is unclear whether the total budget of funds provided by foundations and other donors will also increase. This could lead to intensified struggles of distribution and a decrease in the willingness of non-profit media to cooperate. It was also astonishing to find that large foundations are sometimes more concerned about avoiding contact unrelated to the direct funding than the receiving journalistic organizations; foundations are generally reluctant to respond to journalistic inquiries from the latter in order to avoid being seen as too closely intertwined.
The interviews show major differences in the work in non-profit editorial offices compared to work in traditional media: the emphasis lies on the greater deal of autonomy in the choice of topics and research time, as well as a high willingness to cooperate with other media. Market logic hardly seems to play a role. There is also no evidence that funders would put editorial teams under strong pressure by demanding concrete, impressive proof of impact. At the same time, it should be noted that only a few organizations have employees who specialize in fundraising, meaning that this work falls on the shoulders of management, editorial or layout staff.
In order for non-profit journalism to play a greater future role within the media system, it must be placed on a secure basis with regard to tax law. This was agreed in the coalition agreement of the broken Social Democrat (SPD)-led coalition government. The project seemed to have taken a big step forward last summer: With a so-called application decree on the tax code, the federal government wanted to instruct the tax offices in July 2024 to assess non-profit media in a uniform manner and grant them the tax relief applicable to non-profit organizations. However, the plan failed due to resistance from the federal states. The new coalition agreement between the CDU, CSU and SPD from April 2025 now states: »In the interests of nationwide provision of journalistic services, we are creating legal certainty with regard to non-profit status.» (CDU/CSU/SPD 2025)
The legal situation therefore remains unclear. To date, the respective organizations have had to obtain and secure their non-profit status through activities other than the production of journalistic content, such as educational work. In the open round of answers at the end of the interviews, many of the interviewees said that the recognition of non-profit status for their organizations was essential for their future existence. Strong non-profit journalism could partially fill the gaps left by weakened corporate media and public broadcasters on an austerity course.
About the authors:
Sebastian Gall (*1990) completed his Master of Science in Journalism at the Institute of Communication and Media Studies at Leipzig University. This article is based on his Master’s thesis. He works as a permanent freelancer in the online editorial department of the public broadcaster MDR (regional broadcasting center Saxony-Anhalt).
Uwe Krüger, Dr. (*1978) is a researcher at the Institute for Communication and Media Studies at Leipzig University and research coordinator of its Center for Journalism and Democracy. He teaches in the Journalism Master’s program. In 2017, he co-founded the Network for Critical Communications Reseach (KriKoWi). Contact: uwe.krueger@uni-leipzig.de
References
Ballwieser, Dennis A.; Böll, Sven; Kramp, Leif; Leifert, Stefan; Meyer, Florian Paulus; Novy, Leonard; Schmidt, Björn B.; Schwickert, Dominic; Wenzlaff, Karsten: Journalismus 2020 – Perspektiven für den Journalismus in der digitalen Moderne. Berlin [Stiftung Neue Verantwortung] 2011. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275033456_Journalismus_2020_-_Perspektiven_fur_den_Journalismus_in_der_digitalen_Moderne
Becker, Andreas: Unabhängige Journalisten? 2,5 Millionen Euro Steuergeld für »Correctiv«. In: Nordkurier dated 21 February 2024. https://www.nordkurier.de/politik/25-millionen-euro-steuergeld-so-finanziert-die-bundesregierung-correctiv-2286988
