Media funding without control : Safeguarding editorial independence in publicly funded journalism-Part II
Kabo Ramasia | Monday June 15, 2026 06:00
The future of Botswana’s media may depend not on whether government funds journalism, but on how effectively it protects journalists from those who control the purse strings.
The debate surrounding Botswana’s Draft Media Bill 2025 and its proposed Media Development Fund has reignited one of the most enduring questions in media policy: can the state support journalism financially without compromising editorial independence?
For many critics, the answer appears self-evident. Government funding, they argue, inevitably creates dependence. Critics argue that media organisations that rely on state resources may be reluctant to scrutinise those who provide financial support. Those aligned to this school of thought argue that even where direct censorship does not occur, there is concern that subtle forms of influence, self-censorship and editorial caution may emerge.
On the contrary, supporters of public funding present an equally compelling argument. Proponents of this idea argue that journalism is not merely another commercial commodity. It performs essential democratic functions by informing citizens, exposing corruption, facilitating public debate and holding power accountable. Therefore, they say, if democratic societies publicly finance education, healthcare, libraries, courts and electoral systems because they serve collective interests, why should journalism be treated differently?
This debate has become particularly important at a time when traditional business models that have sustained journalism for decades are collapsing worldwide.
The economic foundations of modern journalism have been fundamentally disrupted by digital transformation. As a result, newspapers and broadcasters that once relied heavily on advertising revenue now find themselves competing with global technology platforms that dominate online advertising markets.
Companies such as Google, Meta and other digital intermediaries have transformed how information is distributed and consumed. While audiences continue to consume news in unprecedented volumes, much of the revenue generated by online attention no longer flows to the organisations producing journalism. Instead, it is captured by technology platforms that aggregate, distribute and monetise content.
Thus, the consequences have been severe. Across many countries, newsrooms have downsized, investigative units have been dismantled and local newspapers have closed. Scholars increasingly speak of the emergence of “news deserts” as communities where citizens have limited access to reliable local journalism.
Evidently, these developments have profound democratic implications.
Research consistently demonstrates that communities with weaker local journalism experience lower voter participation, reduced civic engagement and diminished governmental accountability. The decline of journalism therefore represents more than an industry crisis; it is increasingly viewed as a democratic crisis. It is within this context that media scholars have begun re-examining the role of public support in sustaining journalism.
Among the most influential voices in this discussion is media economist Professor Robert Picard. Picard has long argued that journalism generates substantial public benefits that markets alone often fail to support adequately. Generally, he posits that journalism must be funded as a public good.
Undoubtedly, investigative reporting, public affairs coverage, court reporting, local government scrutiny and civic information all contribute to democratic governance. Yet these forms of journalism are often expensive to produce and generate limited commercial returns.
This then creates what economists describe as a market failure. Unfortunately, this is where the media across the globe finds itself in. Traditionally, the benefits of quality journalism have been enjoyed by society, while the costs are borne by individual media organisations. Consequently, private markets have continued to frequently underinvest in journalism despite its significant social value.
Picard’s analysis challenges the assumption that market success should be the sole determinant of journalism’s survival. If journalism produces benefits that extend beyond individual consumers, public intervention may be justified to correct this imbalance.
Importantly, however, public support does not necessarily imply state control. The distinction between funding and influence lies at the heart of contemporary media policy scholarship.
As a result, the late British media scholar James Curran was among the first to challenge the widely held belief that private ownership automatically guarantees media independence. Curran argued that commercial media organisations are often constrained by economic pressures, advertiser interests and ownership structures. In other words, journalism can be influenced not only by governments but also by markets.
Therefore, it follows that media dependence on large advertisers, corporate sponsors or wealthy owners can shape editorial priorities just as effectively as political interference. Thus, the ideal of a completely independent press, free from all external pressures, rarely exists in practice.
According to Curran, the relevant question is not whether influence exists but how institutions can be designed to minimise undue influence from any source. This perspective has become increasingly influential among contemporary media scholars.
Similarly, Professor Victor Pickard of the University of Pennsylvania has emerged as one of the leading advocates of public-interest media policy. In his widely acclaimed book ‘Democracy Without Journalism?’ Pickard argues that journalism should be understood as a form of democratic infrastructure.
Constructed through public expenditure, roads enable economic activity. Schools facilitate education. Courts uphold the rule of law. Journalism, Pickard argues, enables informed citizenship and democratic participation.
This is because democratic societies routinely invest public resources in essential infrastructure, so Pickard contends that journalism deserves similar consideration.
Crucially, Pickard does not advocate government-controlled journalism. Instead, he proposes funding models that are institutionally independent, transparent and legally insulated from political interference.
The distinction is critical because public funding alone does not determine editorial independence, and evidence from some of the world’s strongest democracies supports this conclusion.
The Nordic countries provide perhaps the most persuasive example. Countries such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland consistently rank among the highest-performing nations in global press freedom indices. At the same time, they maintain extensive systems of public support for journalism.
