Journalism at the Crossroads: Notes from Perugia IJF25
Coming back from the International Journalism Festival in Perugia, one thing is clear: international journalism is at a crossroads. And I don’t mean that in a vague, philosophical way. Every conversation, every panel, every informal chat I had reinforced the sense that we are facing deep structural shifts — financial, technological, and political.
The Funding Reckoning
The most immediate shift is financial. With the end of U.S. government funding for many international journalism efforts — and several philanthropic donors now rethinking their priorities — many news organizations are left in a state of confusion. It’s chaotic, yes. But there’s also something oddly refreshing about it.
Several funders at the conference made it clear: going forward, support will go to organizations with a credible path to resilience. This isn’t necessarily bad. It’s painful, but it might finally push us beyond dependence on a single type of donor — especially the U.S. government. Some organizations will shut down. But those that survive will emerge stronger.
That was evident in more than a few panels — especially From funding crisis to opportunity: ideas and solutions in a post-USAID landscape, which explored how news organizations are adapting after the withdrawal of traditional donors like USAID. Yes, it’s a crisis — but it’s also a creative moment of transformation.
One theme that emerged was the importance of collaboration, shared infrastructure, and coalition-building as survival strategies. ICFJ+, an initiative from ICFJ and Code for Africa, aims to create shared backend services for fragmented media landscapes. The Journalism Cloud Alliance, discussed in smaller meetings, reflects a similar philosophy.
Funders today want clarity — not just in editorial mission, but in financial thinking. Panels like What do journalism funders want? highlighted this shift. They are looking for realistic growth plans, not aspirations, and want to invest in legal support, leadership coaching, operational systems — the foundations of true independence.
Across the board, the message was clear: long-term independence requires financial health. That means diversified revenue streams — not just grants. As old revenue models (ads) fade, we’re seeing moves toward memberships, subscriptions, crowdfunding, events, newsletters, podcasts, even data services. In emerging markets, some outlets are going further — opening bookstores, cafés, and educational programs to fund their work. Survival now demands creativity.
(There was even a pre-conference in Florence that echoed these ideas — I wasn’t there, but the framing speaks volumes.)
Rethinking Our Relationship with AI and Technology Companies
The second major theme — and frankly, an unavoidable one — was journalism’s complicated relationship with AI and tech platforms. Especially U.S.-based tech companies, whose dominance in global information systems continues to shape newsroom practices.
There was still too much techno-optimism and tech determinism in Perugia — especially when it comes to AI’s supposed fact-checking capabilities (spoiler: it can’t). But there were also more grounded, critical conversations focused on how we report on AI, not just how we use it.
Panels like After the hype: what are the key trends in journalism and AI? brought much-needed nuance. As someone who teaches this to journalists, I found it refreshing — finally, a conversation that moved beyond marketing hype. Yes, there are responsible uses for AI in journalism, but there are so many inflated and misleading claims about AI and journalists should know better. Captured: how Silicon Valley’s AI emperors are reshaping reality went even further, exploring the ideological and cultural narratives underpinning AI development and promotion — often rooted in science fiction more than science.
In a more private setting, I was part of internal discussions around the Journalism Cloud Alliance, a new initiative led by OCCRP and GFMD. While I can’t share details, it was clear: the fact that these conversations are happening shows that journalists are seriously thinking about how to leverage technology on our own terms — while reducing our dependence on Big Tech. That shift is long overdue.
A Global Sense of Urgency for Democracy and Journalism Safety
And finally, the most urgent theme: the fragility of democracy, the rising threats to journalists, and the immediate need to push back.
Get Djordje Padejski’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Many panels addressed this, but it wasn’t just a theme — it was a reality. From safety to censorship to authoritarian pressures, the global assault on press freedom, the message was consistent: if we want journalism to survive and matter, we need more creativity, more innovation, and a serious injection of energy — adrenaline for change.
My own panel, Journalists as Founders, tackled this head-on. We talked about what it means to build organizations that are structurally independent — not just editorially. And how journalists themselves can (and must) be at the forefront of reimagining what newsrooms should look like in this next era.
The old models are crumbling, and we can’t wait for others to reinvent them for us. A panel that featured female journalists — Being a “one woman show” in media: what you need to know — who are building massive digital audiences on their own was incredibly refreshing in that sense. It is a wake-up call to legacy organizations: there’s power in being lean, nimble, and audience-centered.
While in Perugia, I kept thinking about the last twenty years of conversations around financial resilience in journalism — from Jeff Jarvis’s New Business Models project to my conversations with Saša Vučinić and his founding of the Media Development Loan Fund (now MDIF). Even this classic 76 Ways to Make Money in Digital Media still resonates. We still have the guides, like the Membership Puzzle Project; and outlets like El Faro, Rappler, Daily Maverick that are proving that business models grounded in mission and community can survive even the most hostile climates.
And I can’t stop thinking about what we can learn from organizations like the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, which established an endowment fund — seeded by the Ford Foundation and supplemented by its own revenues — to support its investigative work and maintain editorial independence. Or from Južne Vesti, which I had the privilege of helping early on — a local investigative news agency in southern Serbia that built a sustainable model by offering web development services, staying lean, and serving its community with fierce independence.
We, as journalists, need to do a better job of redefining what financial resilience looks like in 2025 and further. As the Reuters Institute’s takeaways put it, this is not about “grants as lifelines.” It’s about building models designed for long-term sustainability.
Whether it’s through co-ops, small-scale for-profits, or mission-driven hybrids, the Perugia festival made one thing clear: this is the most pressing question we face.
This is where the future of journalism is being built — not in Silicon Valley boardrooms or multilateral donor strategies, but in the hands of journalists willing to bet on themselves, their values, and the communities they serve.
P.S. It was also wonderful to catch up with so many journalism friends in Perugia — and to meet new ones. Thank you to those that came to our Aperitivo with the JSK Stanford community. See you all next year.