Benson, Rodney: Can Foundations Solve the Journalism Crisis? In: Journalism, 19(8), 2017, pp. 1059–1077. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884917724612
Bensmann, Marcus; von Daniels, Justus; Dowideit, Anette; Peters, Jean, Keller, Gabriela: Geheimplan gegen Deutschland. In: Correctiv dated 10 January 2024. https://correctiv.org/aktuelles/neue-rechte/2024/01/10/geheimplan-remigration-vertreibung-afd-rechtsextreme-november-treffen/
Birnbauer, Bill: The Rise of Nonprofit Investigative Journalism in the United States. New York [Routledge] 2019
Bitschnau, Marco; Koos, Sebastian: Die schweigende Mehrheit auf der Straße? Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Teilnehmer: innen an den Protesten gegen Rechtsextremismus. Policy Paper Nr. 15 des Cluster of Excellence »The Politics of Inequality«. Konstanz [Universität Konstanz] 2024. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-1hm7xp5jmxwdu2
Castell, Frederik von: Ärger um Geld von der Bundesregierung. Wie man Journalismus und Misstrau-en gleichzeitig fördert. In: Übermedien dated 13 August 2022. https://uebermedien.de/75145/wie-man-journalismus-und-misstrauen-gleichzeitig-foerdert/
CDU; CSU; SPD: Verantwortung für Deutschland. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen CDU, CSU und SPD, 21. Legislaturperiode. 2025. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/koalitionsvertrag2025-100.pdf
Degen, Matthias; Spiller, Ralf: Crowdfunding im Journalismus. In: Lobigs, Frank; von Nordheim, Gerret (eds.): Journalismus ist kein Geschäftsmodell. Aktuelle Studien zur Ökonomie und Nicht-Ökonomie des Journalismus. Baden-Baden [Nomos] 2014, pp. 201–218
Eichhorn, Lea; Becker, Jochen: Journalisten im Auftrag der US-Regierung? Vorwürfe gegen OCCRP. In: NDR.de dated 4 December 2024. https://www.ndr.de/fernsehen/sendungen/zapp/Journalisten-im-Auftrag-der-US-Regierung-Vorwuerfe-gegen-OCCRP,occrp102.html
Eisenegger, Mark: Dem digitalen Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit auf der Spur – Zur Einführung. In: Eisenegger, Mark; Prinzing, Marlis; Ettinger, Patrik; Blum, Roger (eds.): Digitaler Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit. Historische Verortung, Modelle und Konsequenzen. Wiesbaden [Springer VS] 2021, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32133-8_1
Ferrucci, Patrick; Nelson, Jakob L.: The new advertisers: How foundation funding impacts journalism. In: Media and Communication, 7(4), 2019, pp. 45–55. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i4.2251
Flöther, Choni; Werner, Malte: Journalism Value Report. Mapping the State of Public Interest Journalism in Europe. Berlin [Netzwerk Recherche] 2024. https://journalismvalueproject.eu/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2024/11/compressed-report-Wordpress-2.pdf
Frühbrodt, Lutz: Warum Stiftungen den Journalismus stärker fördern sollten. In: Krone, Jan (ed.): Medienwandel kompakt 2017–2019. Schlaglichter der Veränderung in Kommunikation, Medienwirtschaft, Medienpolitik und Medienrecht – Ausgewählte Netzveröffentlichungen. Wiesbaden [Springer VS] 2019, pp. 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27319-4_36
Holland-Letz, Matthias: Wenn Stiftungen Journalismus finanzieren. Forschungsjournal Soziale Bewegungen, 30(4), 2017, pp. 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1515/fjsb-2017-0090
Humborg, Christian; Nguyen, Thuy Anh: Die publizistische Gesellschaft. Journalismus und Medien im Zeitalter des Plattformkapitalismus. Wiesbaden [Springer VS] 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20959-9_12
Konieczna, Magda: Journalism Without Profit: Making News When the Market Fails. Oxford [Oxford University Press] 2018
Krüger, Uwe: Der neue Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit und die German Angst. In: Hooffacker, Gabriele; Kenntemich, Wolfgang; Kulisch, Uwe (eds.): Die neue Öffentlichkeit. Wie Bots, Bürger und Big Data den Journalismus verändern. Wiesbaden [Springer VS] 2018, pp. 9–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-20809-7_2
