The uncertainty of philanthropy
When the Judith Neilson Institute for Journalism and Ideas, or JNI, exploded onto the scene in 2018, the prospect of $100m being slapped on the table to help an ailing journalism industry was an exciting development. Journalists and editors formed a line outside the door to the office of Institute executive director Mark Ryan. Now, the JNI looks like it’s imploding. Lawyers are on board.
Three of the Institute’s directors and its chair have resigned, and staff have been told via email, obtained by the CMT, that Judith Neilson wants to refocus the Institute’s activities in a ‘way that provides more pro-active support for journalism that drives social change’. Aside from a refocusing of its activities, the philanthropist was also reportedly displeased with a plan to create an Australian Nobel-like prize, which the Institute board had endorsed.
The Institute’s funding priorities have often been confusing for those asking for funding. Large news organisations with substantial revenue streams had new positions funded. Some were also alarmed by the Institute's 2021 annual report: the Institute dispersed $3.02m in grants and spent a whopping $2.6m on salaries. Now, the philanthropist herself is weighing in.
The internal email tells staff that Neilson wants less focus on journalists and more on social change, a change that will rankle at least those journalists who don’t practice advocacy journalism. She’s believed to think the news media bargaining code has done a decent job of funding journalists; now it’s time to look at audiences and the big issues. This ‘may include an increased and more pragmatic focus than what is current on the development of journalism and interest in journalism in youth, regional areas and migrant populations in Australia. It may also include, but not be limited to, a more direct and pragmatic focus on such areas as investigative journalism, photojournalism, grass roots media and enhancing access to quality journalism for those with diverse backgrounds.’
So, the next step is a review to be carried out by Simon Freeman, the CEO of the philanthropist’s family office and Foundation, to align the Institute’s strategy with those of Judith Neilson’s other philanthropic interests. For now, journalism remains in the mix, though Judith Neilson herself is reported to want a say in who gets funding and how the Institute is managed, which raises big questions about independence. And the independence issue will be compounded if the philanthropist proceeds with a plan to appoint more of her own people to the Institute board.
There’ll no doubt be lots of nervous editors out there, with their future funding in the balance. Whilst some on the Institute’s Advisory Board have signed a letter to Judith Neilson, seen by CMT, urging her to avoid a ‘destructive spiral’, some haven’t, which brings us to the fate of JNI’s executive director Mark Ryan. It's as yet unknown.
Monica Attard
CMT Co-Director
This article was featured in our newsletter of 24 June 2022 that looked at inconsistencies in media standards as reflected in the Rebel Wilson debacle, News Corp's algorithmic tool and its impact on journalistic autonomy, and a shifting tide at the JNI.
Click to read the full edition.
If you want to receive this newsletter direct to your inbox, subscribe here.
