A Nieman Lab research roundup highlights a study of nonprofit newsrooms finding that funding concerns now dominate, alongside surveys showing journalist disillusionment and limited audience appetite for AI anchors
A Model Under Strain
Nonprofit news has been one of the few growth stories in American journalism over the past decade. As commercial local newspapers have closed, roughly ten a month on average, nonprofit newsrooms have expanded, supported by foundations, donors and members. More than 6,000 foundations have invested roughly half a billion dollars or more in local news. But new research suggests that the model has structural weaknesses that its supporters need to confront.
A research roundup published by Nieman Lab on October 6, written by Seth C. Lewis and Nick Mathews, highlights a study of nonprofit newsrooms that reveals some cracks in the model’s foundation, alongside other recent academic work on journalism.
Funding Comes First
The central study, by Jocelyn McKinnon-Crowley of the University of Memphis and published in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, involved four months embedded in a four-person nonprofit newsroom in a midsized Rust Belt city, from late 2023 to early 2024, along with interviews with workers at seven other nonprofit outlets. Its findings are sobering. The emphasis on funding, money and organizational concerns, the study found, has become the top priority.
Foundations, the research suggests, can take decision-making power away from journalists. Grant processes impose heavy administrative burdens on small teams. Funders sometimes sit on boards and set the terms of applications and renewals, with few clear lines of separation between funding and editorial decisions. Unpaid work was common in small outlets. One executive director, who also served as managing editor, listed about 20 unofficial duties beyond their formal role.
What Funders Could Do
The study’s recommendations are practical. Funders could provide unrestricted, recurring funding rather than project-based grants. They could fund positions for five to ten years, giving newsrooms stability. They could help with overhead costs, which project grants often exclude. They could reduce reporting paperwork. And they should not dictate coverage. None of these recommendations is radical, but together they would shift power back toward newsrooms and away from grant cycles.
A Correction Worth Noting
The Nieman Lab piece also carries a correction: an earlier version stated that there were 550 US nonprofit newsrooms, a figure the authors acknowledged was inaccurate, noting that the true number is difficult to estimate. The roundup still notes that US nonprofit news organizations have grown by double-digit percentages year over year. The correction itself is a reminder of how hard it can be to measure the nonprofit news sector precisely.
Disillusionment In The Profession
Another study in the roundup, by Alexis Haskell in Journalism Practice, surveyed 695 US journalists and found that, on average, they were more disillusioned than not. Disillusionment correlated with lower ratings of the press on five of six democratic roles, suggesting that journalists who feel let down by their profession also doubt its ability to serve democracy. Given the wave of job cuts, financial pressures and public hostility the profession has faced, the finding is not surprising. It is nonetheless a warning about morale and retention.
AI Anchors And Government Funding
The roundup also summarized research on AI news anchors. A study by Yuan Ji in the journal Journalism surveyed 343 Chinese news consumers and found that only 4.96 percent found AI anchors very engaging, while 5.25 percent were more satisfied with them than with human anchors. Another study, by Adamson and colleagues, examined an AI tool used by journalists at a mid-sized Canadian daily and found it most useful for reviewing past coverage rather than for finding new sources during reporting.
On public funding, Chris Arsenault’s study in Journalism Practice interviewed 22 journalists funded through Canada’s Local Journalism Initiative, which has provided more than 128 million Canadian dollars since 2019. None said the funding changed what they could report. That finding is relevant to debates in the United States and Britain about whether public money for journalism inevitably compromises independence. In this Canadian case, at least, journalists did not report such interference.
What It Means
Taken together, the research paints a nuanced picture. Nonprofit and publicly funded models can sustain journalism where markets have failed, but they bring their own pressures, from grant dependency to administrative burden. Journalists are under strain and increasingly disillusioned. AI tools, so far, appear more useful as research aids than as replacements for human presenters or reporters, and audiences remain sceptical of synthetic anchors.
The findings also resonate beyond the United States. In Britain, local news has suffered similar closures and consolidation, and debates continue about the role of philanthropic and public funding in sustaining local journalism. The tension between dependence on funders and editorial independence is not unique to American nonprofits. Any newsroom that relies on a narrow set of funders, whether foundations, governments or a single wealthy owner, faces the same questions about who ultimately shapes its priorities.
Lessons For The Sector
For funders, the lesson is clear: how money is given matters as much as how much is given. Unrestricted, long-term funding that respects editorial independence is more valuable than short-term project grants. For newsroom leaders, the research underlines the importance of protecting journalists’ time and autonomy. And for the profession as a whole, the disillusionment findings are a reminder that sustaining journalism means sustaining journalists, not just the institutions that employ them.