JX Fund – European Fund for Journalism in Exile

In times of multiple crises, when people turn to conspiracy ideologies, “counter-publics” and “alternative facts” instead of dealing with the truth, the promotion of media professionals remains essential. Whether a medium can survive in exile depends in most cases not only on whether it keeps up good work outside the country, but also on whether it is worthy of support in the eyes of large funding institutions. But who determines when a medium is worthy of support? What criteria can be used to evaluate exiled media and how can comparability be established without gray areas getting lost in the process?

The terms “independent”, “exile” and “medium” are not easy to define. Very often, it depends on the context and has to be considered on a case-by-case basis as they keep developing dynamically and are linked to many complex and sometimes philosophical questions: What does exile even mean? What makes a medium an exiled medium? When does an exiled medium become a diaspora medium? Is exile primarily an external attribution or do exiled media professionals also locate themselves as such? What if a medium is in exile but does not define itself as such? At what point is a medium considered independent? When does it lose that label? And who actually defines what a medium even is?

THE COMPLEXITIES OF DEFINING EXILED MEDIA

Many media do not see themselves as exiled if journalists are still working (undercover) in the country, while others only use the term in certain contexts to describe themselves. A medium whose entire editorial team is still in the country can describe itself as exiled for donors, but is that really the case, if actually only the publishing structure is not based inside the country, but the whole editorial team is? Can the medium still be described as an exiled medium? It depends.

Whether a medium can be described as “independent” is relatively easy to define, but there are gray areas and borderline cases that must be decided on a case-by-case basis as well: some independent exiled media are (temporarily) dependent on funding from governments and/or public institutions, but can still be independent. Whether they can really be described as independent despite partial or temporary financial dependence on public or state institutions can and should be discussed regularly.

ADAPTING CRITERIA FOR DIVERSE CONTEXTS

The criteria have to be adapted and sometimes completely redefined with every country and sometimes with every new repressive law: The criterion that a medium can be described as a medium if it has more than 10,000 subscribers for example does not work for exiled media from a country like Belarus as people there are prevented by law from subscribing to or even liking independent media on social media platforms. Thus subscriber figures for Belarusian exiled media cannot be easily compared with exiled media from other countries and, in case of doubt, must be readjusted with each new country and each new law.

However, to create comparability – which is essential when awarding support – clear and comprehensible criteria are needed as a basis on which both the media professionals themselves and the offices, NGOs, foundations and private sponsors who decide on the continued existence of these media with their funding can orientate themselves. Defining such criteria entails a great deal of responsibility, because not only funding – and thus, in case of doubt, the survival of entire media outlets – but also individual fates depend on such definitions: Whether a person receives a visa and can live in relative safety in another country can depend not least on whether they are granted a “journalist” status. It is important that people in decision-making positions are aware of this responsibility –and that they regularly question and update the underlying criteria.

FOSTERING TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

Criteria such as these can serve as a guide and must be observed to establish comparability, but they must never be rigid. Precisely because there are so many gray areas: Documentary filmmakers, academics who share their knowledge via high-reach social media accounts, activists who also do journalistic work, political influencers, bloggers – it often has to be decided on a case-by-case basis whether an exiled medium meets a certain definition of a medium – and whether that medium is independent. And at this point, the question will often be asked why one political influencer is now being promoted and the other is not? And why this academic social media account is now considered journalistic and the other is not.

By publishing our evaluation criteria we do not want to create facts, but rather create transparency and initiate a debate that is far from over and will probably never be closed.