Krüger, Uwe; Knorr, Charlotte; Finke, Florian (2019): Cross-Border Non-Profit Investigative Journalism Networks: A Structural Analysis of the Field. In: Meers, Jelter; Houston, Brant (eds.): Academic Track Reader. A Collection of Research Papers Submitted for the Global Investigative Journalism Conference. Investigative Journalism Education Consortium 2019, pp. 404–429. https://ijec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/AcademicReaderGIJC19.pdf
Kucklick, Christoph; Niggemeier, Stefan; Zimmermann, Felix W.: Der Correctiv-Bericht verdient nicht Preise, sondern Kritik – und endlich eine echte Debatte. In: Übermedien dated 30 July 2024. https://uebermedien.de/97285/der-correctiv-bericht-verdient-nicht-preise-sondern-kritik-und-endlich-eine-echte-debatte/#steady_paywall
Kurp, Matthias: Die Finanzierungslücke. In: M – Menschen machen Medien dated 25 March 2016. https://mmm.verdi.de/beruf/die-finanzierungsluecke-26095/
Lilienthal, Volker: Recherchejournalismus für das Gemeinwohl. Correctiv – eine Journalismusorganisation neuen Typs in der Entwicklung. In: Medien & Kommunikationswissenschaft, 65(4), 2017, pp. 659–681. https://doi.org/10.5771/1615-634X-2017-4-659
Mayring, Philipp (2022): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. 13., überarbeitete Auflage. Weinheim [Beltz] 2022
Meier, Klaus; Schützeneder, Jonas; García Avilés, José Alberto; Valero-Pastor, José Maria; Kaltenbrunner, Andy; Lugschitz, Renée; Porlezza, Colin; Ferri, Giulia; Wyss, Vinzenz; Saner, Mirco: Examining the Most Relevant Journalism Innovations: A Comparative Analysis of Five European Countries from 2010 to 2020. In: Journalism and Media 3, 2022, pp. 698–714 https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia3040046
Netzwerk Recherche: Leuchtturm 2024 für Correctiv-Recherche »Geheimplan gegen Deutschland«. 2024. Verfügbar unter: https://netzwerkrecherche.org/leuchtturm-2024-fuer-correctiv-recherche-geheimplan-gegen-deutschland/
Philippin, Yann; Candea, Stefan: The hidden links between a giant of investigative journalism and the US government. In: Mediapart dated 2 December 2024. https://www.mediapart.fr/en/journal/international/021224/hidden-links-between-giant-investigative-journalism-and-us-government
Pöttker, Horst: Der Beruf zur Öffentlichkeit. Über Aufgabe, Grundsätze und Perspektiven des Journalismus in der Mediengesellschaft aus der Sicht praktischer Vernunft. In: Brosda, Carsten; Müller, Daniel (eds.): Horst Pöttker: Beruf zu Öffentlichkeit. Ausgewählte Schriften zu Theorie, Ethik, Geschichte und Perspektive des Journalismus. Cologne [Herbert von Halem] 2025, pp. 114–142
Prinzing, Marlis; Gattermann, Carolin: Finanziert! Journalismus, den die Crowd kauft. Eine Studie zu Crowdfunding als Finanzierungsmöglichkeit von Journalismus. In: Pagel, Sven (ed.): Schnittstellen (in) der Medienökonomie. Baden-Baden [Nomos] 2015, pp. 188–212
Przyborski, Aglaja; Wohlrab-Sahr, Monika: Qualitative Sozialforschung: Ein Arbeitsbuch. 5. Auflage. Berlin, Boston [De Gruyter] 2021
Reisin, Andrej: Die Kritik an Correctiv ignoriert, was wir über Rechtsextremismus wissen. In: Übermedien dated 8 August 2024. https://uebermedien.de/97382/die-kritik-an-correctiv-ignoriert-was-wir-ueber-rechtsextremismus-wissen/
Reuter, Stephanie: Non-Profit-Journalismus – eine medienpolitische Weichenstellung für die kommende Dekade. In: Legrand, Jupp; Linden, Benedict; Arlt, Hans-Jürgen (eds.): Welche Öffentlichkeit brauchen wir? Zur Zukunft des Journalismus und demokratischer Medien. Wiesbaden [Springer VS] 2023, pp. 111–124. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-39629-9_10
Roseman, Emily; McLellan, Michele; Holcomb, Jesse: INN Index 2021: The State of Nonprofit News, Rising to New Challenges and Public Needs in a Crisis Year. Encino, Kalifornien [Institute for Nonprofit News] 2021. https://inn.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/INN-Index-2021-Report.pdf