These support mechanisms include direct subsidies, tax incentives, public broadcasting funding and innovation grants. Despite substantial public investment, Nordic media systems remain highly critical of government and enjoy strong public trust. This apparent contradiction is explained by institutional design.
Media scholar Trine Syvertsen notes that Nordic media policy is developed around the principle that information diversity and democratic participation are public goods. Instead, rather than rewarding favourable coverage, support mechanisms are designed to sustain media plurality and ensure access to information across society.
For this reason, funding decisions are generally based on objective criteria rather than political preferences. As a result, governments finance journalism without exercising editorial control over it. The Nordic experience challenges the simplistic assumption that public funding inevitably produces government propaganda. Instead, it demonstrates that governance structures matter more than funding sources.
One of the most important concepts emerging from comparative media research is what scholars describe as arm’s-length governance. Media policy expert David Levy argues that successful public funding systems create institutional distance between political authorities and funding decisions.
Under this model, governments may provide financial resources, but independent institutions determine how those resources are allocated. This principle originated in cultural policy, where many democracies sought to support artistic production without allowing politicians to decide which artists deserved support.
The same logic applies to journalism. An arm’s-length institution acts as a buffer between government and media organisations. It prevents ministers, political parties and public officials from directly influencing funding decisions. Instead, allocations are made according to transparent criteria administered by independent bodies.
For Botswana’s proposed Media Development Fund, this principle may prove decisive. Public confidence in the Fund will largely depend on whether citizens believe its funding decisions are insulated from political influence. If politicians are perceived to determine who receives support, allegations of favouritism and patronage are likely to emerge.
However, if funding decisions are delegated to an autonomous institution protected by legislation, the Fund could enjoy significantly greater legitimacy. International experience suggests that independence cannot be left to goodwill alone. It must be embedded in governance structures. Another crucial safeguard identified by media scholars is transparency.
To that end, Professor Rasmus Kleis Nielsen of the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism argues that transparency serves as one of the strongest protections against abuse in publicly funded media systems. Accordingly, citizens should know who receives funding, how much they receive and why they receive it.
In this regard, transparency transforms funding decisions into public decisions that can be scrutinised by journalists, researchers, civil society organisations and ordinary citizens. This, in turn, reduces opportunities for political manipulation. In light of this, several countries have institutionalised this approach.
For example, Sweden publishes detailed information about subsidy recipients, allocation criteria and funding decisions. Canada similarly discloses recipients of journalism support programmes and explains the rationale behind allocations. These practices strengthen accountability while enhancing public trust. Without transparency, suspicion flourishes, and with transparency, legitimacy increases. What is Equally important in this public funding debate is the design of eligibility criteria.
Media scholar Timothy Neff argues that public funding systems function most effectively when support is based on objective institutional criteria rather than subjective evaluations of editorial content. This means that funding decisions should focus on measurable indicators such as newsroom employment, local news production, audience reach, professional standards, training initiatives and public-interest reporting. However, funding should never be contingent upon whether media organisations support or criticise government policy.
Whereas this differentiation may seem obvious, it is foundational. Hence, governments must support journalism’s democratic function rather than particular editorial positions. As a result, a healthy funding system should provide equal support to media organisations that praise government policies and those that scrutinise them.
It must be noted that the moment funding becomes linked to favourable coverage, editorial independence begins to erode. To avoid this eventuality, legal protections therefore become essential.
Generally, many successful media support systems explicitly prohibit political interference in editorial decision-making. These protections are often embedded within legislation, institutional mandates and grant agreements. To illustrate this, public broadcasters provide useful examples.
For instance, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), funded largely through public revenue, operates under editorial frameworks intended to shield journalists from political influence. Although debates about BBC independence periodically arise, its existence demonstrates that public funding does not automatically transform journalism into state propaganda.
What matters are the legal and institutional safeguards protecting editorial autonomy.
The same principle applies to media development funds, and African experiences offer equally valuable lessons. The South African Media Development and Diversity Agency (MDDA) was established to address historical inequalities in media ownership and access. The agency supports community and small commercial media while seeking to preserve institutional independence. Scholars such as Franz Kruger and Guy Berger have noted that while the MDDA has faced operational challenges, its governance structure reflects an effort to balance public support with editorial autonomy. Importantly, the agency incorporates representation from multiple stakeholder groups rather than concentrating authority within government.
This multi-stakeholder model aligns closely with international best practice. Further, UNESCO’s Media Development Indicators similarly emphasise that media support mechanisms should be independent, transparent and accountable. According to UNESCO, media assistance programmes should strengthen diversity, pluralism and professional journalism rather than reinforce political loyalty.
Consequently, these recommendations are particularly relevant in emerging democracies where trust in institutions remains a work in progress. For Botswana, the implementation phase may ultimately matter more than the legislation itself.
The Draft Media Bill provides an opportunity to address growing sustainability challenges facing journalism. Like many countries, Botswana has experienced shifts in advertising markets, audience behaviour and media consumption patterns.