Public Subsidy to Independent Media: What Works (and What Doesn't) - Learning Brief

"Most media organisations now exist because they are subsidised in one form or another, either by government or by political or commercial actors who are close to government."

This learning brief summarises lessons learned by the Protecting Independent Media for Effective Development (PRIMED) programme around whether fresh approaches to public subsidy can help to ensure more sustainable media systems. The learnings are based on the PRIMED programme's work to support media partners, especially in Sierra Leone, to develop innovative new approaches to public subsidy. PRIMED also commissioned a series of detailed analyses on market conditions and other approaches to public subsidy (outlined in the brief), which provided further insight into what works.

The three-year PRIMED programme (launched in late 2020 and detailed at Related Summaries, below) was designed to support public interest media content provision in three very different media environments - with a focus on Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. The programme was implemented by a consortium of media support organisations with expertise in different aspects of media and development. These were BBC Media Action (consortium lead), Free Press Unlimited (FPU), International Media Support (IMS) and Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), with further contributions from Global Forum for Media Development (GFMD) and The Communication Initiative (The CI). Besides supporting the development of public interest media, a key part of PRIMED's work is the documenting and sharing of learning about effective media support in different contexts. PRIMED attempted to answer a number of key questions about independent media and media support, which are explored in this series of learning briefs. (See Related Summaries, below.)

The brief defines 'public subsidy' as "funding that is allocated with a clear public purpose, and a credible, legitimate and effective set of governance arrangements to ensure that it serves the public interest and is independent of the interests of those providing the funding." As explained in the brief, "The market model that has sustained most independent journalism in modern history has largely broken down. The failure of the market to provide what UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] calls "information as a public good", is most acute in the low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where that information is often most vital. Multiple strategies adopted especially over the last decade as this model has broken down, to solve this problem have failed, or at best been small points of success." This brief argues that, especially in low- and many middle-income settings, current innovations and applications of new, market-based approaches to making independent journalism financially and commercially viable are not enough and that public subsidy should be considered as an additional option.

It explains that public subsidy for independent media, as a partial solution to sustaining independent journalism, is contested by some on the grounds that any substantial financial support to media organisations that involves a governmental role inevitably undermines the independence of a free press. This position is contested by PRIMED based on the experience of the BBC as an independent media institution that is subsidised by public funds. It believes that editorial independence can exist with public subsidy - even in LMICs.

As an introduction, the document briefly outlines the five different models of public subsidy for independent media:

• Indirect subsidy, such as tax reliefs, zero tax ratings for news sites, preferential postal tariffs for newspapers and preferential fees for community radio stations;
• Direct subsidy from government to media organisations;
• Direct subsidy from public sources to media organisations through a framework guaranteed by government;
• Flexible or transactional payments to media outlets, such as through government advertising, including advertising that combines public purposes with an explicit aim of supporting media organisations (such as payments for health messaging in a pandemic); and
• International media support from public resources.

The brief then proceeds to answer three key questions about the workability of public subsidy as a potential solution to media viability in low- and middle-income settings - based on the experience of the PRIMED programme (mainly in Sierra Leone) and associated synthesising of experience.

1. Under what conditions are approaches to public subsidy of independent media worth exploring, especially in LMICs? The brief discusses a number of conditions, including the fact that some form of democracy is a precondition for effective public subsidy to independent media. This precondition should, however, not preclude considering public subsidy as an option in more autocratic governments. In addition, with the widespread collapse of the advertising-based business model that has supported free and independent media and the lack of feasible alternative business models, there is some incentive and interest to experiment with various public subsidy models in different countries - creating favourable conditions for this approach. Overall, the brief concludes that public subsidy will only work in a limited number of contexts, as the conditions in most countries are not favourable. However, where conditions are reasonably favourable, experience in countries such as Ukraine and Ghana has shown that the opportunities are great and that is worth implementing well-planned, properly resourced, locally-driven, and long-term strategies to support reform-minded governments and systemic approaches to media reform.

 

2. Which strategies are most effective at encouraging reform-minded government and regulatory institutions to explore subsidising independent media? PRIMED experience and research has shown, for example, that political will is vital but also that public subsidy is highly unlikely to work if governments drive the process. At the same time, arrangements for public subsidy need to assume that political will is temporary as political situations change over time. Effective strategies should also ensure that there is a legal environment capable of implementing an independent governance mechanism to ensure the independence of the media.

3. Which public subsidy strategies are likely to work in sustaining independent media while fostering innovation and guaranteeing independence? To answer this question, the brief, for example, shows that external co-investment by a donor or media support organisation is a key potential strategy to maximise the chances of success for public subsidy to independent media. In addition, subsidies should be targeted principally at building the institutional resilience and journalistic strength of media organisations rather than investing in specific public interest media content. Another strategy that has shown promise is looking at how national public service media (formerly known as public service broadcasting) can be supported and enabled through public subsidy, including by transforming state broadcasters into digitally focused independent public service media organisations.

In conclusion, the learning brief makes the point that the "success of future innovation in public subsidy of independent media will depend on several factors. These include the existence of institutions capable of reflecting and commanding legitimacy of the media, the presence of effective government counterparts and, very often, the willingness of external actors to bring in complementary financial capital and perhaps also technical assistance. In other words, this issue requires not only a focus on specific policy solutions but also on the mechanisms and architectures capable of arriving at the most context-appropriate and effective solution."