Rucht, Dieter: Für Demokratie – gegen Rechtsextremismus. Profil und Dynamik der jüngsten Protestwelle. ipb working paper series, 1/2024. Berlin [ipb] 2024. https://protestinstitut.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/ipb_paper-1-2024_Rucht_Fuer-Demokratie-2.pdf
Sander, Lalon; Ansa, Sean Elias: Größte Protestwelle in der BRD. In: taz.de, 15 May 2024. https://taz.de/Demonstrationen-gegen-rechts/!6010897/
Schiffrin, Anya; Zuckerman, Ethan: Can We Measure Media Impact? Surveying the Field. In: Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, 2015, pp. 47–51. https://doi.org/10.48558/atth-se69
Schnedler, Thomas; Schuster, Marcus: Gemeinnütziger Journalismus weltweit – Typologie von journalistischen Non-Profit-Organisationen. Berlin [Netzwerk Recherche] 2015. https://netzwerkrecherche.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Report-Gemeinnütziger-Journalismus-weltweit.pdf
Schnell, Rainer; Hill, Paul B.; Esser, Elk: Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung. 12th edition. Oldenbourg [De Gruyter] 2023
Scott, Martin; Bunce, Mel; Wright, Kate: Donor Power and the News: The Influence of Foundation Funding on International Public Service Journalism. In: The International Journal of Press/Politics, 22(2), 2017, pp. 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161217693394
Scott, Martin; Bunce, Mel; Wright, Kate: Foundation funding and the boundaries of journalism. In: Journalism Studies, 20(14), 2019, pp. 2034–2052. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2018.1556321
Weichert, Stephan: Der dritte Weg: Warum wir stiftungsfinanzierte Medien brauchen. In: Kramp, Leif; Novy, Leonard; Ballwieser, Dennis; Wenzlaff, Karsten (eds.): Journalismus in der digitalen Moderne. Wiesbaden [Springer VS] 2013, pp. 213–231. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-658-01144-4_17
Werner, Malte: The New Sector. Report on Independent Public Interest Journalism in Europe. Netzwerk Recherche 2022 https://netzwerkrecherche.org/map/
Zimmermann, Felix W.: Vosgerau scheitert gegen Correctiv vor OLG Hamburg. In: Legal Tribune Online dated 27 March 2024. https://www.lto.de/recht/hintergruende/h/vosgerau-afd-correctiv-geheimplan-gegen-deutschland-olg-hamburg
Footnotes
1 It should not be concealed that Kucklick et al. (2024) criticized the Correctiv research in the online magazine Übermedien for journalistic deficiencies and accused the German media of handling it uncritically. Reisin (2024) wrote a critical response to the text. However, this debate does not change the broad reception and high impact of the Correctiv publication.
2 https://inn.org/about/who-we-are
3 It should be critically noted that the privileged access of paying members to content is actually alien to the »public task« of journalism (cf. Pöttker 2025) and that such a model is not fundamentally different from market-based subscription models.
4 https://forum-gemeinnuetziger-journalismus.de/
5 Function at the time of the interview (Susanne Kailitz was no longer working for Veto Magazine at the time the manuscript was written, and MedWatch was discontinued at the end of May 2025).
About this article
Copyright
This article is distributed under Creative Commons Atrribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). You are free to share and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms. You must however give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. More Information under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en.
Citation
Sebastian Gall, Uwe Krüger: Non-profit journalism in Germany. A survey on funding, safeguarding independence and working methods. In: Journalism Research, Vol. 8 (2), 2025, pp. 149-169. DOI: 10.1453/2569-152X-22025-15336-en
ISSN
2569-152X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1453/2569-152X-22025-15336-en
First published online
July 2025